Originally published by The 19th.
When Summer Lee moved back home to the Pittsburgh area in 2015 after graduating from Howard University Law School, she did not plan to run for office.
Lee was an organizer. She supported Sen. Bernie Sanders during his 2016 presidential primary bid, then Hillary Clinton in the general election. The next year, when the high school Lee graduated from became engulfed in scandal after video surfaced showing school officials using stun guns and physical force on Black students, including some with special needs, she attended her first school board meeting.
“It was Black kids who were facing the worst outcomes, who were facing the worst and least amount of opportunities, who were being abused,” Lee recalled in a recent interview with The 19th. Most of the board members were White, and they were “so nonchalant about it,” she said.
Lee is the presumed front-runner in the Democratic primary to fill an open U.S. House seat in a recently redrawn Pittsburgh-area House district when Pennsylvanians vote May 17. Her progressive primary campaign faces headwinds from the local party, which backed one of her opponents, a more moderate, White man without political experience. If elected in November, she would be the first Black woman to represent Pennsylvania in Congress.
Lee’s metamorphosis from organizer to candidate began after that 2017 school board meeting. First, she encouraged a friend who was a parent in the district to run a write-in campaign for a board seat. Then she helped other Black candidates do the same. In a matter of weeks, they put four new members onto the board, along with a new superintendent and principal. Still, when the local chapter of the left-leaning Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) noticed Lee’s successes and reached out about running herself, she hesitated.
“I wasn’t groomed for politics. I wasn’t someone who had political connections and had political networks. It was not something that was normal in my community. It wasn’t just a casual thought that someone like me, with my background, would have,” Lee said.
More from The 19th
“I was an organizer. I was not somebody who was in the foreground, right? I was a background person who really believed in the power of organizing. The thought had never crossed my mind up until that point,” she added.
Lee says she underwent a “very quick reconciliation” and decided it was time to move from the background to the foreground. In 2018, she was one of three DSA-backed women in Pennsylvania who took on incumbents and other moderate Democrats in primaries and went on to win state House seats.
Lee, Sara Innamorato and Elizabeth Fiedler were all in their 30s. None had the traditional pedigree of a statehouse candidate: Lee was an organizer; Innamorato came from a working-class family she described as “apolitical” and had put herself through college; Fiedler was a recent public radio reporter who campaigned with her small children in tow. Their campaigns focused on environmental justice, raising wages, Medicare for All and equity in representation, with Lee and Innamorato challenging incumbent cousins from a Pittsburgh family prominent in Democratic politics.
Innamorato wrote in 2017 during the nationwide #MeToo reckoning: “When women are not at the table, they are on the menu. But if we are at the table, they will pull up a chair and invite another woman to sit next to her. This has never been more true than in politics.”
Pennsylvania ranked 49th among the 50 states at the time in terms of women’s representation in politics. There were no women representing Pennsylvania in the U.S. House or Senate. Only six of the mayors in the state’s 35 largest cities were women. Just 19 percent of state legislators were women. There were no women in statewide executive positions.
Pennsylvania is still one of the 19 states that has never elected a woman governor. In 2018, when Lee, Innamorato and Fiedler were elected to the state House, four Democratic women from Pennsylvania were also elected to the U.S. House. It was a record-breaking year for women in congressional races generally, and their wins helped Democrats take back control of the lower chamber.
Lee, Innamorato and Fiedler were vying for public office without a pipeline, or template, for candidates like themselves: young, progressive women running without the support of the Democratic establishment and little from its donor base. So, they built their own network.
In 2016, Innamorato co-founded She Runs Southwestern Pennsylvania, which supported women running for office, before deciding to run herself. She was introduced to Lee and urged her to jump into the state House race. Innamorato heard Fiedler was running a progressive campaign in the Philadelphia area and called her to talk strategy. The three women convened at a statewide progressive policy conference and went on to hold joint fundraisers and coach one another throughout their campaigns. Lee founded Unite! PAC, an “unapologetically progressive” support system for candidates in western Pennsylvania.
Even though they’re now either the incumbent in their state House reelection bid (Fiedler) or the only candidate in their primary race with elected experience (Lee), the women sometimes still find themselves without their party’s support. The Allegheny County Democratic Committee has backed Lee’s primary competitor, Steve Irwin, a corporate lawyer who has never held elected office. The Philadelphia Democratic Party endorsed Fiedler’s primary challenger, Michael Giangiordano, a real estate broker and political novice who embraced Donald Trump’s presidency on Twitter.
Some state and local parties stay out of contested primaries, or endorse the incumbents. In Pennsylvania, local Democratic party officials vote on whom to endorse in their respective districts. Innamorato said party representatives skew older than the voting population and are less diverse, too.
“It’s not a system that is reflective of the actual electorate in an area … it’s been an inside baseball game for a long time, and it’s slowly changing in parts [of the state] but it hasn’t changed as a whole, and I don’t think we’ve had the leadership at the top to encourage that kind of diversification of the party,” she said.
Lee said she and her contemporaries “have been able to tap into an expanding electorate, the base that we are going to need if we are going to actually beat back against extremism on the right” but it’s “going unrecognized by the party that’s just not been able to catch up.”
Lee’s House campaign is focused on some of the same issues that prompted her to run for the state House: environmental justice and equitable economic growth. She supports a pro-labor-union bill pending in Congress called the PRO Act, Democratic efforts to codify federal abortion access and Medicare for All health care.
Her endorsers include Sanders, along with fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She is backed by Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who has a national profile as a member of “the squad.” Lee is supported by left-leaning organizations including Justice Democrats and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, along with EMILY’s List, which backs Democratic women who support abortion rights. Several local chapters of the Service Employees International Union have also endorsed her.
Lee said that the successful school board write-in campaigns, and then her state House bid, empowered her community to believe it was possible to challenge the status quo via electoral politics. Now, she’s taking it to the national stage.
“We’re a community that was accustomed to the system sending us its representative, instead of the other way around. I would say it was a rebalancing, getting us back on track, where we were like: ‘No, this is not the way this is supposed to go, we’re supposed to send our representatives,’” she said.












Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.