DSA Leader Can’t Answer What To Do With Rapists

A top leader of the Democratic Socialists of America told a national television audience she wants to abolish prisons, then had no clear answer when pushed on what happens to violent criminals like rapists once those prisons are gone.

Quick Take

DSA national co-chair Megan Romer told Fox News abolishing prisons is part of the group’s “long-term program.”
Romer also confirmed support for abolishing the Senate, ICE, and national borders in the same interview.
She acknowledged some people should not be allowed back into society but did not name a specific plan to hold them.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has publicly broken from DSA’s platform, defending police and prisons.

A Simple Question Exposes A Massive Gap

Fox News host Shannon Bream ran through a list of DSA positions in a rapid-fire true-or-false format. When she asked about abolishing prisons, Romer said “yeah” and called it part of a long-term program. The exchange moved fast, but it left the hardest question sitting untouched: what happens to people who commit violent crimes like rape once prisons no longer exist?

The full transcript shows Romer answering “true” to abolishing the Senate and “absolutely” to abolishing ICE and the border, all inside the same segment. That pattern matters. This was not a single offhand comment. It was one plank in a much bigger platform to dismantle major American institutions, presented with confidence but little operational detail.

Even Romer Admits The Problem Exists

Later reporting on the interview captured Romer going further. She reportedly acknowledged some people should not be allowed in society for public safety reasons, while insisting any future system would not look like today’s prisons. That is a remarkable admission. She recognizes dangerous offenders exist. She just cannot say where they would go, who would guard them, or how victims would be protected while the debate over “community accountability” plays out.

Reasonable people can debate prison conditions, sentencing reform, and rehabilitation. Those are legitimate policy fights conservatives have engaged for decades. But abolishing prisons outright is a different claim entirely. It requires an answer for the small share of offenders who pose an ongoing physical threat, not a vague promise that a future collective process will figure it out later.

The Movement’s Own Materials Stay Vague

DSA maintains an official Abolition Working Group that pushes for “freedom for all incarcerated people” as part of its long-term mission. The page exists, and the goal is stated plainly. What is missing, at least in anything publicly available, is a step-by-step model for handling rape, homicide, or repeat violent offending once traditional confinement is removed from the table.

Critics on the right and even some legal scholars have pointed out this same gap. One analysis described it as the “fatal contradiction” at the heart of socialist prison abolitionism, noting that supporters rarely address what replaces incapacitation for people who pose an immediate danger to others. That is not a smear. It is a straightforward observation about a policy platform that skips its hardest test case.

Even Allies Are Backing Away

The political fallout has already reached DSA’s own political allies. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani publicly distanced himself from the group’s police and prison abolition push, defending the existence of police and jails during a television appearance. When a Democratic Socialist-aligned mayor feels the need to separate himself from his own movement’s platform, it signals just how unworkable the position looks once real governing responsibility is on the line.

That distance tells its own story. Talking about abolition at a convention or in an academic paper is one thing. Standing in front of a city facing real violent crime, with real victims and real consequences, is another. Voters deserve a straight answer about what protects them, not a promise that details will arrive eventually.

Why This Moment Resonates With Voters

Public safety consistently ranks as a top concern for American families, and most people instinctively understand that some offenders must be separated from the public. A movement that cannot answer a basic follow-up question about rapists is not offering a serious alternative. It is offering a slogan, and voters heading into future elections will be right to ask for more than that before handing any platform built on abolition real political power.

Until DSA leaders produce a concrete, publicly reviewable plan for violent offenders, the burden of proof stays exactly where it belongs, on the people proposing to tear down the current system.