Van Hollen’s Challenge to Chuck Schumer

On Thursday, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen announced that he will challenge Chuck Schumer for the post of Senate majority leader. The election will take place on December 1.

In his statement, Van Hollen declared, “In this election, the American people called for change. They called for a change from Donald Trump’s disastrous policies—but even bigger than that, a change from the status quo that isn’t working for working people.” He continued, “It’s now on us to meet this moment, and to do that we need new leadership.”

There has been widespread unhappiness with Schumer in the Democratic caucus, on issues ranging from Schumer’s feeble opposition to Trump’s budget, to his coziness with corporate donors and AIPAC, to his decisions on which candidates to support in Senate primaries, of which Michigan is the epic example.

Schumer intervened to support Haley Stevens over Abdul El-Sayed, steering money to Stevens. When El-Sayed won, Schumer gave El-Sayed his nominal endorsement but did not prevent Stevens from a pathetic election-eve defection to endorse the Republican. Now, El-Sayed, who won despite Schumer, is backing Van Hollen for leader.

Likewise in Maine, Schumer drafted a reluctant Gov. Janet Mills, age 78, to challenge incumbent Susan Collins. Graham Platner mounted such a potent challenge to Mills that she suspended campaigning even before the primary.

When Platner flamed out, Schumer was slow to rally behind the new nominee, Troy Jackson, another progressive populist and Bernie Sanders ally. When Schumer did provide support, it was mostly in the form of sending in national consultants, whose prime qualifications were that they knew nothing about Maine.

Jackson, like El-Sayed, won in spite of Schumer. And while Jackson hasn’t officially backed Van Hollen for leader, he has said he won’t support Schumer, and his volunteers have officially backed Van Hollen.

The unhappiness with Schumer goes well beyond those two states. Two years ago, he recruited Scott Colom to run for the Mississippi seat but provided no money until the campaign’s final weeks. He provided no funding whatever to two other possible winners in Louisiana and Florida, both African Americans, who lost by about two points and three points, respectively.

Schumer also did not endorse Rep. Angie Craig for the primary in Minnesota’s open seat, but the Schumer-backed establishment supported her. She lost to progressive Peggy Flanagan, and now Flanagan has officially endorsed Van Hollen. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is Van Hollen’s third named supporter for leader; he claims to have double-digit support.

Sen. Angus King (I-ME), a Schumer ally, dismissed the Van Hollen challenge, saying, “Why would you fire the manager when you just won the World Series?” But if anything, the Democrats won a sweep in spite of the cautious, corporate politics that Schumer represents. Schumer claiming credit for the blue wave is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

What’s not widely understood is that unlike his House counterpart Hakeem Jeffries, Schumer is not responsible for raising money via the Senate’s official campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). That falls to the DSCC chair Kirsten Gillibrand, who succeeded Michigan’s Gary Peters, and a paid staff of over 100 professional fundraisers. The DSCC raised just under $200 million in the 2025-2026 cycle.

Schumer raises money mainly via independent expenditures, which may not be coordinated with campaigns and which go primarily for media and (often overpaid) professional consultants. Schumer’s super PAC and its nonprofit affiliate raised over $200 million in the third quarter of 2026 alone.

All of this fundraising produced lots of IOUs. It’s hard to imagine newly elected or re-elected Democratic senators whom Schumer did support, which includes most, voting to depose Schumer as leader, even though some agree more with Van Hollen on the issues.

But Schumer’s support may be softer than it seems. Surprisingly, Sen.-elect Adam Hamilton of Kansas, who campaigned as a moderate bridge-builder and who did get Schumer support, candidly told CNN, “I think whether it’s fair or not, Chuck Schumer is seen as a more divisive figure by many people, and I think we need somebody who’s going to bring us together.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who is far from a leftist, also declined to endorse Schumer. So the contest is both more fluid and less defined along left-center lines than it first seems.

Even though Schumer is likely to prevail, the Van Hollen challenge is still valuable. The claim that it is bad for Democratic unity is misplaced. As Hamilton’s comment suggests, the country and the caucus majority are more populist than Schumer, who used to be known as the “Senator from Wall Street.”

Appearing with Jen Psaki on MS NOW, Van Hollen pledged to work to cut off money for the Iran war, pass a “livable minimum wage,” terminate AIPAC money, defund ICE, move toward Medicare for All, eliminate super PACs, and keep the Senate leadership out of primaries.

Democrats need to deliver on both attacking corruption and making life more affordable, and on making the connection between the two. Van Hollen would be a more effective leader than Schumer on all of these fronts. Even if he loses, his campaign will push Schumer in a more progressive direction, because of commitments Schumer has to make to get re-elected and because Van Hollen has planted a flag.

And this challenge will have useful knock-on effects. It may well make it more likely that AOC decides to run against Schumer in 2028 and end his Senate career, or that Schumer himself will pledge to retire to save his leadership position. And it means that even if Schumer survives as leader for now, his deputy and presumed heir apparent, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), is unlikely to succeed him.

Far from undermining Democratic unity, Van Hollen’s challenge will produce more unity of the kind that the moment calls for.