Francesca Hong’s record and a DSA admission collided this week, leaving questions about what she really supports and how her campaign handled a clear contradiction.

Over the weekend, the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, said the organization’s platform calls for open borders, amnesty for illegal entrants, and the abolition of institutions like ICE, prisons, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, along with defunding the Pentagon. Those are sweeping, structural changes that matter to voters who want stable borders and functioning institutions. The admission landed in a way that forced scrutiny of anyone tied to or sympathetic with the DSA.

Republican Tom Tiffany, a candidate for Wisconsin governor, seized on that admission and warned Wisconsin voters that Francesca Hong would push similar ideas if elected. Tiffany framed his criticism around the possible consequences for public safety, the rule of law, and Wisconsin’s political balance. The exchange quickly became a test of how Hong’s campaign would respond to a national-level DSA claim.

Hong’s campaign communications director Allison Geyer told Fox News that Tiffany was lying about Hong’s record. “Tom Tiffany is once again telling lies and inventing quotes, because he can’t run on his record. Rep. Hong has never called for abolishing the U.S. Senate. Tiffany cannot produce a single statement where she did, because it doesn’t exist. She has spoken about police and prison abolition in the past as an aspirational goal, but it is not her current position, and it’s not something she will pursue as governor. She does not support replacing the presidency with the Supreme Court. Eliminating national borders isn’t her position either, and it’s not even part of the official DSA platform. DSA is a membership organization, not a political party. Rep. Hong is not endorsed by DSA national, and doesn’t agree with everything in its national program,” Geyer said.

https://x.com/TomTiffanyWI/status/2081492267835981902

That response was blunt and categorical, but the record tells a different story. Public posts from Hong show she supported the idea of abolishing the Senate on February 13, 2021, a specific line that contradicts the campaign’s denial. When a campaign answers a direct charge with a flat denial, the expectation is that the campaign can point to clear evidence that the charge is false.

Whoops. And here’s a screenshot in case Hong deletes it.

That line of evidence matters because voters are entitled to know what candidates have said and supported in the past, especially on matters that touch the Constitution and the structure of our republic. When a candidate’s past statements line up with a wider movement’s platform, the question isn’t rhetorical — it’s practical. Campaigns should treat those facts carefully instead of reflexively dismissing them.

Watching the campaign shuffle under pressure is revealing. Bad communications create openings for opponents and confusion for voters, and this episode made the campaign look unprepared. Geyer’s categorical denials followed an on-the-record claim from a DSA leader; when evidence surfaced that contradicted those denials, the campaign lost credibility.

Beyond the political theater, there’s substance here. The DSA’s broader ambitions, as described by their leadership, are ideological and radical to many Americans. If a candidate is aligned with or sympathetic to a group that openly discusses dismantling foundational institutions, voters reasonably ask how that alignment would translate into policy at the state level.

Madison has seen intense protests and heated local politics recently, and linking Hong to national currents only raises the stakes. Opponents argue that these kinds of national platforms will be imported into state governance, with real consequences for law enforcement, courts, and border security. Supporters will say those are scares, but a clear, documented record makes the debate harder to dismiss.

At the end of the day, campaigns are judged on both policy and trust. When a candidate’s team issues a firm denial and evidence shows otherwise, the public is left with a credibility gap. For a state as competitive and crucial as Wisconsin, that gap is exactly what opponents will build on and what voters will remember.