In a political spectacle brimming with high drama, bruised egos, and deep divisions within Democratic Party ranks, DNC Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta has come out swinging—accusing David Hogg of deceit, opportunism, and turning internal disputes into personal PR campaigns. In a charged appearance on SiriusXM’s The Karen Hunter Show, Kenyatta didn’t just push back—he launched a full-on counteroffensive against Hogg's narrative, turning the tables on one of the Democratic Party’s most controversial rising figures.
At the center of this fallout is a procedural decision: the Democratic National Committee voided the election that had briefly named David Hogg a DNC vice chair. The move came after a formal challenge by Kalyn Free, a Native American DNC committeewoman from Oklahoma, who claimed the election violated party procedures and marginalized women of color, including herself.
But it was Hogg’s response to the ruling that set Kenyatta off. Hogg immediately suggested that the DNC had fast-tracked the decision in a deliberate effort to oust him, painting himself as the target of institutional suppression. According to Kenyatta, this was a distortion of the truth.
“This challenge…was filed in February,” Kenyatta explained. “And because of the timeline—submissions, responses, deliberation—it wasn’t heard until May. It’s boring, but it’s real.” That procedural crawl, Kenyatta argues, belies Hogg’s claims of a fast-tracked political ambush.
Kenyatta didn’t mince words as he exposed what he sees as Hogg’s two-faced behavior. After publicly alleging the DNC was gunning for him, Hogg sent Kenyatta a conciliatory text—an olive branch Kenyatta promptly rejected.
“How dare you try to text me privately and say you’re so sorry,” he fumed, “and then publicly you are lying about the timeline and making yourself the victim in a scenario where you were never the victim.”
This juxtaposition—Hogg’s private apology versus his public campaign of grievance—seems to be the final straw for Kenyatta, who accused Hogg of not just sowing misinformation but using the party’s internal conflicts as a platform for his own visibility.
The crux of Kenyatta’s argument hinges on effort and authenticity. “In 103 days…I’ve traveled over 20,000 miles, been to eight states, held over three dozen events,” Kenyatta said. He contrasted that relentless grassroots activity with Hogg’s media-centric strategy: “David Hogg has spent his time going on TV bashing the Democratic Party.”
For Kenyatta, the distinction is clear. One candidate has been doing the unglamorous, often thankless work of party-building. The other, he claims, has capitalized on chaos and attention to elevate his profile.
Much of the intraparty tension stems from Hogg’s affiliation with Leaders We Deserve, a group that recently pledged a staggering $20 million to back primary challengers against sitting Democrats. That move, while popular with some progressive activists, enraged many within the DNC establishment and may have amplified scrutiny of Hogg’s election.
Even so, committee members like Christine Pelosi insisted the decision to nullify the vice chair vote had “nothing to do with the service” of either Hogg or Kenyatta—an important note that underscores just how procedural the ruling may have been, despite the narrative war now consuming it.