Deja Foxx’s Campaign Exposes the Emptiness of “Youth First” Politics

We need young leaders who actually bring something substantive and new to the table.

Deja Foxx has a compelling backstory: homeless at 15, she gained national attention confronting Senator Jeff Flake, became a reproductive rights advocate, worked on Kamala Harris’s 2020 campaign, and built a massive online following. At 25, she is now running for Congress in Arizona’s 7th District — and if elected, would become the youngest member of Congress.

Yet, upon closer examination, Foxx’s candidacy is a warning of what happens when the pitch for young leadership is divorced from substance, experience, and community grounding. For years, Democratic activists have demanded generational change. That’s understandable. But when youth becomes the entire argument — especially in a race where the progressive frontrunner shares identical policy goals and has earned local trust — it reveals how hollow that rhetoric can be.

In this Tuesday’s primary election, Foxx is challenging Adelita Grijalva, daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who held this seat for over two decades. Adelita has served on the Tucson Unified School Board and as Pima County Supervisor, and has won the endorsements of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, EMILY’s List, and the Young Democrats of Arizona. (That’s right, even Arizona’s young Democrats see Grijalva as the stronger candidate, despite Foxx claiming to speak for the demographic.)

Still, Foxx has cast the race as a generational rebellion, tweeting that she lacks a “legacy last name,” a swipe at Grijalva's lineage. That critique falls flat. Foxx is not some unknown operative who has put in the work for decades only to be overlooked due to a rigged system — her candidacy lives and breathes off her own viral fame.

She leans into this identity shamelessly. In a recent tweet, she declared:

“They’re calling me an influencer. I’m calling it a campaign strategy.
18,000 grassroots donors. 30M views. $600K raised without a single Corporate PAC check. If this is what the future of politics looks like, I’m proud to be building it.”

Influencing is not legislating. Labeling reach as strategy is branding, not governing. Foxx’s digital footprint exceeds her presence on the ground — a critical liability in a community-focused race.

I witnessed her content-first approach at a small New York City based event a few weeks back. Foxx was trailed by a videographer at all times and responded to questions with a stunning lack of depth. Asked by one audience member how folks could make a difference in support of the progressive agenda against so many obstacles, she responded with some version of “follow our campaign, like our posts, share — every view counts.” No door-knocking. No coalition building. No policy rollouts. Just content amplification.

This is the risk when performance trumps preparation. Foxx and Grijalva agree on about 99% of the issues, but one has deep community relationships and proven track record; the other has content and cameras. There has been no argument put forth from Foxx supporters that she would be more effective at delivering on progressive values and goals for her district. Youth isn’t a policy prescription, and being younger isn’t a strategy when there’s no clear, distinct, proposal for governance.

There may be a future for Deja Foxx in politics. Still this current campaign — built on spectacle, not service — should give Democrats pause. It reveals a fundamental emptiness in those calls for “new blood” and younger leadership just for its sake. If we continue rewarding virality over values, followers over field work, and optics over organizing, we’ll lose not just elections, but the integrity of the party itself.

In fact, while some Democrats are keen to rehash VP Harris’s 2024 media strategy, it is worth noting that many of the viral young podcast bros and influencers that helped re-elect Trump have already turned on him. While some are quick to credit a digital strategy for Zohran Mamdani’s recent NYC upset, it is important not to overlook the massive offline organizing operation he developed alongside his viral approach: 30,000 canvassers and 1.6 million door knocks.

Yes, we need more young leaders. Still, youth alone isn’t a qualification, it’s an opportunity to do things differently — not just demand power because it’s your turn. When candidates like Foxx and voices like Hogg lean on age and platform without offering deeper ideas or clearer purpose, they don’t advance youth power — they cheapen it. We deserve young candidates who bring depth, not just demographics.