Unheard Of: The Videos of AOC in Germany Are So Bad That the NYT Has Officially Called Her Out

The Democratic Party’s establishment wing — often reflected in the pages of The New York Times — appears to be grappling with a recurring political problem: how to elevate progressive stars without repeating the communication struggles that plagued past national campaigns.

In a recent piece examining Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s trip to Germany, the Times acknowledged what many political observers — particularly conservatives on X — were already highlighting: a series of awkward exchanges and halting responses that quickly went viral.

“She said she worried that her message — warning that wealthy world leaders must better provide for their working classes or risk their countries sliding toward authoritarianism — was being lost in all the commotion,” the outlet wrote following a phone interview with Ocasio-Cortez, commonly known as AOC.

The “commotion” stemmed from several video clips in which the congresswoman appeared uncertain while answering foreign policy questions. In one widely circulated exchange, she was asked whether the United States should commit troops to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

“Um, you know, I think that, uh, this is such a, uh, you know, I — I think that… this is a, um, this is of course a, uh, a very longstanding, um, policy of the United States,” she replied in a clip posted to X. “Uh, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point.”

The 27-second response, punctuated by repeated pauses, drew criticism from commentators who argued that a potential presidential contender should display greater command of complex geopolitical issues.

In another clip, Ocasio-Cortez addressed the concept of a “rules-based order.”

“We are in a new day and in a new time,” she insisted in another clip posted to X. “But that does not mean that the majority of Americans are ready to walk away from a rules-based order and that we’re ready to walk away from our commitment to democracy.”

She continued: “I think what we identify is that in a rules-based order, hypocrisy is vulnerability, and so I think what we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the West we look the other way for inconvenient populations to act out these paradoxes.”

Critics characterized the remarks as overly abstract and lacking policy specificity.

Ocasio-Cortez was more direct when discussing economic redistribution policies.

“I don’t think that anyone — and that we don’t have to wait for any one president — to impose a wealth tax,” she said in another clip posted to X. “I think that it needs to be done expeditiously.”

She also promoted what she described as a “class-based internationalist perspective,” arguing that culture alone is too “thin” to unify societies — comments that drew pushback from those who see Western tradition and national identity as foundational rather than superficial.

Political analyst Mark Halperin suggested the episode could have lasting implications if Ocasio-Cortez harbors presidential ambitions, saying the trip “may go down in history as one of the bigger mistakes she’s ever made if she wants to be president.”

The scrutiny comes as Democrats continue to assess the communication weaknesses that hindered former Vice President Kamala Harris during her 2024 presidential bid — a campaign often criticized, including by party insiders, for unfocused messaging and so-called “word salad” responses.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered remarks in Munich that many Republicans described as disciplined and presidential in tone, underscoring the sharp ideological divide heading into the 2028 cycle.

While the Times sought to contextualize Ocasio-Cortez’s comments, its acknowledgment of “missteps” and “on-camera stumbles” reflects growing unease among establishment Democrats about elevating candidates who energize the progressive base but struggle to project executive-level gravitas on the global stage.

For conservatives, the episode reinforces a broader argument: that rhetorical flair and ideological fervor are no substitute for clarity, command of facts, and serious engagement with policy — especially in an era of escalating international tensions and high-stakes domestic debates.

As speculation grows about potential 2028 contenders on both sides, Democrats now face a familiar question: will ideological alignment outweigh perceived readiness, or has the party learned that national campaigns demand more than viral moments and activist enthusiasm?