What are Indivisible’s official policy priorities for 2026 and how were they decided?

1. What Indivisible lists as its core policy priorities for 2026

Indivisible publicly foregrounds democracy protection and election defense as its top priority for 2026 — defending swing states from election deniers, pushing structural democracy reforms, and turning national backlash into an electoral majority in the midterms ^{[1] [5] [4]}. Alongside that democracy-first emphasis, Indivisible is explicitly running a nationwide 2026 primary program to identify, nominate, and elect “pro‑democracy Democrats” judged able to fight MAGA policies, and it frames strategic local and state fights (e.g., state courts, gubernatorial and legislative races) as part of that program ^{[2] [6] [3]}. Indivisible also signals support for progressive governing priorities more broadly — urging local groups to pressure Democrats to pursue bold legislation and pointing to other policy goals beyond democracy that local chapters can prioritize as politically feasible ^{[7] [8]}.

2. How Indivisible says it decides what to prioritize: member listening and strategy

Indivisible documents that its campaign choices lean on organized member listening — including multiple member feedback surveys and local group input — and that member enthusiasm for democracy work informed elevating that issue ^[9]. The group explains that strategic prioritization is necessary: limited resources mean focusing on issues that are “strategically most effective” at stopping the Trump agenda, a calculus meant to guide whether a local group focuses on federal policy, state campaigns, or electoral work ^{[4] [8]}.

3. How policy expertise and partnerships factor into decision‑making

For specific democracy bills and nuanced policy stances, Indivisible says it “relies on expert policy knowledge (internally or partners)” to evaluate bills and decide whether to prioritize them nationally, indicating a layered decision process that mixes grassroots input with technical expertise from staff or allied organizations ^[9]. The organization’s public resources and guides also articulate normative priorities (e.g., bold structural democracy reform) that staff hope to translate into coordinated national action when local groups are mobilized ^{[7] [5]}.

4. The tactical frame: pick “strategic fights” and drive national backlash

Indivisible’s publicly announced blueprint frames 2026 as a moment for “strategic fights” designed to create national backlash against Project 2025 and MAGA policies, and to use those fights as levers to win elections and block policy rollbacks where Democrats hold power ^[3]. That tactical posture underlines an explicit electoral-first orientation: policy selections are frequently judged by their ability to catalyze voter mobilization and to replace or pressure elected officials, rather than solely by intrinsic policy merit ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints, limitations, and implicit agendas

The organization’s materials make clear their normative aim—electing and pressuring Democrats who will push progressive, democracy‑focused agendas—which invites critique that Indivisible’s “prioritization” is as much political strategy as neutral policy triage, and that decisions will favor fights likely to produce electoral leverage over less immediately winnable policy goals ^{[2] [4]}. Reporting and Indivisible’s own resources document member listening and expert consultation as the decision mechanics, but they do not publish a public, itemized 2026 policy platform listing every specific bill the group will endorse nationally; available sources therefore establish priorities and methods but do not provide a comprehensive, enumerated policy slate beyond the democracy/electoral focus ^{[9] [1]}.