After mounting pressure from frustrated party operatives, the Democratic National Committee released the full, unredacted review of the party's 2024 campaign performance on Thursday.
The report attempts to answer some of the biggest lingering questions from the election, including whether President Biden did enough to prepare then-Vice President Kamala Harris for a national campaign, how the party misread voter frustration over the economy and immigration, and why Democrats struggled to connect with key voting blocs. But the rollout quickly drew criticism after Democrats discovered the draft appeared unfinished and riddled with errors.
The release comes at a difficult time for the DNC. Despite recent electoral wins, the committee holds roughly $18 million in debt, according to its most recent fundraising report, with only about $14 million in the bank.
So we took a closer look at both the backlash and some of the report’s key findings.
What’s in the report
The 192-page review paints a pretty bleak picture for Democrats, arguing that years of narrow losses have steadily allowed Republicans to gain more power at nearly every level of government.
According to the document, the party has largely “vacillated between stagnation and retrogression” since former President Barack Obama defeated the late Sen. John McCain in 2008.
The authors cite the numbers as evidence: Since 2009, Republicans have gained 13 Senate seats, 41 House seats, 5 governorships, and more than 800 state legislative seats. Republicans now control both the governor’s office and state legislature in 13 states.
One of the report’s most striking conclusions was that Biden failed to do enough to position Harris for a stronger political future.
“The White House did not position or prepare the Vice President,” the report says. “Had the White House explored and evaluated ways to leverage Kamala Harris earlier in the administration, perhaps it would have improved the President’s standing, and it certainly could have helped prepare her to lead the ticket.”
One example cited in the report: The White House reportedly directed the DNC to conduct polling on how then-First Lady Jill Biden could best support the president, but no comparable effort was made to assess how Harris could be strengthened in her role as vice president. Pollsters advised the Harris campaign that even “measured breaks” with Biden could help her politically, but saw “little movement” in that direction.
The autopsy also argues Democrats failed to go after Trump aggressively enough, saying many within the party believed his negatives were already so “baked in” that additional attacks would have little impact. Instead, Future Forward — the super PAC backing Harris — focused heavily on making an economic case for her candidacy because the economy remained voters’ top concern. But according to the report, Harris still ultimately “lost the economic argument.”
The report is finally out — but it’s unfinished
Some of the fiercest backlash hasn’t focused on what the document says, but on what it’s missing — including something as basic as a finalized title. The draft is still labeled with the placeholder heading: “BUILD TO WIN. BUILD TO LAST.”
Written primarily by Democratic consultant Paul Rivera — who Martin later said “no longer is with or advises the DNC in any capacity” — the draft is missing major sections, including a conclusion, executive summary, and even portions labeled “Notes for the reader.”
It also sidesteps several issues that consumed Democrats throughout the 2024 cycle. The document makes no mention of the Israel-Gaza war, despite the conflict becoming a major source of division within the party. It also avoids discussing concerns over former President Joe Biden’s age, which dominated political coverage for months during the campaign.
Similarly absent is any discussion of Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to choose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate after some Democrats expressed frustration with his debate performance against Vice President J.D. Vance.
Throughout the document, DNC annotations flag inaccuracies ranging from incorrect vote margins to what officials described as contradictory claims.
“While we extensively fact-check DNC After Action Report in order to ensure accuracy, it is always possible that mistakes remain,” the draft reads.
So why was the report withheld?
The DNC chose not to release the 2024 autopsy last year after the unfinished report was delivered to Chair Ken Martin in late 2025 — a moment when Democrats were riding a wave of victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and municipal elections across the country.
Martin defended the decision to delay releasing the findings in a statement to The Washington Post last year, saying: “Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”
But on Thursday, he struck a far more apologetic tone, effectively acknowledging the rollout had backfired. “In short, I didn’t want to create a distraction,” he wrote in a lengthy Substack post. “Ironically, in doing so, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. And for that, I sincerely apologize.”
Martin said he delayed releasing the document because he believed its quality was poor. “I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced," he wrote.
Still, the controversy intensified scrutiny of Martin’s leadership, with some, including Democratic strategist Steve Schale and former DNC vice chair David Hogg, calling for his resignation.
Democrats turn on the autopsy
In some ways, the controversy surrounding the report eclipsed the report itself.
Critics within the party questioned not only the quality of the autopsy — which was clearly unfinished — but also why Democratic leadership released a document they reportedly knew was incomplete.
“I hope we can find the money for an autopsy of the rollout of the autopsy,” Alyssa Cass, a Democratic operative in New York, told The Washington Post.
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau similarly criticized the rollout, questioning why party leaders kept the document private for so long only to eventually release a version riddled with gaps and errors.
Others were much more harsh. "My nine-year-old has brought home better written assignments from school,” Democratic strategist Eddie Vale told The Hill. “It’s unfathomable how bad it is. Literally garbage and useless.”
The backlash reflects broader tensions within the Democratic Party as leaders continue to grapple with what went wrong in 2024 — and who should be held responsible. For some Democrats, the chaotic rollout reinforced concerns about transparency, accountability, and the party’s willingness to honestly assess its own shortcomings.
