Zohran Mamdani Defends Agenda Amid Democrat Pushback
Mamdani has faced criticism—not just from Republicans, but from within his own party. More centrist Democrats in both New York politics and in Congress have labeled him 'too extreme.'
The 33-year-old ran on a platform focused on affordability issues for New Yorkers: freezing rent, making buses fare-free, creating a network of city-owned grocery stores, and offering free childcare for any resident with children between 6 weeks to 5 years old.
These proposals resonated strongly with younger voters considering their future in an increasingly unaffordable city. More than half of New York families with children age 4 or under cannot afford child care, and grocery prices have soared 50 percent in recent years.
Among Democrats and moderates however, his policies have made raised concerns over economic viability. Representative Laura Gillen, a centrist Democrat in Congress representing part of Long Island, told TIME that Mamdani's proposals are not fiscally sound.
'Saying things like 'we're going to give away free everything' is not realistic, and it's not the direction the Democratic Party should go in,' she said. 'They should find ways to make people's lives affordable in tangible ways, and say we will reach across the aisle to do that.'
In response, Mamdani has emphasized how he intends to fund his policy agenda—a tax on New York's top 2% of earners, and raising the corporate tax to match New Jersey's 11.5%.
'It's not fiscal policy, it's quality of life [that forces top 1% New Yorkers to move away],' Zohran told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, citing a 2023 Fiscal Policy Institute study showing that the top 1% of New Yorkers leave at a quarter of the rate of other income groups.
When they do leave, he added, it is often to other states with high tax rates, such as New Jersey and California.
'And ultimately, the reason I want to increase these taxes on the top 1% the most profitable corporations, is to increase quality of life for everyone, including those who are going to be taxed.'
Democratic strategists in Washington are closely monitoring Mamdani's rise. While some warn that his brand of progressive populism could alienate moderate voters, others argue that his appeal to working-class and immigrant communities—especially in a high-turnout primary—offers a glimpse of how Democrats might reenergize a disillusioned base.
Read more: What Will Really Happen if New York City Goes Socialist
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also weighed in last week, criticizing Mamdani during an appearance on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Asked about 'the threats facing the Jewish community from Zohran Mamdani,' she cited his refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and erroneously claimed that Mamdani referenced the word 'jihad'. Her communications director later clarified on X that Gillibrand had misspoken.
Mamdani has been sharply critical of the Israeli government throughout his campaign and vocal in his support for Palestinians in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza War. His refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada'—a slogan historically associated with Palestinian uprisings—has drawn intense scrutiny. Critics argue that the phrase may incite antisemitic violence; Mamdani has countered that such interpretations are misguided.
In his interview with Welker, Mamdani reiterated that the phrase is 'not the language that I use,' while adding that 'we have to root out that bigotry' from politics.
'I've heard those fears [of antisemitism], and I've had those conversations, and ultimately, they are part and parcel of why in my campaign,' he said. 'I've put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.'
Mamdani has not received endorsement from prominent establishment Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries. He has however garnered support from more progressive Congresspeople, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, representing a schism in the Democratic party.
'I think the cost-of-living message that national Democrats maybe have gotten away from too much, that [Mamdani] really foregrounded in his campaign, is the best way to reach into these pockets,' political strategist and researcher Michael Lange said of Mamdani's success in an interview with the New York Magazine.
Mamdani continued his media push over the weekend, defending his platform and tone across multiple outlets with a message that emphasized optimism and inclusion.
On MSNBC, Mamdani was asked whether he had spoken to Sen. Gillibrand after his win, and how he had dealt with Islamophobic attacks from all sides in the aftermath of his win.
'I spoke to Senator Gillibrand soon after the victory on Tuesday evening and the comments that I've heard, especially from Republicans across the country and even the comments prior, during the primary, were comments that were both unsurprising and yet still quite sad, because they showcase what politics has become for so many,' he said. 'It's a language of darkness and a language of exclusion, and what has kept me hopeful through this is that our vision is one where every New Yorker belongs.'
Read more: Meet Rama Duwaji, the Illustrator Who Met Zohran Mamdani on Hinge—and May Become NYC's First Lady
He noted a significant increase in turnout compared to the 2021 primary, with notably higher participation among young people, immigrant voters, and voters of color. Mamdani ultimately defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fixture of New York's political establishment. He pointed specifically to previously disengaged Asian and Hispanic voter communities and many New Yorkers who he says 'saw themselves' in his politics.
'He was capturing younger voter energy across all races and classes, native New Yorkers, non-native New Yorkers, in a way that the candidates in 2021 just were not doing,' Lange explained. 'And that also extended to rent-stabilized tenants and to South Asian and Muslim voters.'
On Meet the Press, Mamdani was asked whether the Democratic establishment fears him. Mamdani said that by bringing his policies back to 'working Americans' and an economics-based policies, this is how he was able to win over New Yorkers.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.


New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Top White House official urges probe of Fed's Jerome Powell over deceptive' testimony on 'Palace of Versailles' $2.5B HQ revamp
A top White House official on Wednesday claimed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell could lose his job over his allegedly 'deceptive' testimony to Congress over the central bank's lavish $2.5 billion revamp of its DC headquarters. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, who is also chairman of the two US-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, demanded that Powell be probed by lawmakers and suggested he could even be fired by President Trump. 4 FHDA director Bill Pulte, left, has called on Congress to investigate Jerome Powell, right, for his 'deceptive' testimony to the Senate Banking Committee last week over the 'Palace of Versailles' $2.5B revamp. Advertisement 'I am asking Congress to investigate Chairman Jerome Powell, his political bias, and his deceptive Senate testimony, which is enough to be removed 'for cause', Pulte said in a leaked statement obtained by The Post. 'Jerome Powell's $2.5B Building Renovation Scandal stinks to high heaven, and he lied when asked about the specifics before Congress. This is nothing short of malfeasance,' the 37-year-old former journalist and private equity titan added. Powell has already been heavily criticized by President Trump this week, who took the unusual step of sending him a handwritten note urging him to cut interest rates. Advertisement Pulte's call for the Congressional probe comes one week after the Fed chair's appearance before the Senate Banking Committee in which he denied The Post's exclusive reporting about the renovations that have been likened by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) to the 'Palace of Versailles.' 'There's no VIP dining room, there's no new marble. There are no special elevators,' Powell insisted under questioning from the powerful panel on Wednesday. 'There are no new water features, there's no beehives, and there's no roof terrace gardens,' Powell said during the grilling by lawmakers. 4 The Post's artwork from its story on Monday which broke the news about how lawmakers were concerend that he may have lied to Congress. Jack Forbes / Donald Pearsall / NY Post Design The 72-year-old's testimony sparked outrage because they directly contradicted the Fed's own planning documents that were signed off by US government pen pushers in 2021 and have not been revised since. Advertisement 'The private dining rooms on Level 4 (of the Fed's Eccles building) will be restored,' reads one excerpt from the filing with the National Capital Planning Commission. 'The Governors' private elevator will be extended to discharge at the dining suite level.' The documents also expressly mention 'vegetated roof terraces' that will welcome 'urban wildlife and pollinators' as well as new marble and water features. A Post editorial published on Tuesday hit out at Powell over 'his privileged arrogance' in the way he spoke to the committee. 4 The Fed's own filings with the National Capital Planning Commission tell a very different story from the one recounted by Jerome Powell to the Senate Banking Committee. NCPC Advertisement He also appeared to dismiss concerns that the revamp was being subsidized by American taxpayers in Wednesday's hearing, saying simply that 'the cost overruns are what they are.' The eye-watering price tag for the overhaul has already ballooned by 30% from an original estimate of $1.9 billion. After The Post broke the story in April about the Fed's reckless spending on the HQ upgrade, former Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk called the news 'an eyebrow raiser.' The Tesla titan, who has since left government, said DOGE should 'definitely' investigate how so much money came to be blown on the glorified vanity project. By comparison, JPMorgan's new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan — a luxe, 60-story tower at 270 Park Ave. designed by star architect Norman Foster — is set to cost an estimated $3 billion. 4 Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) said the renovations with their lavish amenities look like they belong in the 'Palace of Versailles', the official residence of the long deposed French monarchy. AP The revelations are controversial at a time when the Fed is struggling with mounting losses, which stand at a total of $233 billion from the past three years. Its interest costs surged and outstripped its earnings on bonds it owns when Powell hiked rates in trying to tame rampant inflation during the Biden administration. Advertisement It sank into the red for the first time in its history, posting losses of $114.6 billion in 2023. Officials there insist that losing money in no way impacts their ability to operate and conduct monetary policy. When the Fed makes a profit, that money is passed on to the US Treasury to become part of the federal government's budget. The losses are bundled together in what is known as the Fed's 'deferred asset' that it must pay down before money can be spent on other things, such as defense, education and Medicare.


CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire members of Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington — President Trump's administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to allow him to fire three members of the independent Consumer Product Safety Commission. The request to the high court by Solicitor General D. John Sauer arose from a federal judge's decision earlier this month that found Mr. Trump's removal of the three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — was unlawful and blocked their terminations. The officials had been named to the five-member Consumer Product Safety Commission by former President Joe Biden for seven-year terms. Boyle's term was set to end in October, Hoehn-Saric's time on the panel was due to end in October 2027 and Trumka's in October 2028. The commission sets consumer product safety standards, can order product recalls and bring civil suits against companies. The three members were told in May that their positions were terminated, effective immediately. Under federal law, a president cannot remove a commissioner at-will, but only for neglect of duty or malfeasance. Removal restrictions like those governing the Consumer Product Safety Commission have been put in place by Congress to insulate independent agencies from politics. But Mr. Trump has sought to test his removal powers through a series of firings targeting members of those entities. Following their firings, the commissioners sued and asked a federal judge in Maryland, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission is headquartered, to restore them to their positions. They succeeded in their bid earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox allowed the three commissioners to resume their roles. "Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public's interest in safe consumer products," Maddox wrote in his decision. "This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs' participation on the CPSC." A unanimous panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declined to block the district court's decision and allow Mr. Trump to fire the commissioners. The commissioners, Judge James Wynn wrote in a brief opinion, "were appointed to serve fixed terms with statutory protections designed to preserve the commission's independence and partisan balance. Permitting their unlawful removal would thwart that purpose and deprive the public of the commission's full expertise and oversight. And because the attempted removals were unlawful, the Plaintiff-Commissioners never ceased to lawfully occupy their offices." Sauer's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is the third involving the president's power to remove executive officers, which the administration has argued is generally unrestricted. The justices in May cleared the way for Mr. Trump to remove without cause two members of two federal independent labor boards while legal fights over their terminations move forward. Over the dissent of the three liberal justices, the high court said in its unsigned decision that it "reflects our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty." Sauer said that May decision from the high court regarding the earlier removals should have foreclosed the reinstatement of the Consumer Product Safety Commission members. The district court's order, he wrote, effectively transfers control of the panel from Mr. Trump to three members who were appointed by his predecessor. "That plain-as-day affront to the President's fundamental Article II powers warrants intervention now," the solicitor general wrote. Sauer asked the high court to act immediately and issue a brief administrative stay that would allow it more time to consider his request for emergency relief. Lawyers for the commissioners opposed that request for swift action, noting that they have been serving in their roles in the nearly three weeks since the district judge ruled in their favor. The Trump administration, the lawyers said, did not identify any harm that would stem from the commissioner's continued service during the time it will take for the Supreme Court to rule.