Inside the campaign to find a new Republican to run against Mamdani
Prominent donors are gunning to get Republican mayoral nominee Curtis Sliwa a job in the Trump Administration in hopes of pushing him out of New York City's mayoral race, sources told me. The aim is to open up the GOP nomination — and the nearly 30% of the vote someone running in that lane is expected to get — for current mayor Eric Adams.
At present, the mayor is running for re-election as an independent — sandwiched in between Sliwa on the right and Zohran Mamdani on the (ultra-far) left. My sources said Adams, who recently struck a deal with the Trump Administration to clear himself of charges leveled by the DOJ, is open to running as a Republican, but it hinges on a rather complicated chain of events.
4 Curtis Sliwa, 71, ran as the Republican nominee in 2021 and won 27.8% of the vote.
ZUMAPRESS.com
Advertisement
Sliwa would have to leave the state to open up the slot, and then Republican borough leaders — city council members and the only Republican borough president, Staten Island's Vito Fossella — would need to anoint Adams.
Getting Sliwa a top job in Washington, D.C. would be one way — the only way some sources think — to make sure he leaves the state. My sources believe the scheme wouldn't come across as undemocratic given that Sliwa was the only choice in the Republican primary.
4 Eric Adams is running for re-election as an independent — sandwiched in between Sliwa on the right and Zohran Mamdani on the (ultra-far) left.
Michael Nagle
The 71-year-old ran as the Republican nominee in 2021 and won 27.8% of the vote. That wasn't enough to win a plurality let alone a majority, but if his supporters were to rally behind Adams in November, it could be enough to keep the mayor in Gracie Mansion.
Advertisement
Of course, it all hinges on President Trump's willingness to extend an olive branch to Sliwa (and by extension New York City) and Sliwa's willingness to take it.
'Curtis has to make a decision of conscience. How much does he love his city as opposed to running for office?' longtime Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, who is vehemently against Mamdani, told me.
4 Eric Adams moving to the Republican ticket would give him votes from the right and the center.
Getty Images
Sliwa voted for Trump in 2024, but has previously called him 'a screwball and a crackpot.' He also briefly left the Republican party in 2020 and has stated he didn't vote for Trump in that election.
Advertisement
It is unclear what kind of job could woo Sliwa to Washington. As of now, my sources said he remains hell bent on staying in the race even if it means spoiling it for Adams and ushering in a socialist. (Adams and Sliwa did not respond to requests for comment.)
One other consideration? The 30-year contract Sliwa has with WABC for his radio show.
But WABC owner John Catsimatidis — who owns the radio station through his Red Apple Media — told me that will not be an issue.
4 Pro-business leaders are trying to rally around one candidate to defeat socialist Zohran Mamdani.
Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto/Shutterstock
Advertisement
'If he was nominated to a great position, how could I hold him back?'
Adams, who saw support among the business community wane as Cuomo appeared poised to nab the Democratic primary, has picked up momentum since Tuesday as business leaders fret Mamdani could win. He's been working overtime the last few days trying to win back support and is exploring launching additional PACs to raise additional money.
This story is part of NYNext, an indispensable insider insight into the innovations, moonshots and political chess moves that matter most to NYC's power players (and those who aspire to be).
This wouldn't be the first time a candidate switched his registration to win an election.
Bloomberg left the crowded Democratic field in 2001, nabbed the Republican nomination and went on to win the general election.
Adams has already shown a willingness to engage with Republicans, appearing on 'Fox & Friends' earlier this week to express concerns about the possibility of Mamdani winning the primary. He's also working with the Trump Administration when it comes to letting ICE do its job by arresting illegals in NYC.
Sheinkopf is cautiously optimistic that it could all work for Adams.
Advertisement
'In the last 55 years, only two incumbent first term mayors have been defeated … Abe Beams and David Dinkins and he's not either,' he told me. 'Adams can win by putting together the coalition that elected him last time — the business people and the people who create the jobs.'
Send NYNext a tip: nynextlydia@nypost.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
New Jersey AG ‘confident' in battle against Trump birthright citizenship order
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, one of the plaintiffs in a 22-state lawsuit against President Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship, said Saturday he was 'confident' the order could still be blocked nationwide following a Friday Supreme Court ruling that broadly restricted the ability of the court system to halt the president's policies. 'There's a whole range of administrative challenges that would make this completely unworkable, which is why I'm confident we'll get the nationwide relief we've sought when we go back to the lower courts,' Platkin said in an MSNBC appearance. The nation's highest court ruled Friday that Trump's executive order could be partially enforced because lower-court judges had exceeded their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. The ruling did not address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, but still drastically limited a judicial tool that has been used for decades, including to block federal policies from multiple presidential administrations. New Jersey is one of 22 Democratic-led states, along with a group of expectant mothers and immigration organizations, that sued to block the executive order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The injunctions issued by three federal judges in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts in the ensuing months granted relief not just to those plaintiffs, but everyone in the country. That move, the Supreme Court majority said Friday, was unconstitutional. Instead, injunctions should be narrowly tailored to provide 'complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' The lower courts will now get the first attempt at tailoring injunctions to comply with the ruling. On MSNBC, Platkin contended that 'complete relief' to the states harmed by the executive order would still involve blocking the executive order across the country. 'It would be impossible to administer a system of citizenship based on which state you live in,' he said. The suits of the non-state plaintiffs, meanwhile, were quickly refashioned into class-action lawsuits, a legal route that Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted could provide broader relief against the birthright citizenship order in her majority opinion. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days while the courts and parties sort out the next steps.
Gizmodo
38 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Elon Musk Launches a Scathing New Attack on Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
Elon Musk has shattered his political silence with a series of blistering attacks aimed directly at the legislative centerpiece of the Trump administration. Just hours before a critical Senate vote on the president's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX reiterated his fierce opposition, escalating a feud with his former boss. The public break marks a dramatic turn. For months, Musk was a high profile, if unconventional, member of the administration, heading the much vaunted Department of Government Efficiency, cheekily known as DOGE. But even during his final hours in government, the world's richest man began to voice his dissent over the bill, which the Republican led Congress is rushing to pass before the July 4th holiday. Their alliance between Musk and President Donald Trump, always a transactional marriage of convenience between two larger than life figures, publicly imploded on June 5. The fallout began when Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, expressed his 'disappointment' in Musk's criticisms, suggesting the tech mogul only soured on the bill after electric vehicle subsidies were cut. This sparked a real time tirade from Musk on X. He accused Trump of lying, claiming the bill was 'never shown to me,' and boasted that 'without me, Trump would have lost the election.' The conflict spiraled from there, with Trump threatening Musk's lucrative government contracts and Musk, at one point, alleging Trump's name appeared in the infamous Epstein files before deleting the post. Now, that simmering conflict has boiled over once again. At stake is a sprawling piece of legislation that defines the Trump administration's second term priorities. The bill includes deep cuts to social programs like Medicaid and Medicare, a new round of massive tax cuts, and a significant raise to the nation's debt ceiling. Crucially for Musk, it also proposes drastic reductions and new taxes on the clean energy sector, a direct threat to the industries he leads through Tesla and his solar ventures After criticizing the version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives, Musk has now launched a full scale assault on the revised Senate version slated for a vote on June 28. He began by amplifying a post on his social media platform, X, from a user detailing the bill's aggressive new measures against the green energy sector. 'The new Senate draft raises taxes on all wind and solar projects that haven't begun construction today unless they are placed service by end of 2027 and navigate complex, likely unworkable requirements to prove they don't use a drop of Chinese materials. After that, this bill ADDS A NEW tax on wind and solar projects that can't prove the same,' the user posted. The new Senate draft raises taxes on all wind and solar projects that haven't begun construction today unless they are placed service by end of 2027 and navigate complex, likely unworkable requirements to prove they don't use a drop of Chinese materials. After that, this bill… — Jesse D. Jenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 28, 2025Musk co-signed the critique, before adding his own dire warning about the bill's broader consequences for the country. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!,' the billionaire wrote, adding that it is, 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025The question now is how President Trump will react. He has made the passage of this bill his top legislative priority, and his administration has worked tirelessly to silence any dissenting voices within the party. Undeterred, Musk seized on another critical post to continue his offensive. When the same user asked who could possibly want the legislation, which is opposed by automakers, electric utilities, and data center developers, the tech mogul agreed and took his criticism even further. 'Good question. Who?' Musk responded, before attacking another core component of the bill. 'At the same time, this bill raises the debt ceiling by $5 TRILLION, the biggest increase in history, putting America in the fast lane to debt slavery!' Good question. Who? At the same time, this bill raises the debt ceiling by $5 TRILLION, the biggest increase in history, putting America in the fast lane to debt slavery! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025Citing polls he posted on X that show widespread opposition to the bill's key tenets, Musk delivered his most pointed political warning yet. 'Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party,' he posted. Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025The polling data Musk referenced, reportedly conducted by The Tarrance Group, a Republican strategic research and polling firm, between June 14 and June 19, appears to validate his position. The results show that 53% of respondents agree with Musk's characterization of the bill as an 'outrageous pork-packed spending bill that will massively increase the budget deficit and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' Furthermore, 57% of those polled concurred with his specific claim that the legislation 'would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
CNN's Scott Jennings rips liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for nationwide injunction hypocrisy: ‘Some of these folks really are hacks'
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Conservative CNN pundit Scott Jennings ripped liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kegan as a partisan hack for opposing the elimination of nationwide injunctions – despite wanting to end the practice when President Biden was in power. Jennings called out Kagan – one of three dissenters in Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling that prevents district court judges from interfering with a president's agenda – for previously and publicly slamming the widespread abuse of nationwide injunctions during a Democratic presidency. 'I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it,' the political commentator quipped on CNN's 'Saturday Morning Table for Five.' Advertisement 3 Scott Jennings on CNN discussing a Supreme Court decision. mediaite ''It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.' Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. 'Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.' The lefty justice made the comment at a Northwestern University law school talk three years ago. Advertisement 3 CNN's 'Table for Five' panel discussion. mediaite Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President? Pepperidge Farms remembers. — Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 28, 2025 Kagan told the audience that 'It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.' Advertisement Jennings called the 6-3 ruling a 'great day' for Trump after host Abby Phillips remarked how nationwide injunctions have 'been sort of the bane of existence' for both Democratic and Republican presidents. 3 President Trump at a White House press conference. / MEGA 'I'm glad they went ahead and fixed it because it's not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,' Jennings added. Advertisement President Trump has been slapped with at least 25 national injunctions on everything from spending reforms to education policy and deportation policies in the first five months of his second term in the White House. Kagan's liberal peers, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, also voted along ideological lines to reject the high court decision.
