logo
Zohran Mamdani Defends Agenda Amid Democrat Pushback

Zohran Mamdani Defends Agenda Amid Democrat Pushback

Time​ Magazine8 hours ago

Ever since New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's sweeping victory in the Democratic mayoral primary, it became clear that New York was only the first part of his political battle.
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.
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.'
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Breaking: Mike Lee's Public Land Sale Plan Is Dead
Breaking: Mike Lee's Public Land Sale Plan Is Dead

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Breaking: Mike Lee's Public Land Sale Plan Is Dead

Facing overwhelming opposition from all Democrats and a growing number in his own party, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee tonight withdrew his proposal to sell millions of acres of public land to help balance the federal budget. In a statement issued by his office, Lee said that because of the 'strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests. For that reason I've made the decision to withdraw the federal land sales provision from the bill.' Lee's language, a central part of the omnibus federal budget bill, would have put more than a million acres of BLM land on the auction block starting later this year. Senate leaders, hurriedly working to get the budget to a floor vote this weekend, gave Lee the opportunity to pull his provision, pages 202 to 211 of the thousand-page Big Beautiful Bill, knowing that it would have faced certain defeat by the Republican-majority Senate. That language would have forced the sale of BLM land in 11 Western states to offset tax cuts and royalty rebates to gas and oil drillers. The language in those pages, sponsored and revised over the last two weeks by Lee, would have created the largest disposal of public land since the Homestead Act. Tens of thousands of hunters, anglers, hikers, and public-land recreationists have pummeled the offices of their congressional delegations with increasingly strident demands to kill Lee's bill. That continued pressure from a broad and vocal coalition of rural hunters, suburban hikers, livestock producers, Main Street business owners, anglers, dirtbag climbers, and whitewater rafters made the difference, says Montanan Randy Newberg, host of Fresh Tracks and a vocal public-land advocate. 'Mike Lee did something that we've not been able to do, to have all Americans become focused on one issue, no partisanship, no Rs, no Ds, and in the process I hope they have sent a message that public lands are that third rail of American politics,' says Newberg, one of several social-media personalities who rallied his audience around defending public lands. 'I think you could also say the same of the Senate, they put partisanship aside to kill this bad idea.' Newberg singled out the work of New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich for his ability to keep all Democrats aligned on killing Lee's bill, and working across the aisle to convince fellow Western Republicans that it was bad for their constituents. While calls for the removal of the land-sale language from the mega bill was nearly unanimous, Lee kept digging in, making revisions that increased the amount of land that could be sold and adding vague language that seemed to stray from what he said was his intention: to allow Western municipalities to buy surrounding federal land in order to grow and build affordable housing for their residents. But in the most recent iteration, released by Lee's office last night in order to satisfy the Senate's budgetary rules, the highest priority for would-be disposed BLM lands was their appraised value. That highly valued land would likely have been bought by amenity purchasers, not cash-strapped Western cities. By adding lands with unallocated subsurface mineral rights to the total, the latest draft of the bill alarmed conservationists —— as much as 3 million acres of BLM land might have been available for sale to private industries, speculators, and even foreign governments. The Senate's budget reconciliation process allows the omnibus budget package to pass by a simple majority. Republicans have only a 3-seat majority in both the Senate and House, but four Western Republicans had indicated they wouldn't support the budget bill if it contained Lee's land sales provision. Sources report that the roster of Republicans quietly in opposition to the measure was large and growing, causing the Senate leadership to strike Lee's language in order to move the rest of the Big Beautiful Bill, which among other things could make tax cuts permanent for the wealthiest Americans and also includes cuts to Medicaid, public-lands management agencies, and federal reimbursements to rural hospitals. The Senate's death blow to Lee's bill removes pressure on the House of Representatives to kill the language. The House had been considered the 'backwall' in efforts to make sure the land-sale provision didn't advance to President Trump, who had indicated strong support for the proposal.

Senate holds marathon vote series on Trump's "big, beautiful bill" as GOP eyes July 4 deadline
Senate holds marathon vote series on Trump's "big, beautiful bill" as GOP eyes July 4 deadline

CBS News

time35 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Senate holds marathon vote series on Trump's "big, beautiful bill" as GOP eyes July 4 deadline

Washington — A marathon vote series is underway in the Senate after the chamber debated President Trump's massive tax bill into the wee hours of the morning as Republicans work to pass the centerpiece legislation of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. The House narrowly passed the bill last month, and Senate Republicans have been working to put their mark on the legislation, treading carefully so as not to throw off the delicate balance in the lower chamber. The House will need to approve the Senate's changes to the bill before it can head to the president's desk for his signature. And lawmakers are trying to move quickly, with a self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the measure signed. The Senate worked through the weekend as the GOP nears a final sprint on the legislation ahead of the deadline. Titled "One Big, Beautiful Bill," the legislation includes increased spending for border security, defense and energy production, which is offset in part by cuts to healthcare and nutrition programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Sunday that the legislation would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the next decade. Senate Republicans advanced the legislation late Saturday, with all but two voting in favor following hours of delay as the GOP worked to iron out last-minute details and dispel concern among holdouts. The vote on the motion to proceed stayed open for more than three hours as holdouts sought assurances from GOP leaders. Some tweaks were made to the bill before Republicans ultimately received enough votes to move forward. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) walks in Capitol Hill, as Republican lawmakers struggle to pass President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025. Elizabeth Frantz / REUTERS Senate Democrats further delayed the legislation's path forward by forcing the bill to be read in its entirety, starting late Saturday. After nearly 16 hours, the Senate clerks concluded their reading of the bill on the floor, starting the clock on debate. Each side then had up to 10 hours for debate. The "vote-a-rama" Following debate, and a break until the morning, the Senate began what's known as a "vote-a-rama" Monday in which senators may offer an unlimited number of amendments and force the chamber to cast vote after vote. Democrats have been using the opportunity to put their GOP colleagues on the record on a number of controversial issues ahead of the midterm elections. But before the chamber could get to the amendment votes, senators had to address an outstanding disagreement over the current policy baseline, an accounting approach that would make it appear that extending the current tax policy would cost nothing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune maneuvered Sunday to allow the use of the current policy baseline, before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quickly appealed the move, requesting a vote as Democrats railed against it as the "nuclear option." The chamber voted 53-47, along party lines, to affirm the use of the current policy baseline on Monday. Schumer said that Democrats would bring "one amendment after the other" Monday, and began the process by offering an amendment to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to revisit some of its health care provisions. The chamber voted down the amendment in a party-line vote. Democrats proposed a number of amendments to attempt to roll back some of the bill's more controversial provisions. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, proposed an amendment to remove the bill's provisions that he said would force rural hospitals to limit their services or close their doors. And Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, proposed an amendment to eliminate what he called "red tape" around Medicaid eligibility. Other amendments proposed by Democrats concerned cuts to food assistance and state provider taxes, among a number of related issues. The amendments fell short. GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas offered the first Republican-led amendment, which would have reduced federal Medicaid expansion payments to states that provide coverage to undocumented immigrants charged with specific crimes. The Senate's rulemaker, known as the parliamentarian, determined that the provision would require a 60-vote threshold. The amendment fell short, though it picked up support from a handful of Democrats. Amid the slew of votes, anticipation swirled around a consequential amendment expected to be put forward by GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida later Monday. The amendment would significantly reduce the federal Medicaid expansion match made under the Affordable Care Act, barring new enrollees after 2030, in a move that would make the bill more palatable to some fiscal hawks. Thune has backed the amendment, calling it "great policy," and forecasted that it will get significant support among the Senate GOP. But whether it has enough support to be added to the bill remains to be seen. The chamber's pace began to slow Monday evening. As the amendment votes dragged on, Democrats accused Republicans of stalling. "They're delaying, they're stalling, they're cutting a lot of back-room deals," Schumer told reporters. "But we're just pushing forward, amendment after amendment — they don't like these amendments." Asked by reporters about the holdup Monday night, Thune said, "we're just kind of figuring out what everybody has to have in terms of votes." He added that Senate GOP leaders are working to construct a list, and expressed confidence that the chamber could still vote on final passage overnight. The path to passage Senate Republicans have been pursuing the legislation through the budget reconciliation process, which enables the party in the majority to move ahead without support from across the aisle. With only a simple majority required to advance the measure, rather than the 60-votes needed to move forward with most legislation, Senate Democrats have few mechanisms to combat the bill's progress. With a 53-seat majority, Senate GOP leaders can only afford to lose support from three Republicans — and would then still require a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance. And although a number of senators who had expressed opposition to the measure ultimately decided to advance it Saturday, how they will vote on the measure in a final form remains unclear. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina were the two Republicans to oppose the bill's advancement Saturday, and are expected to oppose the legislation on final passage. Tillis, who announced Sunday that he is not seeking reelection, took to the Senate floor that night to outline his opposition to some of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, claiming "Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care" and arguing that the GOP is "betraying our promise." "It is inescapable that this bill in its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made" to target only waste, fraud and abuse in the entitlement program, Tillis said, claiming that the president has been "misinformed" The North Carolina Republican argued that the July 4 deadline is an "artificial" one, saying Senate Republicans are rushing, while encouraging the chamber to "take the time to get this right" and align more closely with the House's Medicaid provisions. But Senate GOP leaders are still moving ahead. Thune, a South Dakota Republican, delivered a defense of the bill on the Senate floor ahead of the vote-a-rama Monday, pushing back on criticism over Medicaid cuts, the impact on the deficit and the use of the current policy baseline. "Let's vote," Thune said. "This is good for America." When asked whether he's confident Senate Republicans have the votes to pass the legislation, the majority leader told reporters, "Never, until we vote." Vance was on hand to break a possible tie vote Saturday, though his vote ultimately wasn't needed. Still, the vice president met with GOP holdouts in the majority leader's office Saturday as the White House put pressure on lawmakers to get the bill across the finish line. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that the president has "been in touch with lawmakers all weekend long to get this bill passed." "The White House and the president are adamant that this bill is passed and that this bill makes its way to his desk," Leavitt said. "Republicans need to stay tough and unified during the home stretch, and we are counting on them to get the job done." Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, warned Sunday that the legislation would be a "political albatross" for Republicans, while suggesting that the bill could even lose support among the GOP, saying "it's not over until it's over." "I think many of my Republican friends know they're walking the plank on this, and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their conviction," Warner said Sunday on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." and contributed to this report.

Senator Blackburn Pulls Support for AI Moratorium in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Amid Backlash
Senator Blackburn Pulls Support for AI Moratorium in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Amid Backlash

WIRED

time35 minutes ago

  • WIRED

Senator Blackburn Pulls Support for AI Moratorium in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Amid Backlash

Jun 30, 2025 9:18 PM After critics called the bill a 'get-out-jail-free-card' for Big Tech that could make it nearly impossible to rein in social media platforms, Senator Marsha Blackburn killed her own compromise. President Donald Trump delivers remarks as he hosts a "One, Big, Beautiful" event at the White House on June 26. Photogaph:As Congress races to pass President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' it's also sprinting to placate the many haters of the bill's 'AI moratorium' provision which originally required a 10-year pause on state AI regulations. The provision, which was championed by White House AI czar and venture capitalist David Sacks, has proved remarkably unpopular with a diverse contingent of lawmakers ranging from 40 state attorneys general to the ultra-MAGA Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Sunday night, Senator Marsha Blackburn and Senator Ted Cruz announced a new version of the AI moratorium, knocking the pause from a full decade down to five years and adding a variety of carve-outs. But after critics attacked the watered-down version of the bill as a 'get-out-of-jail free card' for Big Tech, Blackburn reversed course Monday evening. 'While I appreciate Chairman Cruz's efforts to find acceptable language that allows states to protect their citizens from the abuses of AI, the current language is not acceptable to those who need these protections the most,' Blackburn said in a statement to WIRED. 'This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives. Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from making laws that protect their citizens.' For those keeping track at home, Blackburn initially opposed the moratorium, then worked with Cruz on the five-year version of the provision, then changed her mind again to oppose her own compromised version of the law. She has historically championed regulations that protect the music industry, which is a major economic player in her home state of Tennessee. Last year, Tennessee passed a law to stop AI deepfakes of music artists. Her proposed AI provision included an exemption for this kind of law, which expands the legal right to protect one's likeness from commercial exploitation. The version of the moratorium she and Cruz proposed on Sunday also had carve-outs for state laws dealing with 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices, child online safety, child sexual abuse material, rights of publicity, protection of a person's name, image, voice, or likeness.' Despite these carve-outs, the new AI provision received fierce opposition from a wide array of organizations and individuals, ranging from the International Longshore & Warehouse Union ('dangerous federal overreach') to Steve Bannon ('they'll get all their dirty work done in the first five years.') The moratorium's carve-out language comes with a caveat that the exempted state laws cannot place 'undue or disproportionate burden' on AI systems or 'automated decision systems.' With AI and algorithmic feeds embedded in social platforms, critics like Senator Maria Cantwell see the provision's language as creating 'a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation.' Many advocacy groups and legal experts who focus on these issues, including kid safety rules, say that the new AI provision remains incredibly damaging. Danny Weiss, the chief advocacy officer at the nonprofit Common Sense Media, says that this version is still 'extremely sweeping' and 'could affect almost every effort to regulate tech with regards to safety' because of the undue burden shield. JB Branch, an advocate for consumer rights nonprofit Public Citizen, called the updated moratorium 'a clever Trojan horse designed to wipe out state protections while pretending to preserve them' in a statement, and argued that the undue burden language rendered the carve-outs 'meaningless.' On Monday, Cantwell and Senator Ed Markey introduced an amendment to remove the AI moratorium from the bill altogether, condemning the version proposed Sunday evening as 'a wolf in sheep's clothing,' according to a statement from Markey. 'The language still allows the Trump administration to use federal broadband funding as a weapon against the states and still prevents states from protecting children online from Big Tech's predatory behavior,' he said. (The moratorium ties access to funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program to compliance with the five-year pause.) The Trump Administration has urged Congress to vote on the Big Beautiful Bill before the break for the Fourth of July holiday. It's unclear when this amendment will be voted on, but it may be soon—and it may have a supporter in Blackburn.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store