‘Behave Or We'll…': Trump's BIG Threat To Mamdani Amid Fierce New York Battle
US President Donald Trump is threatening to cut federal funding to New York City if Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral hopeful, is elected and doesn't "behave." In a recent interview, Trump reiterated his calls of Mamdani being a "communist" and stated, "Whoever's mayor of New York is going to have to behave themselves or the federal government is coming down very tough on them financially." Mamdani, who is endorsed by high-profile Democrats like AOC, has responded to Trump's remarks, denying he is a communist and accusing Trump of distraction. Mamdani's progressive, anti-Israel, and pro-immigration stances have rattled Republicans, with some even calling for his deportation. Mamdani, poised to become NYC's first Muslim and South Asian mayor, recently spoke out about receiving death threats due to his race and religion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Zohran Mamdani expected to formally win NYC mayoral primary; final vote count today
The winner of New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, between progressive Zohran Mamdani of Indian American decent and former Gov Andrew Cuomo, is likely to be finalised Tuesday when the city's board of elections announces the next round of results. Mamdani has been a member of the state Assembly since 2021.(Bloomberg) Mamdani already declared victory on election night last week after gaining a commanding lead over Cuomo, who swiftly conceded. But more results are needed to establish the victor due to the city's ranked choice voting model, which allows voters' second, third, fourth and even fifth preferences to be counted if their top candidate falls out of the running. The board is scheduled to run through its first tabulation at noon, which may be enough for Mamdani to clear the 50 per cent threshold needed. If so, he would move on to the November election to face a field including incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and potentially Cuomo again, if the former governor decides to run on an independent ballot line. Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist and member of the state Assembly, was virtually unknown when he launched his candidacy centred on a bold slate of populist ideas. But he built an energetic campaign that ran circles around Cuomo as the older, more moderate Democrat tried to come back from the sexual harassment scandal that led to his resignation four years ago. The results, even before they were finalised, sent a shockwave through the political world. Mamdani's campaign, which was focused on lowering the cost of living, claims it has found a new blueprint for Democrats who have at times appeared rudderless during President Donald Trump's climb back to power. The Democratic establishment has approached Mamdani with caution. Many of its big players applauded his campaign but don't seem ready to throw their full support behind the young progressive, whose past criticisms of law enforcement, use of the word 'genocide' to describe the Israeli government's actions in Gaza and 'democratic socialist' label amount to landmines for some in the party. If elected, Mamdani would be the city's first Muslim mayor and its first of Indian American descent. He would also be one of its youngest. For Republicans, Mamdani has already provided a new angle for attack. Trump and others in the GOP have begun to launch broadsides at him, moving to cast Mamdani as the epitome of leftist excess ahead of consequential elections elsewhere this year and next. 'If I'm a Republican, I want this guy to win,' said Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University. 'Because I want to be able to compare and contrast my campaign as a Republican, in a national election, to the idea of, 'This is where the Democratic party is.'' New York City's ranked choice voting model allows voters to list up to five candidates on their ballots in order of preference. If a single candidate is the first choice of more than 50 per cent of voters, then that person wins the race outright. Since no candidate cleared that bar on the night of the primary, the ranked choice voting process kicked in. The board is scheduled to certify the election on July 15. Mamdani has been a member of the state Assembly since 2021, and has characterised his inexperience as a potential asset. His campaign promised free city buses, free child care, a rent freeze for people living in rent-stabilised apartment, government-run grocery stores and more, all paid for with taxes on the wealthy. Critics have slammed his agenda as politically unrealistic. Cuomo ran a campaign centred on his extensive experience, casting himself as the only candidate capable of saving a city he said had spun out of control. During the campaign, he focused heavily on combating antisemitism and leaned on his name recognition and juggernaut fundraising operation rather than mingling with voters. Confronted with the sexual harassment allegations that ended his tenure as governor, he denied wrongdoing, maintaining that the scandal was driven by politics and that voters were ready to move on. Cuomo did not remove his name from the November ballot last week, ahead of a procedural deadline to do so, and has said he is still considering whether to mount an actual campaign for the office. Adams, while still a Democrat, is running in the November election as an independent. He dropped out of the Democratic primary in April after he was severely wounded by his now-dismissed federal bribery case. Though he had done little in the way of campaigning since then, he reignited his reelection operation in the days after Mamdani declared victory, calling it a choice between a candidate with a 'blue collar' and one with a 'silver spoon.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 minutes ago
- First Post
Why do nations acquire nukes? Decoding Iran's dilemma
It is a dominating West which encourages nuclear proliferation, but the world, as always, remains silent read more Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, tweeted during the Iran-Israel conflict, 'Iran must never acquire the bomb.' She subsequently welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire by Trump and added, 'We call on Iran to engage seriously in a credible diplomatic process. Because the negotiating table remains the only viable path forward.' Evidently the West appears to believe that they possess the power to determine who can develop nuclear weapons and who should not. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD They have also taken it upon themselves to remove regimes which they assume are acting against their interests. To achieve their aims, they occasionally exploit global bodies such as the United Nations to legalise their actions. In recent times, they have begun ignoring the UN and acting on their own. Wherever the West has interfered, they have left behind a mess or were forced to withdraw in defeat. The only nations which are secure are those who possess a deterrent in terms of nuclear weapons. It has hence become an unwritten rule that a nation with political systems at odds with the West must possess nuclear weapons or bow to Western supremacy to ensure its security, as many monarchies in West Asia have done. In March 2003, Nato invaded Iraq, claiming it possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The sole intent was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was overthrown, captured, tried and hanged, but no WMDs were discovered, a fact known well even before the invasion was considered. Evidently, the intent was not WMDs but possibly oil. Since then, US forces have remained deployed in Iraq's oil fields, whose operations are controlled by US companies. Almost five thousand US troops and over a hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed and millions displaced since Saddam Hussein's removal. ISIS rose in the vacuum created by Saddam's ouster. It needed years and thousands of casualties before they were finally subdued. Iraq remains politically unstable, with multiple insurgent groups backed by Iran continuing to operate. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program once Gaddafi assumed power in 1969. Post the Cold War, Gaddafi attempted to enhance relations with the West and sought the lifting of sanctions. It was compelled to surrender its nuclear weapons program and finally signed an agreement on it in December 2003. Without nuclear weapons, Libya was vulnerable to Western manipulation. Following the Arab Spring, which commenced at the end of 2010 and spread to Libya in 2011, the US pushed a resolution in the UNSC authorising the use of force to protect civilians in Libya. It launched airstrikes and supported anti-Gaddafi forces. Gaddafi was overthrown. Over a decade later, Libya remains divided and violence continues unabated, with thousands of civilians killed. Libya, once the most thriving economy in North Africa, is now struggling to survive. Once again, the reason for Gaddafi's removal was Libya's oil resources. When questioned on what was his biggest mistake as president, Barack Obama stated, 'Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Twenty years in Afghanistan, and the US could show nothing. It handed over the country to the same Taliban which it overthrew. Pak was the only nation which gained by playing both sides. As per reports, the US suffered over 2500 dead and 20,000 wounded, while almost forty-five thousand Afghans lost their lives. Currently Afghanistan is no better than what it was in 2001. Osama Bin Laden, whom the US hunted for the 26/9 attacks, was finally eliminated in Abbottabad in Pakistan. On obtaining independence from the USSR in 1991, Ukraine possessed the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal, including almost 2000 strategic warheads, 170 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and strategic bombers. In December 1994, the US, UK and Russia signed the 'Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances' with Ukraine. The agreement provided security assurance against the use of force against Ukraine. It also promised to respect its sovereignty and existing borders. Based on this agreement, Ukraine surrendered all its nuclear weapons to Russia and signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Today it faces loss of territory and attacks by Russia. Would it have happened if it had held onto its nuclear weapons? Agreements and promises mean nothing with the passage of time. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea is secure only because it possesses nuclear weapons. The nation may be isolated and amongst the world's most sanctioned, but no major power has ever attempted to push a regime change or destroy its nuclear stockpiles. It is reported to have sold nuclear weapon technology to nations including Pakistan but has yet to be acted against. North Korea has, over the years, developed missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Europe and the US, imposing further caution. All that the West can do is impose sanctions and threats, which are meaningless against the authoritarian state. Iran was attacked on June 13 because Israel felt threatened by it developing nuclear weapons. On the contrary, because it is a US ally, Israel's holding of nuclear weapons is acceptable. Tehran remains amongst the world's most sanctioned regimes. It was in talks with the US on its nuclear program; however, Israel, with the backing of the US, decided to act unilaterally. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US joined in the attack intending to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Rather than criticise Israel's and the US's unilateral actions, the EU President commented that Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The action was a manifestation of partiality towards particular countries. The trigger for attacking Iran was the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution in its board meeting on June 12 claiming Tehran was 'breaching its non-proliferation obligations'. The IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi, in a subsequent interview with al-Jazeera on June 19, mentioned, 'Iran's alleged violations of its assurances had not led this agency to conclude that Tehran was building bombs.' Both Trump and Netanyahu, in their desperation to attack Iran, ignored the statement by the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who had mentioned, '(US intelligence) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump rebuked her on her statement. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nations which are traditionally against Western views and concepts will always remain at risk of being subjected to regime change unless they possess a reliable deterrent in the form of nuclear weapons. It is, in reality, a dominating West which encourages nuclear proliferation. But the world, as always, remains silent. The author is a former Indian Army officer, strategic analyst and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Zohran Mamdani was born into privilege. Can he really speak for the working class?
Written by Sabine Ameer In a political moment where the language of socialism has entered mainstream American discourse, few figures have captured the attention of younger, progressive voters like New York State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani. He's charismatic, speaks the language of class struggle fluently, and has successfully branded himself as a democratic socialist — a welcome generational shift away from the political establishment that has long dominated American politics. But as Mamdani gains national attention, a larger question emerges: Can someone born into layers of social and cultural privilege authentically represent the working class? Let's be clear — Mamdani's political rise is significant. As a young Muslim politician, an artist-turned-legislator, and a vocal supporter of housing justice and Palestine solidarity, he has challenged the norms of American electoral politics. In doing so, he has provided inspiration for many Millennials and Gen Z voters who feel politically alienated. However, while his policy positions are progressive, his personal background reflects the same cultural and class capital that has historically defined elite access in American public life. Mamdani is the son of Mira Nair, a globally celebrated filmmaker, and Mahmood Mamdani, a prominent academic at Columbia University. His upbringing was not one of economic hardship, nor one marked by the structural inequalities that define the lives of working-class New Yorkers. His family's cultural influence and access to elite institutions cannot be ignored — they are part of the architecture that enabled his platform to grow as rapidly as it did. This is not to say that children of privilege should be disqualified from public office. But when someone speaks on behalf of the working class, are they doing so as an ally — or as a representative? And what obligations come with each? There's an important distinction to be made between having solidarity with working-class struggles and embodying them. Solidarity demands listening, humility, and redistribution of power — not just rhetoric. Representation, on the other hand, implies shared experience. When Mamdani — despite his policy alignment with working-class movements — positions himself as a political outsider, it raises tension. He may be an outsider to entrenched political machines, but he is not an outsider to privilege. The issue here is not individual blame but perhaps it reflects a broader trend in left-wing American politics, where well-educated, upwardly mobile individuals increasingly speak in the language of class struggle. The result is often a symbolic radicalism that resonates with disaffected voters but doesn't always translate into structural change — or inclusion. Consider the landscape: Many millennials in New York today — those working two jobs, struggling to pay rent, saddled with debt — don't have the time or stability to pursue careers in electoral politics. Their barriers to entry are logistical, not ideological. That someone like Mamdani could move from cultural spaces like hip-hop and theatre into elected office by 30 is not just a story of political ambition; it's also a story of access. To be fair, Mamdani is not alone in this paradox. Many progressive leaders come from families with social capital, and that doesn't make their work meaningless. But what it does require is transparency, and a willingness to confront how that access has shaped their political journey. It also requires building and mentoring leadership from within the communities most affected by inequality — not just speaking on their behalf. This is, ultimately, a question of social mobility and credibility. The symbolism of a 33-year-old winning a Democratic primary in New York should be tempered by the reality that most working-class 33-year-olds are locked into 9-to-5s, debt cycles, and housing precarity — not rapping one day and running for office the next. Political glamour can easily overshadow the hard truth that most people don't have the luxury to move fluidly between creative industries and state legislatures. If we're going to build a more inclusive political future, we need to be honest about how class operates within even our most progressive movements. We need to ask: Who gets to speak? Who gets funded? Who gets published, profiled, and promoted? And most importantly — who is missing from the room? Zohran Mamdani may be advancing important policy debates. But the movement for working-class empowerment must be cautious not to confuse voice with vantage point, or style with structure. It's not about cancelling anyone — but about demanding more complexity from our narratives, and more equity in our coalitions. Because in the end, real representation isn't about optics — it's about power. The writer is a doctoral researcher in Politics and International Relations at the University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
