5 Things to Know About Zohran Mamdani
Months later, he appears poised to become the Democratic Party's nominee for mayor, having bested a far better known and more experienced cast of candidates who had deep relationships with voters across New York City.
Mr. Mamdani's campaign focused intensely on the plight of working-class New Yorkers who were struggling with New York City's affordability crisis, most notably the skyrocketing costs of housing and child care.
Here is a look at his record and some important things to know about New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee:
A Fresh Voice, a Short Track Record
Mr. Mamdani beat a four-term incumbent in a close State Assembly primary in 2020. He joined a small group of lawmakers in Albany who were part of the Democratic Socialists of America's New York chapter. His agenda in Albany mirrored his campaign priorities, but of the 20-odd bills Mr. Mamdani has introduced in more than four years in Albany, just three relatively minor items have become law.
During the campaign, he talked extensively about a program to begin making city buses free that he had helped start. The pilot program lasted one year and was not renewed. Still, colleagues said his ideas had helped to move the ideological center of the Assembly to the left.
In Albany, he was one of the Legislature's youngest members. If elected mayor, he would be, at 34, the city's youngest leader since 1917, when John Purroy Mitchel, a reformer known as the 'Boy Mayor,' was elected and served one term. Mr. Mamdani's youth and fresh vision attracted a broad swath of progressive voters, even as his opponents focused on his relative lack of experience.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
New Yorkers May Soon Be Grocery Guinea Pigs
New York City—where takeout is a food group and ovens are for storing clothes —may soon get into the grocery business. If he wins the general election this November, Zohran Mamdani, the new Democratic nominee for mayor, has said he will build a network of municipally owned, affordable grocery stores, one in each of the city's five boroughs. According to Mamdani, the city could help pay for the stores' rent and operating costs by taxing the wealthy, and the stores won't seek to turn a profit, enabling them to sell food at wholesale cost. In the vision Mamdani laid out in a campaign video, the stores' mission would be combating 'price gouging' by offering lower prices than corporate grocery stores. If Mamdani is able to pull this off—a huge if, given the economic considerations, as critics are quick to point out—it will be the first time in American history that a city of New York's size has commanded its own grocery stores. New Yorkers are in favor of the idea: Two-thirds of them, including 54 percent of Republicans, support public groceries, according to a March poll by the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive think tank. But because nothing exactly like Mamdani's plan has ever been tried before in a large city, no one can be certain whether it will really be able to sell more affordable food, let alone help address food insecurity and health disparities in the city. What Mamdani has proposed is a $60 million experiment, with New Yorkers as test subjects. A couple of other large American cities are trying out similar plans, but what little real precedent exists for Mamdani's plan comes mostly from rural America. A handful of towns have opened municipally owned groceries, mostly because they had no choice: Small towns once relied on mom-and-pop shops, but these are vanishing as dollar stores proliferate and big-box retailers in larger rural cities monopolize the wholesale supply. Without a supermarket, residents have to either drive out of town for food or rely on convenience stores and dollar stores, which don't stock many healthy options. In 2018, the town of Baldwin, Florida (current population 1,366), lost its only grocery when the local IGA closed. It became a food desert: The next-closest supermarket was 10 miles away—not a simple trip for older adults who don't drive or for people without a car. The mayor proposed a municipally owned store, which opened the next year. In Kansas, the cities of St. Paul (population 603) and Erie (population 1,019) started their own grocery stores in 2008 and 2021, respectively. St. Paul had not had a supermarket since 1985. The fates of these stores and their hometowns have varied. Baldwin Market became a lifeline for many residents, particularly during the pandemic. But it struggled to break even and closed in 2024. Now the town largely relies on a handful of convenience stores and a Dollar General as it awaits the rumored opening of a new private grocery. Erie Market similarly struggled to balance its books. Operations were a challenge; the store sometimes stocked expired food, and its refrigerated section lost power after a thunderstorm. Last year, the city leased it to a private owner, who has yet to reopen the store. By contrast, St. Paul Supermarket has operated as a fully municipally owned grocery since 2013 (before that, it was funded by a community-development group) and shows no signs of closing. Its success has been attributed to community buy-in. Locals were motivated by the desire to preserve their city, fearing that the lack of a grocery store would drive away current residents and scare off potential new ones. 'It's a retention strategy, but it's also a recruitment strategy,' Rial Carver, the program leader at Kansas State University's Rural Grocery Initiative, told me. The primary goal of a municipally owned store is to get food to people who need it. But the city will have to decide which food to stock and, inevitably, will face questions about how those choices influence the diet or health of potential customers. (Imagine the criticism a Mamdani administration might face for subsidizing Cheetos—or, for that matter, organic, gluten-free cheese puffs.) Theoretically, getting people better access to any sort of food can have health benefits, Craig Willingham, the managing director of CUNY's Urban Food Policy Institute, told me. But so few examples of successful municipal grocery stores exist that there is virtually no research on their health effects. Research on the health impact of opening a privately owned grocery in a food desert has had mixed results. An ongoing study of a food-desert neighborhood in Pittsburgh has found that after a supermarket opened, residents consumed fewer calories overall—less added sugar, but also fewer whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. A 2018 study set in a Bronx neighborhood with few grocery stores linked the opening of a new supermarket to residents eating more vegetables and fruit and consuming fewer soft drinks, salty snacks, and pastries, but their spending on unhealthy foods increased along with their purchases of healthy ones. A new grocery alone won't change food habits, according to a 2019 study led by Hunt Allcott, an economist at Stanford. 'People shop at the new store, but they buy the same kinds of groceries they had been buying before,' Allcott told me. What does help nudge people toward buying healthier foods, he said, is making those foods affordable—while also taxing unhealthy items such as soda. With so little background information to go on, there's no telling how Mamdani's experiment will play out in a big city—or whether it will even get off the ground. New York differs from the sites of other municipal-grocery experiments not only in its size and density but also in its general abundance of grocery stores. Proximity isn't the major reason people can't get food, healthy or otherwise, Allcott said—cost is. From 2013 to 2023, the amount of money New Yorkers spent on groceries rose nearly 66 percent —far higher than the national average. The city's poverty rate—a metric based on the price of a minimal diet—is nearly twice that of the national average; from 2020 to 2023, one in three New Yorkers used food pantries. In Chelsea, a Manhattan neighborhood that is known for its luxury high-rises and is also home to a large housing project, some residents would rather take the train into New Jersey to buy groceries than shop at the expensive local supermarkets, Willingham said. Grocery stores are tough business. Profit margins are as slim as 1 to 3 percent, and prices are largely determined by suppliers, who tend to privilege volume. A single grocer (or the small network that Mamdani envisions) won't get as good a deal as a large chain. And running a store is hard, Carver told me: A manager needs to be nimble and adjust to customer demands, skills that municipal bodies are not exactly known for. In New York, at least, there's reason to expect that public groceries wouldn't actually be cheaper. Mamdani (whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment) has acknowledged that New York's city government might not be cut out for stocking shelves. If the pilot plan doesn't work, he said on the podcast Plain English last week, he won't try to scale it up. Yet he believes that it's worth trying. 'This is a proposal of reasonable policy experimentation,' he said. National grocery costs are expected to increase 2.2 percent this year, according to the USDA. Price hikes will hit poor Americans even harder if Congress passes President Donald Trump's megabill, which includes cuts to federal food-assistance programs such as SNAP. Among such threats to food affordability, the mere possibility of change could justify a trial of something new. Other large cities, too, are signing up as guinea pigs: Madison, Wisconsin, is in the process of opening a municipally owned store. Last year, Atlanta addressed food insecurity among public-school students and their families by opening a free grocery store—it functions like a food pantry but is stocked like a supermarket—funded by a public-private partnership. Its impact on health hasn't yet been studied, but demand is high. 'We do slots for appointments, and they're immediately gone,' Chelsea Montgomery, the adviser to operations of Atlanta Public Schools, told me. Mamdani's proposal is hardly the first unorthodox policy experiment New York has considered. The city took a chance on congestion pricing to reduce traffic and fund public transit, on universal pre-K to guarantee access to early childhood education, and on supervised injection sites to curb the overdose crisis. All have achieved their objectives. Perhaps, in a decade, millions of New Yorkers will get their organic, gluten-free cheese puffs on the cheap at a city-owned market. Or perhaps the whole project will go the way of the city's failed attempt to end poverty by offering cash in exchange for efforts to build healthy habits. The point of experimentation is to find out.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 07: Supporters of immigrants' rights protest against U.S. President ... More Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 07, 2025 in Homestead, Florida. President Trump has directed agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. (Photo by) News of three U.S. immigration-related developments recently surprised immigrants and immigration advocates. The cancellation of Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands, the revival of a broad travel ban targeting 19 countries (including eight Muslim-majority nations), and a quiet yet significant victory at the Supreme Court limiting the power of federal judges to block unconstitutional executive actions nationwide were momentous decisions with wide-ranging consequences for the United States. Each action raises serious legal and moral concerns. Collectively, they indicate a dangerous mix of policy overreach, discriminatory motives, and the weakening of judicial protections that could affect not only this government but future ones—Democratic or Republican. TPS Terminations: Focusing on the Most Vulnerable In late June, the Trump administration announced its plan to end TPS for about 430,000 Haitians, effective September 2, 2025. At first glance, the figure seems shocking—but it hides even a much harsher reality. Nearly half of these individuals, around 200,000, have already been deported through previous measures: Title 42 expulsions, humanitarian parole terminations, and strict border interceptions. TPS, a humanitarian provision embedded in U.S. immigration law, offers legal residence and work authorization for individuals fleeing natural disasters, conflict, or extraordinary conditions in their home countries. It is not a loophole. It is a lawful status granted and extended by successive administrations of both parties in recognition of humanitarian necessity. Revoking this protection on a large scale, especially when around 1.75 million immigrants from various countries currently in the United States could be affected by such actions, not only upsets lives and families but also breaches the trust in the rule of law. TPS holders are not undocumented immigrants. They entered legally or were granted lawful residence due to circumstances beyond their control. Their removal does not serve a mandate to deport 'illegal immigrants,' but instead shows a preference for politically convenient targets. In Trump's zeal to meet his goal of 'deporting 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally,' he is deporting legal immigrants. Worse still, the administration seems to be skipping necessary legal procedures. Before TPS can be revoked, the Department of Homeland Security must properly review country conditions, consult with other federal agencies, issue a 60-day notice, and offer a wind-down period of 6–18 months. These protections are in place to prevent deportations from returning individuals to danger. The courts might still step in, as they did in Ramos v. Nielsen, when a lower court found that the Trump administration's previous TPS cancellations were discriminatory and biased. The administration's new attack on TPS might follow a similar path—litigation, injunctions, appeals. But for thousands of Haitians, the uncertainty is already traumatic. The Travel Ban Revisited: Familiar Faces, Persistent Bias Adding to the TPS decision is the Trump administration's reimposition of a travel ban, now expanded to include 19 countries, eight of which are majority-Muslim. Though presented as a national security measure, the origins and focus of the policy resemble the earlier 'Muslim Ban' that was partially struck down by courts and widely condemned as discriminatory. This recent iteration does little to ease those concerns. The list of affected countries remains unclear, the criteria are random, and the process lacks transparency or meaningful oversight by Congress. Entire families—spouses, children, students—are now denied entry, regardless of their personal history, reason for travel, or connections to the U.S. These bans do not improve national security. They alienate allies, harm economies, and increase xenophobia. Even more, they weaken the core Canadian promise: that people are judged by their deeds and character, not their nationality or religion. Supreme Court's Injunction Ruling: A Win for Executive Authority Perhaps the most far-reaching—and least noticed—development is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Casa case, which significantly narrows the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The case originated from Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship. The constitutional issue—whether the 14th Amendment protects the citizenship rights of all U.S.-born children—was avoided by the Court, which instead chose to focus on procedural matters. In doing so, the Court determined that federal judges can no longer routinely issue injunctions that block presidential actions nationwide. This decision, while cloaked in administrative reasoning, has explosive implications. Historically, nationwide injunctions have been one of the few effective tools to limit executive overreach. When a federal court uncovers credible evidence of constitutional violations—such as family separations, discriminatory bans, or revocation of legal status—it must be able to halt the action consistently. The alternative is chaos: legal rights that vary depending on the region, with one federal district upholding citizenship and another not. The criteria for these injunctions are strict: These are not impulsive decisions. They are rooted in law, precedent, and thorough judicial review. Removing courts' authority in this area creates a fragmented legal system, causes delays in justice, and exposes vulnerable groups to lasting harm while appellate review processes unfold slowly. While conservatives may celebrate the ruling as a victory over 'judicial activism,' they might soon regret it. Future Democratic governments could now implement sweeping directives—on guns, climate, or abortion access—without fearing immediate nationwide injunctions. Judicial restraint, once a safeguard against tyranny, has now been selectively weakened. Checks, Balances, and Consequences The Trump administration's recent immigration developments are not just isolated mistakes. They reflect a deliberate plan: to push the boundaries of executive power, sideline the courts, and change immigration law by decree rather than through legislation. In each of the three instances—TPS cancellation, the travel ban, and the limitation on nationwide injunctions—the pattern remains consistent. Lawful immigrants and minorities are targeted. Established legal procedures are ignored or weakened. And judicial oversight is reduced or compromised. The Constitution envisions a balance of powers — not an unchecked presidency. When courts can no longer act quickly to stop illegal or discriminatory acts, it is not only immigrants who suffer but also the integrity of the law itself. The cancellation of the Haitian PTS program, the introduction of a broad travel ban, and the Supreme Court's decision to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts should concern all Americans—regardless of political affiliation. Today, it affects Haitian families and Muslim travellers who face the consequences. Tomorrow, it could be any group that falls out of political favour. The real question is not whether Trump's actions were lawful but whether they were right—and whether future leaders will feel unjustly constrained by them.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dolton buying Pope Leo XIV's childhood home in village, price uncertain
Dolton officials are moving ahead with plans to buy Pope Leo XIV's childhood home in the village, hoping to snap up the modest brick home that has gained international attention ahead of a planned auction. The Village Board at a special meeting Tuesday voted unanimously to move forward on buying the house at 212 East 141st Place, and said there are plans to buy an adjacent home. Mayor Jason House told reporters after the meeting he hoped the village could close on the purchase in a couple of weeks, but that the final purchase price is still up in the air. House said that the chance to buy the home is a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' and a 'historic movement moving forward' for Dolton. 'We can either seize the moment and move it forward or we can let that moment to go an investor,' House told the audience. An auction of the home by New York-based Paramount Realty USA is scheduled to close by 4 p.m. Chicago time July 17, according to Paramount's website. A reserve price of $250,000 is set for the home. The auction was to close last month but was extended. A resident filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the village from using taxpayer funds to buy the home, but a judge recently said Dolton could proceed with plans to secure the property through its current owner. Robert Francis Prevost lived with his parents and sibilings for many years in the home, and it's become a tourist destination since his election as pope. Dolton has had to have police regularly patrol the neighborhood. Before the Village Board vote, residents said they were concerned about the money being spent considering the village's financial condition, with a massive backlog of unpaid bills and streets that are in poor condition because the funds are not there to repair them. The Rev. Ryan Reese, a village resident and pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Lansing, said board members 'have a difficult situation figuring our the finances of the community' and that 'we need to make sure the funding (the village has) is spent wisely.' Reese said there are numerous infrastructure issues facing the village, such as the condition of streets. 'I'm not sure this is the first priority,' he told trustees before the vote. Resident Mary Avent, recently elected as a trustee in Thornton Township, said that she too is concerned about the state of village finances and not just the initial outlay for the home but also ongoing maintenance costs. 'With the state we're in, my concern is, do we have the money?' she asked. Prevost lived in the home from his birth in 1955, and his parents lived there until they sold it in 1996.
