How NYC’s socialist mayor went from promising war with Trump to texting him semi-regularly
The Campaign Promise That Hit a Governing Reality
During the fall 2025 general election campaign, Zohran Mamdani was unambiguous about his intentions toward the Trump administration. He organized a “Five Boroughs Against Trump” tour. He told supporters that his administration would be Donald Trump’s “worst nightmare.” The rhetoric was sharp, the crowds were enthusiastic, and the message was clear: this would be a mayor who led the resistance. Less than 100 days into his term, the nightmare has become a text thread. Mamdani and Trump maintain what both sides describe as semi-frequent contact. The mayor accepted a White House invitation and was photographed in a cordial Oval Office press conference. He welcomed Trump’s mention of his snow-shoveling program at the State of the Union by thanking the president publicly. And in his budget presentation — delivered at a moment when federal funding cuts represent a genuine threat to city finances — Mamdani declined to mention Trump at all.
What Changed, and Why
The shift from campaign rhetoric to governing pragmatism is not unusual in American politics. But the distance between Mamdani’s campaign posture and his mayoral behavior is notable enough that City and State NY dedicated a detailed analysis to it. The outlet compared Mamdani’s approach unfavorably — in terms of confrontational energy — to former Mayor Bill de Blasio, who joined protests at JFK Airport after the 2017 travel ban, led a climate rally at Trump Tower in 2019, and authorized a Black Lives Matter street painting outside Trump Tower in 2020. Mamdani has done none of these things. He has not joined protests against immigration enforcement sweeps. He did not appear at his city’s City Council when a staffer was detained by federal agents. He has not publicly condemned the removal of the Stonewall pride flag from a federal building.
The Strategic Argument for Cordiality
Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, an ally who has defended the approach, put the argument plainly: “Do you really want to stick your thumb in a president’s eye who is very vindictive?” It is not an unreasonable question. New York City is heavily dependent on federal funding across dozens of programs — transit, public health, housing, education, emergency management. A mayor who picks public fights with the White House over symbolism risks jeopardizing billions in practical support. Cities that have taken confrontational stances toward the Trump administration — particularly on immigration — have faced threats of federal funding cuts, National Guard deployments, and other forms of federal pressure. New York has, notably, not seen a National Guard incursion of the kind visited on other cities. Whether that is a consequence of Mamdani’s diplomatic posture, or simply reflects other political calculations in Washington, is impossible to say with certainty.
The Costs of Quiet
The argument against Mamdani’s approach is equally serious. New York City is the largest city in the United States, home to millions of immigrants, LGBTQ residents, and vulnerable communities who are directly affected by Trump administration policies. The symbolic and practical value of a high-profile mayor lending his voice and office to resistance — as de Blasio did — is not nothing. Silence in the face of specific harms can be read as acquiescence. And Mamdani’s progressive base, which elected him precisely because of his willingness to take on power, has noticed the gap between his campaign promises and his governing posture. The City and State NY analysis is worth reading in full for anyone trying to understand this tension.
The Honest Assessment
Mamdani is governing a city of 8 million people with a $127 billion budget that depends significantly on federal partnership. He inherited a $5.4 billion budget gap. He is negotiating with a governor who controls state revenue tools the city needs. He is building a new public safety infrastructure while managing an existing police department. In that context, his decision to maintain a functional relationship with the White House, even at the cost of some symbolic confrontation, is defensible as a governing choice. What it is not is the campaign promise he made. The Urban Institute has documented how federal funding flows to major cities and what is at stake when those relationships break down. Whether Mamdani’s pragmatism serves New York’s long-term interests — or whether the diplomatic capital being spent on cordiality with Trump is being purchased at too high a price in terms of the communities that depend on mayoral advocacy — is a question that his constituents are entitled to keep asking.
