Wall Street Billionaires Hold Secret White House Dinner to Block Mamdani Tax Agenda

Finance leaders meet with Trump to support Stefanik gubernatorial bid as bulwark against progressive mayor

Secret Dinner Convenes Power Players

Wall Street’s most powerful figures gathered for a private dinner at the White House state dining room, according to International Business Times UK, to discuss strategies for blocking Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s tax-the-rich agenda. The November meeting, attended by Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts co-founder Henry Kravis, focused on supporting Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s 2026 gubernatorial bid as a safeguard against Mamdani’s progressive policies.

Two sources familiar with the dinner discussion confirmed that attendees feared Mamdani’s plans would drive business away from New York City, with President Trump positioning himself as a defender of the city’s “economic stability.” Other guests reportedly included JP Morgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon, Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, and Intercontinental Exchange head Jeffrey Sprecher, who helped organize the event.

The Strategic Calculus

The billionaire class recognizes that Mamdani cannot implement his tax agenda without approval from Albany. By supporting Stefanik for governor, they hope to install a firewall who can veto any tax increases the mayor proposes, regardless of whether the state legislature supports them. John Catsimatidis, Republican billionaire and grocery magnate, told The Telegraph: “We’re not surrendering New York.”

Catsimatidis emphasized the governor’s authority to oversee mayoral actions, suggesting Stefanik could act as a safeguard to ensure policies “do not compromise the quality of life in the city.” This framing reveals how business interests define quality of life: primarily in terms of tax burden on corporations and the wealthy, rather than affordability for working-class New Yorkers.

Stefanik’s Appeal to Business

Republicans are reportedly buoyed by Stefanik’s record, claiming she outperforms Trump in many polls and has strong support among moderates and the Jewish community. According to Politico, Stefanik has positioned herself as a fierce defender of Israel while advocating for tax cuts and deregulation–a combination designed to appeal to New York’s business elite and socially moderate suburban voters.

Her pledge to make New York “affordable and safer” carefully avoids specifying for whom. Business leaders interpret “affordable” as maintaining low taxes on corporations and high earners, while progressives point out that current affordability challenges stem from housing costs, childcare expenses, and stagnant wages–precisely the issues Mamdani’s agenda addresses.

Wall Street’s $40 Million Bet

New York City’s CEOs and billionaire business leaders spent more than $40 million trying to stop Mamdani from becoming mayor, according to NPR analysis. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman alone contributed approximately $2 million to efforts to defeat the democratic socialist candidate. Despite this unprecedented spending, Mamdani won decisively with a 9-point margin over former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The failure of this investment has left business leaders grappling with how to respond. Kathryn Wylde, CEO of the Partnership for New York City–an influential business group representing more than 300 large employers–described the community’s reaction as going through “the stages of grief.”

From Threats to Pragmatism

In the immediate aftermath of Mamdani’s primary victory, business leaders made dramatic threats. Catsimatidis floated moving Gristedes corporate offices to New Jersey for the duration of Mamdani’s term. Financial analyst Jim Bianco accused New York of “electing to commit suicide by Mayor.” Some threatened to relocate to Florida or Texas, states with no income tax.

However, as Fortune notes, such threats have been made before–most notably when Bill de Blasio won in 2013 on a tax-the-rich platform. The tycoons stayed then, and many observers believe they’ll stay now. For individuals and businesses, choosing where to operate involves many factors beyond taxes, including access to talent, clients, cultural amenities, and infrastructure.

The Capital Flight Myth

Research consistently shows that high taxes on the wealthy do not lead to significant migration. According to studies cited by The American Prospect, the top 1% of income earners move out of New York at an average rate of only 0.2% on net–lower than any other income group. When high earners do leave, they rarely cite taxes as the primary reason.

The Fiscal Policy Institute studied New York state tax filings from 2023 and found that a 2021 personal income tax increase did not trigger millionaire exodus. This evidence directly contradicts claims by figures like Bill Ackman, who insisted that “if Mamdani becomes mayor, you’re going to see the flight of businesses from New York.”

Why the Rich Stay

Despite perennial threats to leave, New York maintains unique advantages that keep businesses and wealthy individuals in place. “What makes New York attractive is we have an excellent labor market in terms of having great human capital; companies want to be here, and their employees like to be in New York City,” Ana Champeny, vice president for research at the Citizens Budget Commission, explained to Fortune.

The city offers unmatched access to: world-class universities producing skilled workers, the deepest pool of finance and tech talent in the country, proximity to clients and business partners, cultural institutions that attract and retain employees, infrastructure that supports complex operations, and global connectivity through airports and communications networks.

These factors create what economists call “agglomeration effects”–benefits from being physically present in a dense network of related businesses. A hedge fund manager might save on taxes by moving to Florida, but loses daily face-to-face interaction with clients, competitors, and collaborators that generates investment opportunities.

The Corporate Tax Impact Debate

Mamdani has proposed raising the city’s corporate tax rate from 7.5% to 11.5%, matching New Jersey’s rate. He estimates this will generate $5 billion annually to fund universal childcare, free buses, and other affordability initiatives. Critics, including analysis from Reason magazine, argue this threatens New York’s status as the world’s financial capital.

The critique centers on several concerns: Corporations could lay off workers or reduce wages to offset tax costs–research suggests approximately 28% of corporate tax burden falls on workers through lower wages. Companies might relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, taking jobs with them. Reduced profitability could slow business investment and economic growth. Higher costs could deter new businesses from establishing New York operations.

The Counter-Argument

Progressives respond that corporations have reaped massive benefits from New York’s public investments–infrastructure, educated workforce, police and fire protection, courts that enforce contracts–without paying their fair share. According to economist Cristobal Young quoted in The American Prospect, “The key is making sure those revenues are used correctly and doing things that the market does not provide well.”

He cites transportation and early-childhood education–two pillars of Mamdani’s campaign–as examples of investments that benefit businesses by reducing employee commute times and childcare costs. “If we can use the tax revenues to help people along in their careers, and help them raise families, it’s a great investment in the city,” Young argues.

The Real Threat to Mamdani

As In These Times argues, the biggest threat to Mamdani’s agenda isn’t Trump–it’s Wall Street’s structural power over city finances. With private financing necessary for public programs through municipal bonds, the private sector holds ultimate veto power over social policy. It can simply close the purse by demanding higher interest rates on city debt or refusing to purchase bonds.

This dynamic brought an end to New York’s experiments in social democracy during the 1970s fiscal crisis, when banks effectively took control of city finances through the Municipal Assistance Corporation. The political and economic structures that enabled that takeover remain largely unchanged: Federal system makes local changes difficult, requiring approval from Albany or Washington. State governor (Hochul) opposes tax increases needed to fund programs. Business community threatens capital flight to pressure against policy changes. Bond markets can punish city with higher borrowing costs if they dislike policies.

Beyond Electoral Victory

Michael Beyea Reagan, writing in In These Times, concludes: “If Mamdani wins, his victory would bode well for what progressives can achieve. But his plans will get nowhere without disruptive popular movements forcing these changes on the rich.” Electoral success, in other words, is necessary but not sufficient for implementing progressive policy against entrenched economic power.

The secret White House dinner represents Wall Street’s recognition that Mamdani won the election but the battle over policy implementation has just begun. By mobilizing support for Stefanik’s gubernatorial campaign, business interests hope to constrain Mamdani’s agenda from Albany. If that fails, they maintain other levers of power through bond markets and federal relationships.

Cautious Olive Branches

Despite the opposition, some business leaders have offered cautious support for limited elements of Mamdani’s agenda. Antonio Weiss, veteran financier and former U.S. Treasury adviser, told the Financial Times: “There should be no argument with a small tax increase that’s paired with a real effort to make government more efficient.”

Weiss specifically cited childcare programs as worthwhile investments that help retain young families in the city–a priority for businesses concerned about workforce retention. His comments suggest room for negotiation on specific policies, even if business leaders oppose Mamdani’s broader agenda.

Bill Ackman, despite spending $2 million against Mamdani, publicly congratulated him after the election–a gesture some interpret as accepting defeat while others see as maintaining a seat at the negotiating table. According to Business Standard, Wylde has been brokering meetings between Partnership for New York City members and Mamdani in recent months, suggesting pragmatic business leaders are exploring compromise rather than pure opposition.

The Coming Battle

The next two years will determine whether Mamdani can implement his agenda against Wall Street opposition, or whether business interests will successfully block progressive policy through their structural advantages. The secret White House dinner signals that America’s financial elite takes the threat seriously enough to coordinate strategy at the highest levels.

For supporters who elected Mamdani to transform New York’s economy, the dinner serves as a reminder that electoral victory is only the beginning. Sustained organizing, popular mobilization, and possibly disruptive direct action may prove necessary to overcome the entrenched power of billionaires determined to protect their interests.