Washington Post: Democrats are pushing back against crackdown on sanctuary cities

Some responded with strongly worded letters. Others spoke out publicly, accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors.

Democratic state and local officials are forcefully pushing back against threats from Attorney General Pam Bondi that their jurisdictions could be stripped of federal funding or they could face criminal prosecution if they don’t back away from “sanctuary” policies friendly toward suspected undocumented immigrants.

Bondi last week sent a letter to leaders of more than 30 Democratic-led cities, counties and states that accused the jurisdictions of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.

Some responded with their own strongly worded letters. Others seized the moment to speak out in a public show of resistance, accusing Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors amid the political divide over President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics.

But what happens next remains deeply unclear, according to those Democratic officials, who have described the events of the past week as startling and unprecedented, even against the backdrop of the tumultuous launch of the second Trump term. They are staying mum so far about how much they are coordinating with each other to combat potential actions by the administration.

In Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell (D), who is seeking a second term, told The Washington Post that the Aug. 13 letter from Bondi warned that his “jurisdiction” had been “identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement.” It did not reference his city by name, mention specific local laws or policy, or cite Seattle’s crime rates, which Harrell pointed out are “down in all major categories.”

Days later, he was standing behind Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), who had received a nearly identical letter.

“A letter like this cannot be normalized,” Ferguson said Tuesday, speaking to reporters at the state Capitol in Olympia. He called the attorney general’s threats a “breathtaking” tactic aimed at pressuring elected officials to “bend a knee” to Trump.

Ferguson told Bondi in a letter that his state “will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.”

On the opposite coast, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) stepped onto the plaza outside City Hall for a news conference that quickly took on the feel of an anti-Trump rally.

“Stop attacking our cities to hide your administration’s failures,” said Wu, the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. “Boston follows the law, and Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.”

The Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to identify and deport suspected undocumented immigrants include the deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in U.S. cities as they seek to meet a directive from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to make at least 3,000 arrests a day.

Bondi and other Trump administration officials have insisted on cooperation from state and local officials, including access to law enforcement facilities and, in some cases, officers as they seek to step up deportation efforts.

Trump last week ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to D.C. and has sought to expand federal control over D.C. police, claiming the city was not doing enough to stem violent crime. He has indicated that cities like Baltimore, Chicago and New York could be next, likening them to urban hellscapes ruined by crime and lawlessness. All three cities are listed as sanctuary jurisdictions on federal government websites.

On Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.

In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.

Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.

Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.

Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.

Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.

“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensive.”

In his letter to Bondi, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) questioned Bondi’s demand that he identify how he’s working to eliminate laws, policies and practices that she claimed impede federal immigration enforcement.

“In a democracy, governors do not unilaterally ‘eliminate laws.’ The role of the executive is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not to pick and choose which to follow,” wrote Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “In Minnesota, we take pride in following the law.”

New York Mayor Eric Adams, who promised to toughen immigration enforcement in his city after the Trump administration dropped corruption charges against him this spring, did not respond directly to Bondi’s letter. The task was passed on to the city’s corporation counsel, who sent a two-paragraph letter that said the city was not thwarting federal immigration policies but operating under a “system of federalism” that means states and cities do not have to undertake federal mandates.

Kayla Mamelak Altus, a spokeswoman for Adams, said the city was taking Trump’s threat to possibly target New York seriously and preparing for any scenario. But she declined to reveal what that playbook might look like.

In Washington, Ferguson, who previously served as the state’s attorney general before he was elected governor in November, said he had anticipated some dramatic action from the Trump administration. Late last year, before he was sworn into office, Ferguson spoke to state finance officials to determine how the state would fare fiscally if it lost federal funding, which makes up 28 percent of the budget.

But Ferguson did not anticipate Bondi’s threat to potentially prosecute him or any other elected official in the country over differences in policy. As attorney general, he had been the first to file a lawsuit over Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban visitors and refugees from several predominantly Muslim countries.

On Tuesday, Ferguson recalled trying to reassure his 8-year-old daughter at the time, who worried something might happen to him for challenging Trump.

“I remember telling her … ‘We’re lucky to live in a country right where your dad, or any American, can speak out against the president, where your dad can file a lawsuit against the president, say things that are pretty direct about the president, be critical,’” Ferguson recalled.

It was something they shouldn’t take for granted, he told her, because in other countries people could get sent to jail for something like that.

Eight years later, Ferguson said he didn’t know what he would say to his daughter now of that freedom to challenge a president. “Maybe I’m not so sure about that,” the governor said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/22/sanctuary-cities-bondi

Also here without the paywall:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-are-pushing-back-against-crackdown-on-sanctuary-cities/ar-AA1L119n

USA Today: Elise Stefanik booed off podium at local event

The Republican congresswoman went to a small New York town to honor the death of a local politician. She wasn’t exactly welcomed.

Elise Stefanik isn’t usually the one in the hot seat.

The Republican congresswoman from New York has built her no-holds-barred political brand around grilling college presidents during congressional hearings.

But it was her turn to face intense public scrutiny on Aug. 18, when she was met with a wave of loud boos from the crowd during an event to honor a late local politician in the town of Plattsburgh. The jeering, which went viral, was so bad that she gave up on speaking and passed the microphone back to others on stage.

“Shame!” protesters shouted, along with “Unseal the Epstein files!”

“It is a disgusting disgrace that this is what the far left does,” she later told a local news outlet.

It’s the latest instance of a GOP lawmaker encountering unhappy consituents in recent months. Anger over the economic impact of tariffs, the president’s new tax and spending law and cuts to the federal workforce has prompted a series of acrimonious town halls across the country.

The Democratic National Committee siezed on the moment, writing in a post on X: “That’s what happens when you sell out your constituents to Donald Trump.”

The moment comes at a changing political time for Stefanik as she eyes a run for governor of New York statePresident Donald Trump pulled her nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations earlier this year.

It sucks to be a Republican these days!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/19/elise-stefanik-gets-booed-off-stage/85722064007

Slingshot News: ‘We Will Take A Look’: Sec. Kristi Noem Dodges Questions On Illegality Of Masked ICE Agents In House Hearing

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/we-will-take-a-look-sec-kristi-noem-dodges-questions-on-illegality-of-masked-ice-agents-in-house-hearing/vi-AA1KRpQO

Raw Story: ‘Please reconsider’: GOP senators plead with Trump to stand down from latest fight

President Donald Trump’s ploy to bully Senate Republicans into dropping a longstanding rule about presidential nominations appears to have crashed and burned, Politico reported on Tuesday — with lawmakers holding their ground against him in a way they generally dare not do.

The drama began in July, when Trump lashed out at 91-year-old Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA), calling him “weak and ineffective” and demanding he axe “blue slips,” the tradition that committees must have the approval of a nominee’s home state senators to advance a nominee.

Republicans already weakened blue slip rules for circuit court nominees in 2017, which is how Trump’s former personal lawyer Emil Bove got a circuit court appointment earlier this year despite objections from both of New Jersey’s senators. But they have been adamantly against eliminating them for district court judges or executive nominations.

Grassley pushed back, taking umbrage at Trump’s “personal insults” against him, and the broader Senate GOP caucus followed suit. According to Politico, there’s no sign of the GOP backing down — they may tinker with nomination rules to speed up confirmations on the Senate floor, but they won’t eliminate blue slips or weaken the committee vetting process.

Unlike in many other cases of resistance against Trump, where GOP lawmakers have given quotes anonymously, some senators are being quite open in rebuffing the president, with Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) telling Politico, “As a practical matter, the Senate’s not going to give up the blue slip. So my appeal to the president is: please reconsider. Why do we want to have this fight for nothing?”

There’s a key reason GOP senators don’t want to undermine their rules for Trump’s benefit here, strategists told Politico: they know it would backfire on them.

Mike Fragoso, a former adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “argued that even Republicans wary of crossing the president now have taken advantage of the blue slip policy when Democrats held power. He added that there are relatively few bench seats in solidly Democratic states that Trump could even fill now without consent from Democrats,” noted the report. This means Trump would get very few judges nominated by totally eliminating blue slips, but a future Democratic president could flood red states with district court judges of their own.

Beyond judges, however, Trump is being stymied by blue slips when it comes to appointing federal prosecutors.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has blocked Jay Clayton’s confirmation to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, while New Jersey’s senators have blocked another personal Trump lawyer, Alina Habba, for the prosecutor office there, prompting a standoff where Trump’s Justice Department has skirted rules and reversed decisions of local judges to install her on an acting basis.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-grassley-2673900010

Alternet: ‘Novel take on the Constitution’: Trump gives away the game on claim GOP is ‘party of states’ rights’

CNN analyst Aaron Blake said President Donald Trump is now leading Republican party in its assault on states’ rights.

“[Trump] has spent much of his second term attempting to chip away at states’ rights — or at least, the ones he doesn’t like,” said Blake, adding that Trump more recently referred to states as subservient to the federal government in a pitch to get rid of mail-in voting and voting machines.

“Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” the president posted on Truth Social. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, for the good of our country, to do.”

This was not Trump’s first reference to states as “agents” of the federal government, but it was one of the first that referenced himself personally as more powerful.

“This is a rather novel take on the Constitution, to put it mildly,” said Blake, explaining that the Constitution says the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections … shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Congress may tweak regulations, but there is no role for the president.

“And Trump isn’t saying that Congress should outlaw mail-in voting or voting machines, mind you. Instead, he’s saying the states ‘must’ get rid of them because he tells them to — apparently because he was elected president and because he has determined it’s “for the good of the country,” said Blake. “This is merely the latest in a long line of drastic Trump claims to power.

Trump claimed during his first term that the Constitution gave him absolute power, even when out of office, reports Blake. He’s “floated terminating portions of the Constitution, while repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.” Earlier this year, Blake notes Trump suggesting his actions “couldn’t be illegal as long as he was acting to ‘save’ the country.”

These things are inconsistent with decades of conservative orthodoxy, which holds that the federal government should be small and that states should lead the way, said Blake. The 2016, Republican Party platform devoted an entire section to states’ rights, arguing “Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans.”

But since then, Blake says Trump has issued executive orders targeting state and local governments’ “sanctuary” policies, and he’s directed the DOJ to block states from enforcing their own pollution laws. He’s also dispatched troops to Los Angeles without the consent of the governor and federalized the police in Washington, DC. He also tried unsuccessfully to block funding to New York for trying to curb traffic congestion and threatened other state’s funding over transgender rights.

Blake said “if nothing else,” Trump’s latest Truth Social post “has finally said how he really feels about the concept of states’ rights.”

https://www.alternet.org/trump-washingotn-dc-troops

Mirror US: Trump mocked by Gavin Newsom on socials as he ditches all caps writing style

California Governor Gavin Newsom has been relentlessly poking fun at Trump, and it seems to be influencing the way the former US President crafts his social media posts.

Supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are taking notice as the high-profile Democrat starts using Trump’s own brash and cheeky tactics against him.

As the leader of the country’s most populous state, Newsom is leading the charge as Democrats try to counteract Trump’s confrontational political style.

This comes after lawmakers in Texas pledged to redraw the state’s electoral boundaries in an attempt to tip the 2026 midterm elections in favor of the Republicans.

In a move reminiscent of Trump’s somewhat erratic style, Newsom announced his plans to implement similar redistricting measures, using all caps and heaping praise on himself. He also took a swipe at Trump’s controversial Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, calling her KaroLYIN and saying she’ll be left scrambling to answer press questions about the new electoral maps.

He even went so far as to claim these maps are ‘the greatest maps ever created’ and ‘even superior to those of Christopher Columbus’.

A statement from Newsom posted late Wednesday night read: “WOW! TOMORROW HISTORY WILL BE MADE. KaroLYIN LEAVITT WILL HAVE NO ANSWERS FOR THE SUPPOSED ‘FAKE MEDIA’ ABOUT CALIFORNIA’S BEAUTIFUL MAPS. PEOPLE ARE SAYING THEY ARE THE GREATEST MAPS EVER CREATED – EVEN BETTER THAN CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS’. DONALD ‘THE FAILURE’ TRUMP BE WARNED, TOMORROW MAY BE THE WORST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. ALL BECAUSE YOU ‘MISSED THE DEADLINE.’ LIBERATION DAY FOR AMERICA! ! ! – GCN”.

It appears Newsom’s jabs are getting under Donald Trump’s skin, with the former President seemingly using fewer capitalized letters in his recent Truth Social posts.

The shift was spotted on X, with one user sharing a screenshot of Trump’s less-capitalized messages. They posted: “The funniest thing about this is ever since Newsom started mocking him, Trump has stopped posting in all caps.”

Trump’s chaotic social media behavior has already resumed, but it suggests Newsom might be making an impression on him.

Texas Legislature Democrats initially fought back by blocking Republican measures through departing the state, but now multiple Democratic governors have pledged to establish new districts within their own states to counter potential Republican gains in Washington. Their approach has built steam through nationwide fundraising drives, media blitzes and public rallies, including demonstrations held across the country on Saturday.

Newsom joined forces with JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York, showing solidarity with Texas Democrats and pledging to retaliate through redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who obediently responds “yes, sir” to Trump’s orders.

Hochul labeled Texas Republicans as “lawbreaking cowboys.”

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/gavin-newsom-donald-trump-1335709

Law & Crime: Judge shreds Trump admin for ‘nonsensical’ bid to terminate 28-year policy that protects immigrant children in federal custody

A federal judge in California has shot down an attempt by the Trump administration to scrub away the government’s 28-year-old Flores Settlement Agreement, which calls for court-mandated oversight on the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a 20-page order on Friday, keeping the 1997 agreement in place as Justice Department lawyers “fail to identify any new facts or law” that warrant its termination “at this time,” according to the Barack Obama appointee.

The administration had previously tried terminating the Flores agreement in 2019 at the end of Donald Trump‘s first term, but was unsuccessful then, too. Gee reportedly called a hearing last week on the matter “deja vu” as the government tried propping up similar arguments.

“The court remains unconvinced,” Gee wrote in Friday’s order. “There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law.”

Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, immigrant children must be held at “state-licensed” facilities — treated properly and humanely — before being released into the custody of family members or guardians “as expeditiously as possible,” per Gee’s order. The settlement is named after Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old detainee who sparked a class-action lawsuit to be filed in 1985.

The Trump administration recently argued that the Flores agreement was no longer needed because Congress had approved legislation to help deal with the issues the settlement addressed. It also claimed that government agencies had implemented practices and standards to ensure youths were being treated properly.

“The legal basis for the agreement has withered away,” DOJ lawyers argued in a May 22 motion for relief. “Congress enacted legislation protecting UACs [unaccompanied alien children], and the agencies promulgated detailed standards and regulations implementing that legislation and the terms of the FSA,” the lawyers said, blasting the agreement as an “intrusive regime” that has “ossified” federal immigration policy.

“The legal and policy landscape has also changed beyond recognition,” they added.

Gee noted Friday how she had heard this all before.

“These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical,” the judge blasted.

“Incredulously, defendants posit that DHS need not promulgate regulations containing an expeditious release provision because ‘this Court has interpreted [expeditious release] to apply to accompanied children,'” Gee explained. “But ‘the FSA was intended to provide for prompt release of unaccompanied children.’ This is plainly incorrect and ignores the rulings of at least three separate courts.”

Gee concluded her order by saying it was ultimately the Trump administration that “continues to bind itself to the FSA by failing to fulfill its side of the parties’ bargain.”

Lawyers for immigrant children named in the class action complaint that spurred all this have said Trump’s second term has seen similar violations of the Flores agreement that have been alleged in the past.

“In CBP facilities across the country, including in cases documented by class counsel in New York, Maine, Illinois, Ohio, Arizona, Texas, and California, plaintiffs report being held for days and sometimes weeks in restrictive, traumatic conditions,” the lawyers said in a June 17 motion to enforce the FSA. One parent, whose allegations were included in the motion, described how they and their child were held at a facility where “the rooms have hard walls, like cement, and there is a window facing the hall but you cannot go out or see the sun,” per the motion.

“We are never allowed to go out,” the parent said. “The children keep telling us, ‘This is not America.’ They feel imprisoned and confused. They are seeing the sun for the first time in this interview room. They both ran to the window and stared out, and my son asked, ‘Is that America?'”

The plaintiffs’ lawyers accused the Trump administration of wanting to be released from the settlement “not because they have complied with and will continue to observe its fundamental principles, but because they want the flexibility to treat children however they wish,” according to the June motion.

DOJ officials did not respond to Law&Crime’s requests for comment Sunday.

Wall Street Journal: Court Split Leaves Trump’s Civil Fraud Appeal Stuck In Slow Lane


The pathetic loser con-man in the White House is trying to dodge a $500,000,000 judgment for civil fraud.


The New York court weighing President Trump’s appeal of a roughly $500 million civil-fraud judgment typically acts swiftly and unanimously, with many of its decisions coming within weeks after hearing arguments.

Trump’s experience stands out as an unusual exception.

A five-justice panel has yet to render a decision nearly a year after taking up the case, leaving him and his business in limbo. Behind the scenes, members of the panel have been divided, and three of them have been writing opinions, according to people familiar with the matter. It couldn’t be determined how they are split. Justices do occasionally shift their positions, and the number of opinions could change, the people said.

A spokesman for the New York state court system said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said, “It is time for the New York Courts to step in and end this witch hunt once and for all.”

For the New York Appellate Division’s First Department, the Trump matter is among the most high-profile cases in its history, and the outcome could influence future business regulation in the state. For Trump, whose legal entanglements largely faded after his return to the White House, the fraud case is his main private legal headache. At stake isn’t only the half-billion dollar penalty, growing by the day with interest, but the possibility that his sons could be barred from running his family company in the near term. The president asks regularly why the court hasn’t ruled, said people who speak to him.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, sued Trump in 2022, alleging he fraudulently inflated the value of parts of his real-estate empire for financial benefit, primarily lower-interest loans. Justice Arthur Engoron presided over a monthslong civil trial and ruled James proved her case, which relied upon a state statute that grants the attorney general broad authority to investigate “persistent fraud or illegality” in business.

The judge in February 2024 ordered Trump to pay more than $350 million plus interest and imposed an array of other sanctions that restricted the Trump Organization from borrowing money and effectively prohibited Trump’s two eldest sons from running the business for two years. Trump quickly appealed, and the First Department put those restrictions on hold while it considered the case.

The appeals court heard arguments this past September, and some of the judges’ questions appeared favorable to Trump. One wondered whether there should be some “guardrails” on the attorney general’s power. Another questioned the size of the judgment. “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. A lawyer for James defended it: “There was a lot of fraud.”

Other justices appeared to see James’s lawsuit as within the bounds of the law, despite the Trump lawyers’ arguments that banks didn’t lose money and no victims were harmed. Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick noted the statute refers to “persistent fraud or illegality,” but not harm.

Lengthy waits and disagreeing judges are a common occurrence on some appeals courts. But recent leadership of the First Judicial Department, which reviews thousands of lower-court decisions and motions annually, has emphasized speed.

The First Department typically issues decisions within 30 days, according to a 2024 court report. For each of the past five years, that report said, the court began its new annual session each September with zero pending and undecided appeals.

“Is this normal? No,” said Bill White, a lawyer at appellate consulting firm Counsel Press. “This is something I imagine they are anxious to have on their docket for so long, with everyone’s expectation and the pressure building.”

Alongside that promptness has come unanimity. From 2024 through this July, the court decided roughly 2,900 appeals, according to an analysis of public court data. Only about two dozen of those rulings—or less than .01%—came with a recorded dissent.

If the court upholds the trial judge’s decision, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. would be barred from holding a position as an officer of a New York company for two years. Trump and his company for three years couldn’t apply for loans from financial institutions registered in New York. The losing side can appeal to the state’s highest court.

The wait has cost the company. It is paying a court-appointed monitor, the former federal judge Barbara Jones, whom Trump lawyers previously accused of charging “exorbitant fees” amounting to more than $2.6 million over 14 months. On top of that, Trump has paid more than $2 million in fees on the bond he secured to guarantee the judgment while he appeals, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The panel hearing the Trump appeal includes four judges appointed by Democratic governors and one Republican appointee, David Friedman, who is regarded as among the most conservative of the court’s 21 members. The court’s presiding justice, Renwick, also on the panel, is viewed as a stalwart liberal who has an institutional interest in seeking consensus and guarding the court’s reputation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-split-leaves-trump-s-civil-fraud-appeal-stuck-in-slow-lane/ar-AA1KIITl

Midwesterner: SHOCK POLL: 23% of CONSERVATIVE New York voters back socialist mayor candidate Zohran Mamdani

Just 40% of conservative voters are supporting Republican Curtis Sliwa

The chances of New York City electing a member of the Democratic Socialists of America as mayor seem to be growing by the day.

shock poll released this week by the Siena Research Institute shows 23% of self-described conservative voters plan to back socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani, who is running as a Democrat. Election Day is November 4.

The poll, of 813 registered voters taken August 4-7, found just 40% of conservative voters are supporting Republican Curtis Sliwa. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams captures 9% while former Gov. Andrew Cuomo earns 18% of votes from conservative voters.

Oddly, the same poll found Mamdani with just a 7% favorable rating among conservative voters. 42% of conservatives view Sliwa favorably.

The poll found Mamdani well under the significant 50% threshold, indicating Mamdani opponents could theoretically consolidate their support to thwart the socialist who has pledged higher taxes for rich city residents, government-owned grocery stores, and less privately owned property.. 44% of voters plan to support him in the general election. Cuomo is in second at 25%.

Meanwhile, 76% of conservative voters have a favorable view of President Donald Trump. 77% of voters who identify as Republicans view him favorably. Those results are significantly lower than other surveys that find support for Trump among Republicans in the high 80s or low 90s.

This is a good omen for the 2026 mid-terms!

https://www.themidwesterner.news/2025/08/shock-poll-23-of-conservative-new-york-voters-back-socialist-mayor-candidate-zohran-mamdani