Mayor refuses to condemn Council Member's call to deport Zohran Mamdani
NEW YORK CITY (PIX11) – Mayor Eric Adams stopped short of condemning a council member's post suggesting state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, a U.S. citizen who is running for mayor, be deported.
Brooklyn City Council Member Vickie Paladino posted to X on Monday, calling his politics 'radical' and questioning his ability for office.
More Local News
'Let's just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn't even been a US citizen for ten years—much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country,' Paladino wrote. 'Deport.'
When asked about Paladino's remarks Tuesday, Adams suggested everyone needs to tone down their rhetoric, not just Paladino.
'I am not going to point out one specific comment… We all need to tone down our rhetoric,' Adams said. 'Everybody needs to tone down their mean-spirit, hateful language. And I'm not going to point out Council Member Paladino. I want to point us all out.'
Mamdani, who became a naturalized citizen in 2018, said Paladino's remarks are a reflection of President Donald Trump's 'authoritarian' deportation efforts in New York City.
More: Latest News from Around the Tri-State
'This isn't just hateful rhetoric — it's a reflection of what happens when Donald Trump's authoritarian administration is allowed to shove New Yorkers into unmarked vehicles, tear our communities apart and spit in the face of the Constitution,' Mamdani said.
This, along with death threats and Islamophobic attacks, won't slow his campaign down, Mamdani said.
'The MAGA extremists may try to divide us, but the movement we've built is proof of the enduring promise of this city,' he said. 'And we're not going anywhere.'
Emily Rahhal is a digital reporter who has covered New York City since 2023 after reporting in Los Angeles for years. She joined PIX11 in 2024. See more of her work here and follow her on Twitter here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's attacks on the rule of law threaten all Americans
Since returning to the White House, President Trump has repeatedly and persistently misused his executive authority to attack and intimidate anyone who would dare to check him. In his first few months, he has gone after the free press, encroached on the independence of Congress and the courts, stifled institutions of higher learning, fired inspectors general and others inside the federal government who could hold him accountable, and even targeted law firms that represent clients he dislikes. These abuses of power trample the values of our democracy and violate the rights of everyday Americans. When a president threatens law firms for retribution, it's an attack on the constitutional rights of all Americans to access legal counsel, voice dissent and make clear what we expect from our leaders. As attorney general of Minnesota, I know lawyers are not just spectators to the Constitution — we are its agents. We defend laws that protect people from harm. We hold bad actors accountable. We take a solemn oath to respect the courts. And when the executive branch oversteps the bounds of its authority, state attorneys general check the federal government to protect our residents' rights. Above all, we stand for the rule of law. But attacks on the rule of law have become a hallmark of the new administration. President Trump has disparaged federal judges as 'lunatics' and called for their impeachment, earning the reprimand of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has ignored court orders after illegally deporting a lawful U.S. resident without due process, treading close to charges of contempt. He has signed executive orders to punish some of the largest law firms in the country because they dared to go against him in court or take on clients he viewed as political enemies. When 'Meet the Press' recently asked the president if his job is to uphold the Constitution, he said, 'I don't know.' But that is absolutely his job: The president took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and we all watched him do it. To disregard this duty is unacceptable and alarming. These escalating attacks on courts, judges, lawyers and the rule of law are a blatant attempt to avoid accountability and to intimidate the people whose job it is to uphold the Constitution. Fortunately, our legal system is showing its resilience in the face of these attacks. A federal judge made it abundantly clear last week that the president's retaliation campaign against law firms is unconstitutional. In a powerful 102-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell called the president's executive order against Perkins Coie — a law firm that has represented Trump's opponents — an 'unprecedented attack' on our foundational principles. She issued a warning that we should all take heed of: 'Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.' The ruling is a heartening decision for the rule of law. But we must stay vigilant: Trump has a boundless appetite for retaliation against anyone who sides with the truth over his lies. In addition to his attacks on Perkins Coie and other firms, last month, the president called on the Department of Justice to investigate and sanction officials from his prior administration because they had the audacity to defy him. In one executive order, Trump called Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 'abusive' because he said the 2020 election was secure and accurate. We have seen what happens when the president's allies side with Trump instead of the truth and the rule of law. Even when Trump manages to escape accountability, those around him often do not. The failed campaign to overturn the accurate results of the 2020 election led to the punishment of several unethical attorneys behind it, such as John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. They were held accountable by state and federal justice departments, as well as several state bar authorities, for failing to uphold their oaths as attorneys committed to the rule of law. In this challenging time, when Americans' right to choose their counsel and defend their constitutional rights is under attack, lawyers who serve the public have a critical role to play. But those who want to honor their oaths to the American public are in a difficult position — we've already seen government lawyers who stand up to the administration dismissed from their positions. We should all be ready to support them for honoring their values, and for sharing the truth of the administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law. And they should know that attorneys general across the states are standing with them, working to ensure the law applies equally to everyone. As attorneys and public servants, our loyalty must be to faithfully execute and defend the law, not bow to the bully in the White House. Keith Ellison is attorney general of Minnesota. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AOC Endorses Socialist Upstart Zohran Mamdani For NYC Mayor
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has endorsed Zohran Mamdani for New York City's mayor, giving the progressive state assemblyman a hopeful boost mere weeks ahead of the Democratic primary that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo has dominated in the polls. 'Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack,' Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times Thursday, ahead of the release of a formal endorsement. 'In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that.' In a statement recognizing her endorsement, Mamdani hailed Ocasio-Cortez as a 'once-in-a-generation leader who has led the fight for working people in Congress.' 'On June 24, with [Ocasio-Cortez's] support and this movement behind us, we will do the same,' he said, referring to the race's fast-approaching primary. Mamdani, 33, is similar to Ocasio-Cortez, 35, in that he is a New York City Democratic Socialist, a millennial and a person of color who has quickly risen in popularity through grassroots efforts in their shared borough of Queens. He has vowed to freeze rent increases on rent-stabilized apartments, offer free childcare, open city-run grocery stores to reduce food prices, and make city buses free. While Cuomo has dominated his competitors in polling since early 2025, Mamdani has surged in recent weeks ― gaining 23 points in one recent poll ― while holding tight to a second-place rank among the nine Democratic candidates. In the primary's first debate Wednesday night, Mamdani and his competitors railed at Cuomo over campaign donations he's received from the ultra-rich, which Mamdani said put him in the pocket of those who elected President Donald Trump. They also highlighted the sexual misconduct accusations that led to Cuomo's 2021 resignation. Cuomo, who has denied the sexual misconduct accusations and influence by political donors, meanwhile, attacked Mamdani as too inexperienced and green to lead. 'Donald Trump would go through Mr. Mamdani like a hot knife through butter,' Cuomo said. 'He's been in government 27 minutes. He passed three bills, that's all he's done.' Incumbent New York City Mayor Eric Adams is running for reelection as an independent and did not participate in the debate. Cuomo Faces Wave Of Attacks In Chaotic NYC Mayoral Debate This NYC Mayoral Candidate Says He Has 1 Thing Cuomo Doesn't Eric Adams Will Skip Democratic Primary, Run As An Independent DOJ Opens Criminal Investigation Into Andrew Cuomo, AP Source Says Expert Tells Judge To Drop Charges Against NYC Mayor Without Letting Them Be Refiled
