
Can Mamdani's Message Play Outside New York? It Already Has.
But the emphasis on Mr. Mamdani's style overlooks the substance of his progressive message and how the city's voters came to embrace it, much as voters did in Boston in 2021 and in Chicago two years later.
Those elections, along with recent polling on issues like rent control, wealth taxes and the burden of child care, suggest that many voters, particularly those in large Democratic-leaning cities, have become more receptive to progressive agendas.
Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman and democratic socialist, adhered to a simple message in his primary campaign. New York, he said, was in the throes of an affordability crisis, and he had three main proposals to help: make city buses free, expand free child care and freeze the rent for stabilized apartments.
The financial burden of paying for these policies, he suggested, would largely fall on wealthy taxpayers and businesses — a stance that has put Mr. Mamdani at odds with many mainstream Democrats, including Gov. Kathy Hochul. But the size of his victory has forced some in his party to grapple with his ascension and whether to adopt some of his messaging in next year's critical midterm elections.
'People are hungry for government to work and to get things done that matter and that will make a difference in their lives,' said Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston, who in 2021 became the city's youngest mayor in a century by pushing a similar slate of proposals.
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


New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Europe Cuts a Trade Deal With Trump, Worried About Other Global Issues
Survive and advance. That phrase, favored by sports teams in big tournaments, sums up Europe's approach to the trade negotiations it just wrapped with the Trump administration. For Europe, surviving in the first year of President Trump's second term means reaching an agreement on a trade deal that almost certainly won't help the continental economy — but isn't as bad as it could have been. Advancing means keeping Mr. Trump engaged in the foreign policy issues that have preoccupied many European leaders more this summer than their own domestic economic struggles. Those issues include the fate of the Iranian nuclear program, the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and, most important, Ukraine's ongoing war against Russia's invasion. The trade deal is centered on a tariff of 15 percent on most goods imposed by the United States on imports from the European Union. It reflects a sort of risk aversion from leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission; Friedrich Merz, the chancellor of Germany; and Emmanuel Macron, the president of France. Those leaders were not willing to risk escalating a trade war that could have hurt European companies more than Mr. Trump's tariffs already have. And they were not willing to risk deepening a diplomatic rift with the United States, the country Europeans have repeatedly cast as a crucial peace broker. 'It will bring stability,' Ms. von der Leyen said at a news conference with Mr. Trump in Scotland on Sunday. 'It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' Europe could have fought Mr. Trump longer, hoping for better terms. E.U. members had already agreed to a set of retaliatory tariffs on about $100 billion in American exports to Europe, which they could have decided to trigger if Mr. Trump had followed through on his threat to tax European exports at 30 percent starting on Aug. 1. Mr. Trump had pushed similar deadlines back before. In recent days, statements from German, French and other officials suggested members of the bloc were moving closer together on the questions of whether to actually retaliate, and when. They had reasons to do that. The European Union could use more economic growth. Economists outside the Trump administration have generally warned that tariffs hurt growth instead of boosting it. (In their models, tariffs on imports hurt American growth, too.) Europe's leaders generally agree with those economists. 'These tariffs, regardless of their long-term level, harm us all,' Mr. Merz told reporters this month, before the deal was struck. 'Not just us Europeans, but, in my firm conviction, also harm the American economy in the longer term.' But a moment later, Mr. Merz sounded resigned to a big tariff increase no matter what deal was struck. 'President Trump repeatedly emphasizes that he loves tariffs,' he said. 'This means we will have to accept that the American government will act this way, at least as long as the trade deficit persists from their perspective.' In a news release on Sunday, Mr. Merz cheered the deal but added, almost wistfully, 'I would have certainly welcomed further facilitation of trans-Atlantic trade.' The chancellor and his counterparts across Europe have expressed no such resignation when it comes to Mr. Trump and Ukraine. In phone calls and text messages, on treks to the White House and in summit meetings in Canada and the Netherlands, they have pushed him to shake off his friendliness with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and to back Kyiv in its war effort. The Europeans have flattered Mr. Trump. They have exhorted him. And they have refused to back down from their grand hope that American support for Ukraine could force Mr. Putin into peace talks and bring an end to the conflict. Sunday's deal reduces the chances that trade tensions will complicate that or other foreign policy appeals to Mr. Trump. But it does not eliminate them. Canada and Mexico illustrate why. They renegotiated their trade agreement with the United States in Mr. Trump's first term — only to find themselves back in talks now. 'We'd caution strongly against taking the announced deals as the final word,' researchers from Pantheon Macroeconomics, a research firm that focuses on the global economy, warned this week, citing court challenges and other uncertainty. Many European officials privately say the same is true of Mr. Trump's pledges of support for Ukraine or his commitment to the defense of NATO allies should they come under attack. They know his positions can change. His mood can shift. The terms of his deals are always subject to renegotiation. That's the thing about surviving and advancing with Mr. Trump. Every day brings another game.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump deal with Europe underlines new standard of (at least) 15% tariffs
One thing was clear about a vague trade deal announced Sunday by President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: a headline tariff rate of 15% on European goods. It's the latest example of a new tariff floor for Trump that has been backed by other recent deals and letters, including one with Japan this past week that also saw a 15% rate. "We'll have a straight simple tariff of anywhere between 15% and 50%," Trump asserted. Both Trump and von der Leyen highlighted the 15% rate Sunday after their meeting in Scotland. Trump claimed a 'straight-across tariff of 15%' for 'automobiles and everything else,' adding that US exports to Europe would face a 0% rate. Von der Leyen confirmed the 15% tariffs 'across the board and inclusive," adding that it would bring stability and predictability to US-Europe relations. Comments later in the day from the European Commission President suggested that it might be a little more complex and that the deal also included "zero for zero tariffs on a number of strategic products" including aircraft components and other products like some minerals. Trump added that the deal includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new EU purchases of U.S. energy as well as military equipment. The 15% rate may get a mixed reaction in Europe after negotiators had previously pushed for free trade (or more recently a 10% rate), but it's a halving from the 30% tariffs Trump promised in a letter earlier this month. Sunday's agreement with the European Union — America's largest trading partner — comes following agreements with Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia with saw tariff rates of between 19% and 20%. Only one negotiation has seen Trump agree to a tariff below 15% — a pact with the UK in May — with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent writing earlier this month that "usually the first person who makes a deal makes the best deal." Some details unclear Trump also said Sunday that many of the remaining countries facing a deadline of Aug. 1 would face a letter dictating rates, saying they would be be 'very universal for most' and that the European deal is 'the big one.' The president said three to four additional countries could be in for deals in the coming days while most nations would simply get letters. In any case, the 15% baseline is a shift — even from recent weeks. Trump earlier this month said that many countries would see a rate of 'probably 10% or 15%, we haven't decided yet.' Even last Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CBS: "You should assume that the small countries... will have a baseline tariff of 10%." This new standard is also notable fulfillment of an oft-made campaign trail promise that saw the then-candidate pledge to create a "ring around the collar" of the US economy with a blanket rate of between 10% and 20%. Fulfilling that pledge — which was often dismissed as unrealistic at the time — has now become not only accepted but even a plus for markets after six months of Trump's second term have seen threats of higher duties that have reordered world trade actions. The recent announcement of the deal with Japan with a 15% tariff on goods like autos was welcomed by traders and helped fuel rises in US markets as well as the Japanese Nikkei 225, which immediately surged on the news. Japanese automakers in particular saw a jump after that deal as those companies celebrated a lowering of auto tariffs from 25% to 15%. European automakers now find themselves in a similar position. Trump, meanwhile, says he has no plans to amended his other sector specific tariffs as part of the European Union deal — even as Von der Leyen suggested they would largely be covered by the deal. There are 50% tariffs currently levied on steel and aluminum (with planned duties at the same rate on copper), and Trump said Sunday that those tariffs are a "worldwide thing that stays the way it is." Trump also reiterated his promises of sectoral tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals to be rolled out, which could be much higher than 15% — unless Europe gets a carveout. And Von der Leyen suggested the 15% rate would apply in comments later Sunday when she said the 15% rate would apply to "the vast majority of EU cars, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals" as she called the rate "a clear ceiling." Also on Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that a new semiconductor tariffs are nearly ready and would be unveiled in about "two weeks time." This story has been updated with additional developments. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed gets fresh legal headache with lawsuit seeking to make FOMC rate meetings public
The Federal Reserve got a new legal headache Thursday when a money manager sued Chair Jerome Powell and other central bank policymakers in a Washington, D.C., federal court. The lawsuit alleges the Fed is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its monetary policy meetings behind closed doors. Azoria Capital's lawsuit asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to open its deliberations to the public starting Tuesday and Wednesday, when central bank policymakers gather in Washington to decide on their next interest rate move. This comes as the Fed is under pressure on several fronts by President Trump, highlighted by an unusual presidential visit to the central bank for a tour of the $2.5 billion refurbishment of its National Mall buildings. Trump and other administration officials have criticized the project for its cost overruns. Azoria Capital, the money manager bringing the new lawsuit against Powell and other members of the FOMC, is led by CEO James Fishback, who is close to the Trump administration and served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Last year, Fishback used Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club as the setting to announce an anti-DEI exchange-traded fund called the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF (SPXM), which began trading this month on the New York Stock Exchange. Azoria argues in its suit that "by operating beyond public scrutiny, the FOMC is deliberately undermining the public accountability envisioned by Congress," and that if a firm such as Azoria does not have real-time access to FOMC deliberations, it "cannot fully consider and protect itself against Federal Reserve policy shifts that can create volatility." Azoria also states in its suit that it "is deeply concerned that the FOMC, under Chair Jerome Powell, is maintaining high interest rates to undermine President Donald J. Trump and his economic agenda, to the detriment of American citizens and the American economy" and that the FOMC's current policy stance "appears politically motivated." Fishback made the administration aware of the suit before it was filed, according to a person familiar with the matter. The FOMC has not changed interest rates since Trump took office, as many policymakers argue that more time is needed to assess how Trump's trade policies will affect inflation. Trump has repeatedly hammered Powell and the Fed for this view, arguing that rates should be three percentage points lower. Investors don't expect the Fed to change rates at the meeting on July 29-30, although two Fed governors have said they could support a cut. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts The Fed's current policy stance, according to Azoria's suit, "raises serious questions about whether politics, not economics, are driving monetary policy. These questions emphasize the need for transparency from the FOMC." The law in question cited by Azoria in its suit is the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, passed after President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal roiled Washington and led to calls for increased transparency in the US government. The act requires federal agencies to keep their meetings open to the public. But it also allows for private meetings in cases covered as exemptions, including when the release of that information could be used in financial speculation. The Fed has cited that exemption in justifying why it holds closed meetings when discussing monetary policy. But Azoria says "not all FOMC deliberations inherently trigger financial speculation" and that the law states that to claim one of these exemptions, the agency must vote to invoke it and then, within one day, publish an explanation of why it made that decision. Azoria said the FOMC has "brazenly flouted this mandate" for five decades, holding nothing but closed meetings since 1977. "The FOMC's decades-long policy of blanket secrecy is unlawful." Alexis Keenan contributed to this article. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio