Zohran Mamdani Proposes Taxing 'Whiter Neighborhoods' in NYC
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
New York City's Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has said he wants to "shift the tax burden" to "richer and whiter neighborhoods" if he secures election in November.
A housing policy document on Mamdani's official website includes a pledge to "shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods."
Newsweek contacted the Mamdani campaign for comment via email on Friday outside of regular office hours.
Why It Matters
Mamdani's proposal has already sparked a backlash with one conservative commentator branding him racist and urging New Yorkers to support incumbent Mayor Eric Adams instead, who is running in November as an independent.
The New York mayoral election campaign has already turned bitter with several Republicans suggesting Mamdani, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Uganda, should be stripped of his American citizenship and deported.
What To Know
Mamdani's official campaign website features a policy memo under the title "Supporting homeowners and ending deed theft."
The document says that if elected his administration will "Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods."
It adds: "The property tax system is unbalanced because assessment levels are artificially capped, so homeowners in expensive neighborhoods pay less than their fair share. The Mayor can fix this by pushing class assessment percentages down for everyone and adjusting rates up, effectively lowering tax payments for homeowners in neighborhoods like Jamaica and Brownsville while raising the amount paid in the most expensive Brooklyn brownstones."
New York mayoral candidate, State Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-NY) speaks to supporters during an election night gathering on June 24, 2025 in New York City.
New York mayoral candidate, State Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-NY) speaks to supporters during an election night gathering on June 24, 2025 in New York City.
Michael M. Santiago/GETTY
The document asserts that currently New York City taxes "family homes in Black and Latino neighborhoods like Jamaica, Brownsville, and Tremont more than it does in wealthier neighborhoods of the city."
On Tuesday Mamdani, who began the campaign as a rank outsider, defeated former New York State governor Andrew Cuomo to secure the 2025 Democratic nomination for the New York mayoralty.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist, is running on a platform that includes a number of radical reforms such as creating city-owned grocery stores, offering free childcare to all New Yorkers with children aged between six weeks and five years and imposing a 2 percent tax on all residents earning more than $1 million annually.
On Thursday bookmaker Star Sports was offering odds of 1/4 (80 percent) on Mamdani winning this year's New York mayoral election, ahead of Adams in second place on 7/2 (22.2 percent).
What People Are Saying
On X Eric Daugherty, assistant news director for conservative leaning publication Florida's Voice, said: "WTF? Zohran Mamdani supports taxing 'whiter neighborhoods" in New York City higher than other boroughs.
"This Ugandan is not only a radical Muslim socialist but a RACIST. NYC, please reject this psycho and choose Eric Adams instead."
The conservative Right Angle News Network on X shared a screenshot from Mamdani's policy memo referring to "whiter neighborhoods" adding: "BREAKING - A proposal by NYC Democrat mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to shift tax burdens to "Whiter neighborhoods" has resurfaced."
What Happens Next
The New York Mayoral election will take place on November 4, with the winner expected to assume office in January.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
SALT Caucus, White House zero in on key agreement in Trump megabill
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states and the Trump administration are zeroing in on an agreement for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has been one of the key hangups dogging the party's 'big, beautiful bill.' Multiple sources familiar with the SALT talks told The Hill that the House members and Trump administration officials are closing in on a plan for SALT, but it must be sold to Senate Republicans before being finalized. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who has been the lead Senate GOP negotiator on SALT, told The Hill 'There's a tentative deal between the SALT and White House, but not the Senate [which is] still talking through that.' One source familiar with the SALT talks, however, cautioned against saying there is a 'deal' on the table because Senate Republicans — who have been opposed to increasing the deduction cap — still have to sign off on the terms. 'Having learned my lesson with the House language, the Senate needs to have buy in here so I'm waiting to see what their fingerprints look like,' the source said. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has met with SALT Caucus members in recent days, is scheduled to join Senate Republicans at their lunch on Friday, two sources confirmed to The Hill, a gathering that could include discussion regarding SALT. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who did not attend SALT talks at the Treasury Department Thursday afternoon, said he 'heard of a deal' that includes a $40,000 deduction cap — the same number in the House bill — for five years, which would snapback to $10,000 for the next five years 'and then in perpetuity.' LaLota, who has been one of the most vocal SALT Caucus members, said he is opposed to that proposal. 'I'm a hard no on that,' he told reporters, adding that the proposal 'just affirms the very thing I've been against for so long.' It remains unclear if the plan LaLota outlined is the same proposal that the SALT Caucus members and administration are closing in on. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for his part, on Friday sounded bullish on a SALT breakthrough. 'A lot of progress yesterday,' he told reporters. 'I think we'll get that resolved in a manner that everybody can live with. No one will be delighted about it, but that's kind of the way this works around here.' The news of an impending agreement is a significant development in the long-stalled negotiations over SALT, which had been one of the thorniest issues Republicans have had to deal with. The House bill included a $40,000 deduction cap — quadruple the $10,000 in current law — for individuals making $500,000 or less. Senate Republicans, however, enraged House SALT Caucus members by chopping that down, proposing a $10,000 deduction cap. Since then, the two camps have been engaged in fierce negotiations. In recent days, those talks have largely centered on keeping the $40,000 deduction cap from the House bill intact but changing the $500,000 income threshold and indexing for inflation. The administration, on behalf of Senate Republicans, offered the SALT Caucus a plan on Thursday that had a total value of $200 billion, far less than the $344 billion value in the House bill, according to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a key member of the SALT Caucus. Several lawmakers in the group, however, rejected that proposal.
CBS News
28 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court, in birthright citizenship case, limits judges' use of nationwide injunctions
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the use of nationwide injunctions, reining in federal judges' ability to issue sweeping orders that have in recent years stymied implementation of policies from Republican and Democratic presidential administrations alike. In a widely anticipated decision stemming from President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, the high court said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent. The court said it will let the Trump administration partially enforce the president's executive order while proceedings move forward, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump's order was constitutional. "Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The birthright citizenship case The court's ruling came in a trio of emergency appeals by the Trump administration arising out of the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, which says that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of Mr. Trump's policy nationwide while legal challenges brought by 22 states, immigrants' rights groups and seven individuals moved forward. But instead of swiftly deciding whether to grant the Trump administration emergency relief, the Supreme Court held arguments on whether to restrict the use of nationwide, or universal, injunctions, which are judicial orders that prevent the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the country and against anyone. The court did not consider or rule on the merits of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship plan, and its decision means that the executive order cannot be enforced against the states, organizations and individuals who challenged its legality. The Trump administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy. The dispute over the president's attempt to unwind birthright citizenship has become intertwined with the administration's battle against nationwide injunctions. These sweeping orders have frustrated both Democratic and Republican presidents seeking to implement their agendas among gridlock in Congress, and the fight over them has been simmering for several years. The Congressional Research Service identified 86 nationwide injunctions that were issued during Mr. Trump's first term and 28 granted while former President Joe Biden was in office. As to the president's second term, the Congressional Research Service found 17 nationwide injunctions were issued during the first 100 days, though the Trump administration estimated last month there have been far more — at least 40 of these orders, and most coming from the same five judicial districts. Some of the justices have suggested in past writings that the Supreme Court would have to clarify whether nationwide injunctions are allowed at all, and members on both ideological sides of the bench have been critical of them. But the orders that blocked Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship executive order landed the issue before the Supreme Court earlier this year, though the administration has railed against them in requests to enforce its transgender military ban, fire thousands of federal probationary workers and move forward with mass layoffs of government employees. The president's executive order on birthright citizenship was one of the first that he signed on his first day back in office and is among several directives that seek to target migrants who are in the U.S. The Trump administration's immigration policies have led to high-profile clashes with the courts — namely Mr. Trump's use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. While the 14th Amendment has for more than a century been understood to guarantee citizenship to all people born in the U.S., Mr. Trump's order denied birthright citizenship to children born to a mother who is unlawfully present in the U.S. or who is lawfully present on a temporary basis; or whose father is neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident. The president's order directed federal agencies to stop issuing documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to children born after Feb. 19. More than half-a-dozen lawsuits challenging the measure were filed in courts throughout the country before it took effect, and three federal district courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts each blocked the government from implementing the birthright citizenship order. Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia, then refused requests by the Trump administration to partly block the lower court orders. The Justice Department filed emergency appeals of the three decisions with the Supreme Court in mid-March and asked it to limit enforcement of the birthright citizenship order to 28 states and individuals who are not involved in the ongoing cases. The administration said that at a minimum, the Supreme Court should allow agencies to develop and issue public guidance regarding implementation of Mr. Trump's executive order while proceedings continue. Like other requests made to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department took aim at the breadth of the injunctions issued by the district courts, which are nationwide in scope and cover states and individuals who are not involved in the litigation before them. The president and his allies have attacked judges for issuing nationwide injunctions in the slew of legal challenges to Mr. Trump's policies, and even called for some to be impeached. The Justice Department said in a filing that universal injunctions have reached "epidemic" proportions since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January. "Those injunctions thwart the executive branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. "They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level." But the plaintiffs in the cases challenging the directive urged the Supreme Court to leave the district court orders in place. In a filing with the Supreme Court, officials from 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco called the Trump administration's request "remarkable," as it would allow the government to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship while the legal challenges move forward and render them "deportable on birth and at risk of statelessness. The states argued that the Trump administration seeks to violate binding Supreme Court precedent that recognized birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congo and Rwanda will sign a US-mediated peace deal to end the conflict in eastern Congo
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda are set to sign a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decades-long deadly fighting in eastern Congo. The deal, which is due to be signed in Washington on Friday afternoon, would also help the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region. The Central African nation of Congo has been ripped apart by conflict with more than 100 armed groups. The most prominent is the M23 rebel group, backed by neighboring Rwanda, whose major advance early this year left bodies littered on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the United Nations has called it 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Lauded by U.S. President Donald Trump last week as 'a Great Day for Africa and ... for the World,' the crucial deal comes as part of other ongoing peace talks to end the conflict, including ones mediated by the African Union and Qatar. The agreement involves provisions on respect for territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters on Thursday. U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric also said on Thursday that such a deal is welcomed, adding: 'We talk almost every day about … the horrific suffering of civilians, the hunger, the sexual violence, the constant fear, the constant displacement' in eastern Congo. Peace deal not likely to quickly end the conflict Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said that it's defending its territorial interests and not supporting M23. But M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won't be binding on them. The rebel group hasn't been directly involved in the planned peace deal, although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance — known by its French acronym AFC — that includes M23, told The Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' An M23 spokesman, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with the AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal doesn't concern the rebels. Rwanda has also been accused of exploiting eastern Congo's minerals, a trend analysts say might make it difficult for Rwanda to not be involved in any way in the region. A team of U.N. experts alleged in a December report that "fraudulent extraction, trade and export to Rwanda of (Congo) minerals benefited both AFC/M23 and the Rwandan economy.' Rwanda has denied any involvement in Congo's minerals. The deal is also at the heart of the U.S. government's push to counter China in Africa. Chinese companies have been for many years one of the key players in Congo's minerals sector. Chinese cobalt refineries, which account for a majority of the global supply, rely heavily on Congo. U.S. role in ending the conflict Analysts say the U.S. government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under separate negotiations between the American and Congolese government. The mostly untapped minerals — estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion by the U.S. Department of Commerce — are critical to much of the world's technology. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the planned deal a 'major turning point' in the decades-long conflict, but that the signing could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.' 'The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,' he said. 'This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.' In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe that the peace deal will help resolve the violence, but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold. 'I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100%,' said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. 'It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.' ___ Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, Justin Kabumba in Goma, Congo, Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report. Chinedu Asadu, The Associated Press
