Latest news with #Litman
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Democrats' Biggest Senate Recruits Have One Thing in Common
When news broke this week that Sherrod Brown would run next year to reclaim a Senate seat in Ohio, Democrats cheered the reports as a huge coup. Before losing a reelection bid last year, Brown had been the last Democrat to win statewide office in a state that has veered sharply to the right over the past decade. His entry instantly transforms the Ohio race from a distant dream to a plausible pickup opportunity for the party. If most Democrats were ecstatic about Brown's planned comeback bid, Amanda Litman was a bit less jazzed. To be sure, she's a big fan of Brown, the gravelly-voiced populist who was once seen as a formidable presidential contender. (He never did run for the White House.) But Brown is now 72, and Litman, the founder of a group that encourages and trains first-time candidates, has been among the loudest voices calling for Democrats to ditch their gerontocracy once and for all. 'In a year like this, if Sherrod Brown is really the best and only person that can make Ohio competitive, that's who we should run,' Litman told me. But, she quickly added, 'it is a damning indictment' of the Democratic Party in states such as Ohio that a just-defeated septuagenarian is its most viable choice. Litman has called for every Democrat over the age of 70 to retire at the end of their current term in office. A few have heeded that message: Earlier this year, Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois (80), Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire (78), Tina Smith of Minnesota (67), and Gary Peters of Michigan (66) all announced that they would not seek reelection next year. But in some of the nation's biggest Senate races, Democrats are relying on an old strategy of recruiting—and then clearing the field for—long-serving party leaders with whom voters are already familiar. Helen Lewis: The Democrats must confront their gerontocracy In North Carolina, top Democrats aggressively lobbied former Governor Roy Cooper (68) to run for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Republican senator, Thom Tillis. And in Maine, the party is waiting to see if Governor Janet Mills (77) will challenge five-term Senator Susan Collins, the GOP's most vulnerable incumbent, who is 72. If they run and win, Brown would be 80, Cooper would be 75, and Mills would be 85 at the end of their first Senate terms. Democratic strategists and advocates I spoke with acknowledged the tension between the party's broadly shared desire to elevate a new generation of leaders and its embrace of older candidates in these key Senate races. But they said the decision was easy in the states they most need to win next year. 'The frustration of voters, donors, and younger elected officials is real,' Martha McKenna, a former political director of the Senate Democrats' campaign arm, told me. But Cooper and Brown (and potentially Mills) 'are brave patriots who have already shown they know how to run and win, which is thrilling to the Democratic grassroots base.' Any Democrats unhappy with their candidacies, McKenna added, 'are defeatist bed wetters who would rather complain from the sidelines than get into the fight.' Winning the Senate is a long shot for Democrats in 2026. They would need to flip at least four Republican-held seats without losing any of their own, and the only blue state where a Senate race is up for grabs is Maine. But even a gain of two or three seats could put Democrats in position to take the majority in 2028, and they hope that a voter backlash to President Donald Trump's second term, combined with the recruitment of strong candidates, could put states such as North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, and Alaska in play next year. Republicans have also tried to woo popular governors to mount Senate campaigns, with less success: Governors Chris Sununu of New Hampshire (50) and Brian Kemp of Georgia (61) each passed on the opportunity. Brown lost to Bernie Moreno by three and a half points in a state that Trump carried by 11 points. He will likely start as an underdog against Senator Jon Husted, who was appointed by Governor Mike DeWine to fill the seat that J. D. Vance vacated when he became vice president. But even if Brown falls short, Democrats argue, his strength as a candidate could force Republicans to spend millions of dollars they would otherwise have directed elsewhere. No other Democrat in Ohio can make the same case. The push for Democrats to get younger has been driven not only by the party's panic over former President Joe Biden's age and performance last summer, but by the more recent deaths of three House Democrats during the first five months of 2025. The activist David Hogg sparked an internal feud by declaring, soon after becoming the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, that he would back primary challengers to some party incumbents in safe House seats. Younger Democrats did win key Senate seats last year in Arizona, New Jersey, and Michigan. And the party's leading Senate contenders for 2026 in Texas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Minnesota are in their 40s and early 50s. 'We are in the fight of our lives, and that requires a truly multigenerational front,' Santiago Mayer, the founder of the youth-oriented progressive group Voters of Tomorrow, told me. 'Of course we need young people running. We need young leaders who are vocal and visible around the country.' But Mayer said he had no problem with older Democrats such as Brown, Cooper, and (possibly) Mills leading the way in crucial races. 'We need to be supporting the candidates who are proven winners,' he told me. Nowhere are Democrats more desperate to win than Maine, where Collins's resilience has both frustrated the party and scared off some of its rising stars. In 2020, Collins defeated a well-funded Democratic opponent by nearly nine points even as Biden carried the state by the same margin. Her approval ratings are even lower than they were at this time six years ago, and Democrats consider the state a must-win in the battle for the Senate. Yet hardly any Democrats have stepped up to take her on. (Jordan Wood, a onetime aide to former Representative Katie Porter of California, is the best-known declared candidate so far.) Representative Jared Golden, who holds a rural House district that Trump carried three times, decided to seek reelection rather than higher office. And several up-and-coming Democrats have opted to run for governor instead of challenging Collins. To a large extent, everyone is waiting on Mills, who trounced her predecessor, Paul LePage, in his 2022 comeback bid and then drew national attention by telling Trump, 'See you in court' during a confrontation at the White House earlier this year. The governor, however, is in no rush to make a decision and has evinced little excitement about becoming a freshman senator in her late 70s. 'I mean, look, I wasn't born with a burning desire to be in Washington, D.C.—any month of the year,' Mills told a local radio station last month even as she acknowledged that she was seriously considering a Senate campaign. One national Democratic strategist told me that the odds of Mills entering the race are about 50–50; another put the chances lower. The strategists showed little concern about Mills's age, noting that she doesn't appear any older than Collins (even though she is by five years). The issue may not resonate as much in Maine anyway, which has the oldest population of any state in the country. Democrats have had mixed success relying on former governors to harness their cross-party popularity as state leaders in competitive Senate races. In 2020, then–Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper defeated GOP Senator Cory Gardner to help Democrats recapture the majority. And the four Democratic senators from Virginia and New Hampshire all previously served as their state's governors. But in 2016, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland lost by more than 20 points in his bid to oust a Republican senator. Two years later in Tennessee, former Governor Phil Bredesen met a similar fate. Litman argues that part of the Democrats' problem is a fear of competitive primaries, which both parties try to avoid in Senate races because of their expense and the risk that the winner will emerge damaged for the general election. Some believe the lack of a presidential primary in 2024 hurt Kamala Harris's chances against Trump. 'That is how you keep Democratic voters engaged,' Litman said. 'If we've learned anything from 2024, it's that primaries are good.' She's optimistic that as younger Democrats run and win at the local level, the party's bench in red and purple states will get deeper, and the elections where its hopes hinge on aging former stars will become more rare. 'It's not like in one election cycle, everyone over the age of 70 is going to be thrown out,' she said. 'This is the first big generational-change election for the Democratic Party. It's not going to be the last.'
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS trans care ruling opens harmful loophole to take access from all trans people, says Leah Litman
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti has already sent shockwaves across the country. For legal scholar Leah Litman, it's a ruling that crystallizes something far more dangerous than one state's policy—it confirms the Court's conservative majority is no longer operating as a neutral arbiter of law but as a willing participant in a partisan project targeting transgender people and other vulnerable groups. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. 'They don't have to try,' to seem beyond politics, Litman told The Advocate in an interview. A constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan, Litman is also a former Supreme Court clerk who cohosts Strict Scrutiny, a Crooked Media podcast that dissects the Court's decisions and culture. Her new book, Lawless, argues that the justices in the Court's conservative bloc routinely dispense with precedent and consistency in favor of 'legal-ish' reasoning that advances Republican priorities under the guise of constitutional interpretation. Related: What is U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case that could change gender-affirming care forever? The 6–3 ruling in Skrmetti, issued last Wednesday and authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers for trans minors. The court, according to the 118-page opinion, applied rational basis review, the most deferential standard, to conclude that the law doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio had argued that the court must apply heightened scrutiny, given the issue of sex discrimination he argued existed in the law. But Litman argued that the conservative majority's logic collapses under scrutiny: the very same treatments remain legal for cisgender minors with other conditions, such as precocious puberty, but are banned when prescribed for gender dysphoria. 'The treatments that are prohibited are inextricably bound up by and not experienced by cisgender individuals but associated with what it means to be trans,' Litman said. 'The idea that you can access hormones and puberty blockers for these other reasons, whether you're trans or cis, even that logic falls apart because some of the permitted treatments are precocious puberty.' Litman added, 'In those instances, like the cis girl [experiencing precocious puberty] can get the puberty blockers and the hormones, but the trans boy can't, and so that's obviously discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The logic just completely falls apart.' Related: 9 trans rights activists arrested in front of Supreme Court while protesting Skrmetti ruling That discrepancy, she said, renders the law discriminatory on its face. She likened the decision to the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in 303 Creative, which allowed a business to refuse service to same-sex couples. In both cases, Litman said, the Court accepted discriminatory treatment by reframing it as something else entirely, rooted not in animus but in supposedly neutral categories. 'Since I'm a good person, and my friends are good people, then we must not be discriminating,' she said, describing the majority's logic. Litman argued that the justices are drawing from a well of reactionary politics disguised as jurisprudence. In Lawless, she characterizes this shift as one driven less by consistent legal reasoning than by 'vibes'—an instinctive alignment with conservative grievance politics. In Skrmetti, she said, that alignment is clearest in the opinion's sloppiness: 'They're so locked in that they're not even engaging with counterarguments or with the factual record in any serious way.' She warned that the ruling lays the groundwork for restricting gender-affirming care beyond minors. Roberts' opinion, she noted, emphasized that the law did not discriminate based on gender identity—a rationale that could just as easily apply to bans on adult care. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's concurring opinion went even further, she said, effectively inviting states to expand restrictions. Barrett's opinion, Litman added, was 'entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.' Even if the Tennessee law did discriminate against trans people, Barrett reasoned, she would still uphold it. 'That's just inviting states to do more harm,' Litman said. Related: Justice Sonia Sotomayor slams gender-affirming care ruling as 'state-sanctioned discrimination' Barret rejected the argument that transgender people qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the Constitution in her concurring opinion. She cited a lack of 'immutable or distinguishing characteristics,' dismissed the category as too 'amorphous,' and argued that there is insufficient evidence of a history of de jure legal discrimination against transgender people to warrant heightened judicial scrutiny. Barrett warned that granting suspect class status would force courts into overseeing 'all manner of policy choices' on gender-related issues—from bathrooms and sports teams to medical protocols—intrusions she argued are best left to legislatures. Her opinion emphasized that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit laws based on transgender status as long as they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. When asked about the justices' motivations, Litman described a combination of factors: long-standing discomfort with gender nonconformity, susceptibility to misinformation, and what she called 'patriarchal commitments' that lead to moral panic over social change. She also said it's a mistake to think new data or medical evidence would sway them. Referencing a recent Utah state-commissioned report showing gender-affirming care's efficacy, she said bluntly: 'That would not have made a lick of difference.' Republicans in the state who ordered the study chose to discard its conclusions after it failed to support the state's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The justices, she said, ignore facts when they conflict with the political outcomes they seek. 'It's frustrating because those are facts… and they should have mattered. The reality is they just don't.' Litman spoke as the Court issued another shadow docket ruling in a separate immigration case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father deported to El Salvador under President Trump's revived Alien Enemies Act policy. The justices stayed a lower court's order blocking the deportation of similarly situated asylum seekers to third countries they have no relationship to. 'It's utterly terrifying,' Litman said. She criticized the Court for repeatedly indulging Trump administration policies. She added that the Court was under no obligation to hear the government's request—and did anyway. 'The only reason why [Trump] keeps asking is because they keep saying yes.' Litman said these patterns show the Court has become an enabler of authoritarianism. Even during her time clerking for Justice Anthony Kennedy, when challenges to the Affordable Care Act were being considered, she said she felt the institution was 'on the edge of a cliff.' In that sense, she said, it has since hardened into something undeniable: the Court is now central to the 'deterioration and dismantlement of liberal constitutional democracy.' Related: In photos: U.S. v. Skrmetti protest at the Supreme Court in support of transgender youth (exclusive) She sees Skrmetti as a pivotal moment, not because it was unexpected, but because it confirms how far the majority is willing to go without being held accountable. She worries it's just the beginning. 'What am I not worried about at this point?' she said, listing likely future targets: adult gender-affirming care, bathroom and sports access for trans students, and growing carveouts for marriage equality under religious exemptions. Still, Litman doesn't believe the Court will issue a direct reversal of Obergefell anytime soon. 'But it just feels like they are not at all going to hold a line on the civil rights for the LGBTQ community at all,' she said. 'The movement has convinced a supermajority of Americans that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals get to participate in public life. And the fight for the trans community is worth fighting and can be won.' If Democrats regain power, she added, they should pass a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and block states from undermining marriage rights. The Democratically introduced Equality Act would usher in such protections.'They should make [Republicans] vote against it,' Litman said. She added, 'Also kind of like, fuck them, you know?' This article originally appeared on Advocate: SCOTUS trans care ruling opens harmful loophole to take access from all trans people, says Leah Litman What LGBTQ+ groups are saying before Supreme Court justices hear gender-affirming care case US v Skrmetti is a public health disaster In photos: U.S. v. Skrmetti protest at the Supreme Court in support of transgender youth (exclusive) Tennessee AG: It was God's will for him to defend gender-affirming care ban at Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor slams gender-affirming care ruling as 'state-sanctioned discrimination' Supreme Court rules states can ban gender-affirming care for youth in U.S. v. Skrmetti 9 trans rights activists arrested in front of Supreme Court while protesting Skrmetti ruling What is U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case that could change gender-affirming care forever?
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Run for Something co-founder: ‘Democrats' reliance on seniority is our downfall'
Amanda Litman spent the past decade building a way for more younger people to run for office. Now, as the Democratic party debates its ageing leaders after the former president's decline led to a bruising loss in 2024, a groundswell of younger Democrats are working to remake the party by challenging incumbents and calling out Democratic leaders who fail to push back against Trump. It's a moment Litman has been waiting for. Litman co-founded Run for Something, an organization that recruits and trains progressives age 40 and under to seek elected office, the day Trump was inaugurated in 2017. Since then, the group has sought to dismantle the gerontocracy, helping to elect more than 1,500 people across 49 states. More than 200,000 people have signed up to explore a run for office, more than 40,000 of whom have signed up since Trump won last November. 'The Democratic party's reliance on seniority is really our downfall,' she told the Guardian. 'Imagine how hard it is to tell your grandparents that it's time for them to stop driving. This is the same: how do you tell someone they're no longer fit to do the thing that they've been doing for decades, but maybe feel called to and derive all their self-esteem and their sense of identity from?' These conversations are 'really hard', but it's vital to have them now, and in the open, because Democrats are seeing the consequences of avoiding the issue for too long, she said. Those younger leaders also have a distaste for institutionsand are more eager to tear it down or propose alternative ways to rebuild the government. Younger leaders are 'very open about what change could look like, and that can be really scary to the people who've been building these institutions for the last 10, 20, 30 years,' Litman said. Three older Democrats have died in office just this year. After the most recent death, Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly, Litman wrote on social media that 'older Democrats need to retire now and go out on their own terms. Let us celebrate your legacy! Don't let your leadership end in a primary loss or worse, real grief.' Her new book, 'When We're in Charge: The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership,' details how millennials and Gen Z leaders can remake their workplaces and become the kinds of leaders they've always wanted. It's not explicitly about politics, though some people in elected office or other political work are interviewed. 'When we make workplaces better, we give people back their time to do more politics outside of it, like being a better citizen,' she said. 'It's really hard to imagine going to a protest or volunteering for a candidate if you are working around the clock, and you get home from your nine to five and you're just drained. Part of the reason why I want to push this conversation outside of politics is because I think the more we can make work not suck, the better everything else cannot suck too.' She advocates for separating your work from your personhood and bringing your authentic self to work, albeit a modified version she calls 'responsible authenticity'. The same lessons she found across workplaces apply to politicians, she writes and points to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congresswoman, as someone who strikes the right balance of showing her humanity but maintaining boundaries. 'The members of Congress I spoke to brought up the same kinds of challenges as the lawyers, as the faith leaders, as the business executives and media folks,' she said. 'They all talked about loneliness. They all talked about vulnerability. They talked about the challenges of wanting to be authentic but not wanting to let everyone into all your shit.' As Democrats debate how to rebuild their side of the aisle, Litman expects to see more primaries, something the party has often sought to avoid at the national level, often believing they're a waste of resources. Primaries are more common in the state and local races Run for Something works on, and the group has at times endorsed more than one person in a primary. Primaries are 'clarifying', Litman said. 'Politics, like everything else, is something you get better at with practice. Primaries are how you get better.' Those primaries aren't simply a progressive vs. centrist surge right now, she said. It's more about who is showing they have the fight in them to stand up to the Trump administration, more about who has 'the skills and the stomach'. Beyond primaries, the left should be having open conversations about who needs to retire - Litman said a retirement, with an open race, is much more preferable than unseating an incumbent, which can get messy. 'If we really think that this is a crisis, we need leaders who are going to act like it and be able to communicate that,' she said. 'I'm not sure that Senator [Chuck] Schumer and other older members of Congress are most well-suited to do that. That's not a personal failing. It's just we got to send our best.'
CNBC
22-05-2025
- General
- CNBC
Millennial founder's best career advice for Gen Z: 'You don't get what you don't ask for'
Amanda Litman was just 26 when she co-founded Run For Something, a political organization that recruits and supports young, diverse candidates running for down-ballot office, in 2017. As Run for Something grew, Litman found that in order to become the kind of leader she wanted to be — compassionate, transparent, effective and accountable — she would have to look outside traditional models of leadership. Millennials and Gen Z are more diverse than previous generations, "so our leadership quite literally looks different," she says. "The models that worked for the old white men of the last three centuries don't necessarily make sense for us." In the eight years she's served as president of Run for Something, Litman, 35, has watched fellow millennial and Gen Z leaders make fundamental changes to workplace culture as they rise to top positions. Litman drew on her own experiences, as well as interviews with other millennial and Gen Z leaders like Snap Inc. CEO Evan Spiegel, comedian and producer Ilana Glazer, and activist David Hogg, for her new book "When We're In Charge: The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership." Here's her advice for the latest crop of leaders. According to Litman, the best professional advice she's ever received is "You don't get what you don't ask for." This advice rings true no matter where you are on the career ladder, she says. For leaders, clarity is crucial when setting expectations for employees. "You have a responsibility to make it clear what you are expecting, what you need, what you want out of people, and you want to make it as easy as possible for them to satisfy your demands," she says. On the other end, Litman encourages early-career professionals to put themselves out there: "If you want help from someone, if you want time on someone's calendar, if you want to have coffee with that person you've never had a chance to interact with, you need to ask for it." "The worst thing that happens is someone says no," she says. "The best thing that happens is they say yes, and you don't know what doors might open for you." Litman is heartened to see emerging leaders taking charge and making changes in the workplace. One crucial difference she notices between today's leaders and previous generations is that the younger generation of leaders is particularly focused on creating a healthy, supportive work culture. The Gen Z leaders Litman spoke to "really thought about the well-being of their teams," she says. "They thought about how to bring a sort of joy to the work in a way that I found really refreshing." Though Gen Z is often stereotyped in the workforce as lazy, unreliable, or difficult, Litman pushes back against those perceptions. "I think Gen Z wants a better balance between work and life, because they have seen how work can let you down," she says. "The career ladders that we thought we could climb no longer exist. The institutions that you thought you'd be able to work for are going through rolling layoffs. So why make your whole life about your job?" She advises Gen Z leaders to "take what works and leave what doesn't" when developing their leadership philosophies. "Don't assume that the way things were done yesterday has to be the way they're done tomorrow. You should know how things were done yesterday, but that doesn't dictate the future. You actually have a lot of agency over what could happen," she says. ,
Newsweek
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Legal Analyst Raises Red Flags on Andrew Cuomo DOJ Investigation
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. Harry Litman, former deputy assistant attorney general and legal analyst, said that it is a "violation" of Department of Justice (DOJ) practice to insert themselves so close to an election and that interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, "shouldn't be within 10 miles" of the investigation involving former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Newsweek reached out to the DOJ via online form Wednesday for comment. The Context Cuomo announced his bid to run for New York City mayor as both a Democrat and an independent recently. He's widely thought to be current New York City Mayor Eric Adams' strongest rival in the race. Adams also recently faced criminal charges of his own until President Donald Trump's DOJ dropped federal bribery and campaign finance charges against him. The focus of the DOJ's reported inquiry into Cuomo is related to a September 2024 congressional hearing during which Cuomo was grilled over his March 2020 directive that nursing homes accept recovering COVID-19 patients. Critics said the directive may have contributed to the virus's spread, but Cuomo has maintained that he followed federal guidelines on the issue and accused Republicans of weaponizing the justice system against Democrats, ABC New York reported. What To Know While speaking with CNN on Wednesday, Litman spoke about the timing of the investigation, saying, "Yeah, not just notable, but normally... a violation of DOJ principles and practice. You don't try to interfere in an election so so very much on the eve of it. " Litman later added, "Now this was referred in October 2024 by James Comer, who was upset at the testimony, and the DOJ didn't do anything with it then and people across the board, Republicans, Democrats said, 'There's really no solid perjury case here.'" "Then it was revived, and it's now been given to Jeanine Pirro, who really shouldn't be within 10 miles of the case. She lost to Cuomo for attorney general and she called him a murderer or said he should be investigated for murder based on this conduct on Fox News, nevertheless, she now has the reigns." Newsweek attempted to reach Pirro at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. but could not leave a voicemail. Litman continued, bringing up the public integrity section within the DOJ noting that they ultimately make the call to investigate. However, senior officials within that department resigned after it was suggested that they drop the charges against Adams. "We don't have that normal assurance of regularity that the public integrity section would provide," Litman warned. Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seen speaking outside the West Side Institutional Synagogue on April 1, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by) Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seen speaking outside the West Side Institutional Synagogue on April 1, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by) What People Are Saying Cuomo's spokesperson, Rich Azzopardi, in a statement to The New York Times on Tuesday: "We have never been informed of any such matter, so why would someone leak it now?" "The answer is obvious: This is lawfare and election interference plain and simple — something President Trump and his top Department of Justice officials say they are against." Azzopardi added that Cuomo "testified truthfully to the best of his recollection about events from four years earlier, and he offered to address any follow-up questions from the subcommittee — but from the beginning this was all transparently political." Republican Representative James Comer of Kentucky posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday: "DOJ just opened an investigation into Andrew Cuomo's COVID nursing home tragedy in New York. This comes after @GOPoversight caught Cuomo red-handed lying to Congress and resent a criminal referral to Attorney General Pam Bondi last month. Cuomo must be prosecuted." Zohran Kwame Mamdani, another New York City mayoral candidate, posted on X on Tuesday: "Andrew Cuomo's career has been defined by corruption and deceit and his lying to Congress about his COVID response is no exception." Mamdani continued, "But Donald Trump cannot be trusted to pursue justice. While I believe New Yorkers should reject the disgraced ex-Governor at the ballot box, the Trump administration's actions are dangerous." What Happens Next It's not immediately clear how far along the DOJ's investigation is or what charges prosecutors may file against the former governor.
