Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "zohran mamdani"

Expert warns sleeper cells could be activated in US over Trump's war: ‘The threat is real'

A terrorism analyst on Monday explained how the United States-Israel war against Iran might have activated sleeper cells and has concerned law enforcement.

Alex Plitsas, counterterrorism program director for the Atlantic Council, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that recent attacks had suggested increased activity among terrorist sleeper cells. Plitsas cited the attempted attack Saturday by two men charged with using weapons of mass destruction and supporting the Islamic State after throwing a bomb near New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's Gracie Mansion, in addition to two other recent terrorism-related incidents — the attack on a nightclub in Austin, Texas, and a bombing outside the U.S. embassy in Oslo, Norway. He also described a new report that revealed an encrypted transmission was intercepted by the U.S., which has prompted concern among security experts and law enforcement.

Tapper asked Plitsas how worried he was about the recent attacks.

"Significantly concerned," Plitsas said. "You know, not that there's a particular plot that I'm aware of and not to be alarmist for folks who are listening, but let's we can kind of walk through some of the facts that we that have come out and come to light recently about why I would make that comment. So there's been three cells that have been arrested in Qatar, in the UK and Azerbaijan over the last week that were affiliated with the IRGC, the Quds force — that's Iran special operations folks — that have an external cell that were engaged either intelligence collection or surveillance and preparation, likely for sabotage or terrorist operations. We saw a bombing outside of the U.S. embassy in Oslo. We still don't know who was responsible for that. And then there was reporting that came out earlier today that code words appear to have been intercepted where the Iranians may have activated sleeper cells globally amongst their IRGC folks or potentially Hezbollah. And so they've been known to have folks slip in and out of the United States, intelligence officers from Iran in covert status who have been in the United States conducting surveillance on targets who have also attempted to contract hitmen in some cases you know, there was a plot against President Trump himself."

He also mentioned how these operations had targeted others.

"There's a very famous female dissident who lives in Brooklyn, they were attempting to assassinate her as well," Plitsas said. "They've become exceptionally bold in recent years. And this all sort of came to light during the Obama administration when it was revealed and disrupted that they were looking at actually bombing a restaurant in Washington at one point, where the Saudi ambassador was said to have been eating. So the threat is real. And as Iran gets further backed into a corner and its military capabilities are further degraded, there's a possibility it could turn to asymmetric threats."

Plitsas argued there could be more attacks and that law enforcement would continue investigating.

"And as we like to say in the business, you know one time is an instance, two times a coincidence, three times is hostile enemy action," Plitsas added. "We had three cells arrested this week, a bombing outside Oslo. And then potential chatter now about sleeper cells being activated. So the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) and speaking to contacts within the FBI and law enforcement community are actively monitoring and aggressively pursuing any leads that are out there right now, including with international partners. So confidence in the efforts are federal law enforcement along with their local partners, have but they only have to be right once, and we have to be right every time."


NYC bomb suspects planned attack worse than the Boston Marathon bombing: officials

Two men were charged Monday on suspicion of using weapons of mass destruction and supporting the Islamic State after throwing a bomb near New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's Gracie Mansion.

Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi were arrested Saturday night after authorities alleged they tried to detonate two explosive devices, according to The New York Times. One of the explosives reportedly tested positive for TATP, which is a highly volatile material that has been used in terrorist attacks over the last 10 years.

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said that one of the suspects said they were apparently plotting an attack worse than the Boston Marathon bombing.

"They admitted to authorities that they had traveled to New York City to watch ISIS videos, and that their actions that day were partly inspired by ISIS,” Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told reporters.

Rebecca Weiner, NYPD's deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, said the arrests were consistent with what authorities have seen, as “younger and younger individuals are radicalizing.” The attack was “very much in keeping with the trend we were seeing with ISIS inspired adherence,” she said.

The improvised explosive devices were detonated in isolation by officials, CNN reported. The materials were now under FBI investigation.

Bernie and AOC wouldn't be known without this American giant

By Bert Johnson, Professor of Political Science, Middlebury College.

Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns for president, in 1984 and 1988, were unsuccessful but historic. The civil rights activist and organizer, who died on Feb. 17, 2026, helped pave the way for Barack Obama’s election a generation later as the nation’s first – and so far only – African American president.

Jackson’s campaigns energized a multiracial coalition that not only provided support for other late-20th-century Democratic politicians, including President Bill Clinton, but helped create an organizing template – a so-called Rainbow Coalition combining Black, Latino, working-class white and young voters – that continues to resonate in progressive politics today.

Vermont, where I teach political science, did not look like fertile ground for Jackson when he first ran for president. Then, as now, Vermont was one of the most homogeneous, predominantly white states. But if Jackson seemed like an awkward fit for a mostly rural, lily-white state, he nonetheless saw possibilities.

He campaigned in Vermont twice in 1984, buoyantly declaring in Montpelier, the state capital, “If I win Vermont, the nation will never be the same again.”

He did not win Vermont, taking just 8 percent of the Democratic primary vote in 1984 but tripling his share to 26 percent in 1988. Appealing to voters in small, rural New England precincts was a remarkable achievement for a candidate identified with Chicago and civil rights campaigns in the South.

Jackson’s presidential ambitions coincided with a pivotal moment in Vermont politics: The state’s voting patterns were shifting left, with new residents arriving and changing the state’s culture and economy. In 1970, nearly 70 percent of Vermonters had been born there. By 1990, that figure had dropped by 10 percentage points.

The Vermont Rainbow Coalition, which was formed to support Jackson’s first campaign, organized a crucial constituency in a fluid time, establishing patterns that would persist for decades.

Setting the standard

Jackson created a “People’s Platform” that would sound familiar to today’s progressives, calling for higher taxes on businesses, higher minimum wages and single-payer, universal health care.

In light of Jackson’s efforts, Vermont activists saw the potential for a durable statewide organization. Rather than disband the Vermont Rainbow Coalition after the 1984 primary, they kept the group going, endorsing candidates in campaigns for the legislature and statewide office in each of the next three election cycles. The coalition also endorsed Bernie Sanders’ failed bid for Congress in 1988.

Sanders served eight years as mayor of Burlington as an “independent socialist,” cultivating a core collection of local allies known as the Progressive Coalition who sought to wrest power away from establishment members of the city’s Board of Aldermen.

In 1992, the Vermont Rainbow Coalition merged with Burlington’s Progressive Coalition to form the statewide Progressive Coalition.

Jackson-Sanders lineage

Sanders eventually went on to win election to the House as an independent in 1990, serving in the chamber until winning his Senate seat, also as an independent, in 2006. His presidential runs in 2016 and 2020 made him a prominent national figure and a leader among progressives.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who unseated a member of the House Democratic leadership in a stunning 2018 primary upset in New York, had been a Sanders campaign organizer and remains his close ally. On Jan. 1, 2026, Sanders swore in Zohran Mamdani – like Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic socialist – as mayor of New York City.

Sanders had endorsed Jackson for president in 1988. Years later, Jackson returned the favor.

Sanders paid tribute to Jackson at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

“Jesse Jackson is one of the very most significant political leaders in this country in the last 100 years,” Sanders said. “Jesse’s contribution to modern history is not just bringing us together – it is bringing us together around a progressive agenda.”

Not just Vermont

In Vermont, Jackson performed surprisingly well in unlikely places – taking nearly 20 percent of the 1984 primary vote in working-class Bakersfield and Belvidere, for example.

Today’s Vermont Progressive Party, which emerged out of the old Vermont Progressive Coalition, is one of the most successful third parties in the nation, winning official “major party” status in the state shortly after its official founding in 2000. The party has elected candidates to the state legislature, city councils and even a few statewide offices, including that of lieutenant governor.

Vermont was not alone in experiencing the catalyzing effect of Jackson’s presidential runs. Jackson had a significant mobilizing impact on Black voters nationwide. In Washington state, the Washington Rainbow Coalition started in Seattle and spread across the state between 1984 and 1996. New Jersey and Pennsylvania had their own successful and independent Rainbow Coalitions. In 2003, the Rainbow Coalition Party of Massachusetts joined the Green Party to become the Green Rainbow Party.

In my own research, I’ve investigated the durability of the “Jackson effect” in Vermont. There is no better test of what differentiates the Vermont Progressive Party from the state’s Democratic Party than the 2016 Democratic primary race for lieutenant governor, which pitted progressive David Zuckerman against two prominent, mainstream Democrats.

Zuckerman beat the Democrats most handily in towns that had voted the most heavily for Jesse Jackson in 1984, an effect that persisted even when controlling for population, partisanship and liberalism.

Many people would point to Sanders as the catalyst for Vermont’s continuing progressive movement. But Sanders and the progressives owe much to Jackson.

  • Bert Johnson has taught American politics at Middlebury since 2004. His research and teaching interests include campaign finance, federalism, and state and local politics. Johnson is author of Political Giving: Making Sense of Individual Campaign Contributions (Boulder: FirstForum Press, 2013), and coauthor (with Morris Fiorina, Paul E. Peterson, and William Mayer) of The New American Democracy (Longman, 2011). His articles have appeared in Social Science History, Urban Affairs Review, and American Politics Research. He is owner and author of Basicsplainer.com.

Stop coddling these selfish elites — they're bluffing

On Tuesday, New York City’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed raising property taxes in the city by nearly 10 percent — if he can’t persuade New York Governor Kathy Hochul to raise income taxes on the wealthy. She’s been reluctant.

In California, meanwhile, Google co-founder Sergei Brin along with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and other billionaires are financing several voter initiatives to limit the creation of a new billionaire tax in California. California Governor Gavin Newsom is also against it.

Why are the governors of the most progressive and richest states in America so unenthusiastic about raising taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy?

The kindest answer is they’re worried that the rich will abandon their states. (The unkinder is that they’re in the pockets of said rich.)

Governors Hochul and Newsom: Don’t worry about raising taxes on the rich.

True, a few rich people may abandon New York or California if taxes on them are raised, but evidence suggests the vast majority will stay put.

When billionaire New York mayor Mike Bloomberg faced a budget deficit in his first term, he raised property taxes by 18.5 percent. Rich New Yorkers threatened to leave. Most did not.

A graph from the “Citizens Budget Commission” (financed by rich New Yorkers) purports to show New York’s “shrinking share” of the nation’s millionaires — from 12.7 percent in 2010 to 8.7 in 2022 — as evidence New Yorkers are fleeing high taxes.

But that “shrinking share” isn’t due to New Yorkers fleeing; it’s because a growing number of millionaires are being hatched in Texas, Florida, and California.

A study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found no significant out-migration by wealthy residents of New York state in response to tax increases in either 2017 or 2021. The latter tax increase is estimated to have raised approximately $3.6 billion annually. Since then, the number of wealthy in New Yorkers has increased.

When Massachusetts passed its “millionaire’s tax” in 2022, rich residents of the Bay State threatened to leave. They didn’t. Instead, the state has collected $5.7 billion in additional revenue, while the number of millionaires in the state has grown, according to a study by People’s Policy Project.

After New Jersey raised its top tax rates, researchers found little out-migration among millionaires. The measure generated substantial revenue.

Other research examined 45 million U.S. tax filings of families or individuals with over $1 million in income. It shows that affluent households are even less likely to move to another state than middle-income or poor households.

Why are the rich staying put, even though their taxes are being raised? Because they’re rich! They can afford to stay put.

Most people don’t want to move — either because their friends or parents or children live in the vicinity, or they don’t want to disrupt the education of their younger children, or they have networks of business associates and clients in the area, or they like the cultural amenities, or they don’t want the legal and administrative hassles of moving.

Most people move because they have to. Their employer tells them they must. Or the best job they can get forces them to. Or they they have to take care of a sick parent. Or their own aging bodies can no longer abide the cold.

But the rich don’t have to move. The Fiscal Policy Institute study previously mentioned shows that in 2023, earners in the top 1 percent migrated out of New York less frequently than those in all other income groups.

New York’s and California’s super-rich are richer than they’ve ever been; the wealth they’ve amassed is larger than any group of Americans has ever possessed; they don’t know what to do with all their money. The taxes they would pay under the proposals put forward are infinitesimally small, almost rounding errors, compared to their fortunes.

Yes, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel (who financed JD Vance’s senate run) has abandoned California, complaining about the billionaire tax. So have venture capitalist David Sacks (now Trump’s “czar” for crypto and AI), Elon Musk, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg (who reportedly bought a mansion in Miami).

But the question must be asked: is California really that much worse for losing Thiel, Musk, and Zuckerberg?

Maybe raising taxes on the super-rich not only provides critically-needed tax revenue but also acts as a kind of disinfectant, purging a city or state of a few of its most noxious and socially-irresponsible inhabitants. Another reason to do so!

  • Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

The right can howl all it wants — Muslims have always been part of the American story

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” — Frederick Douglass

America’s story has always been a story of struggle — for liberty, for justice, for recognition. On a cold January afternoon outside City Hall, Zohran Mamdani stepped into that struggle. Raising his right hand, he took the oath of office as mayor of New York City — the first Muslim ever to hold the city’s highest office — embodying Douglass’ truth: Progress demands courage, perseverance, and the relentless pursuit of inclusion.

The headlines captured the surface: a 25-minute inaugural address, roughly 4,000 spectators, a private swearing in just after midnight at the Old City Hall subway station, appearances by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). But the moment ran far deeper. Mamdani’s inauguration was not only a municipal milestone; it was the latest chapter in a debate as old as the republic itself: where Muslims belong in the American story — and whether they ever truly have.

That question stretches back to July 30, 1788, when North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Anti-federalist William Lancaster warned that by rejecting religious tests for office, the new nation might allow Muslims to govern.

“Papists may occupy that chair,” he cautioned, “and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it.”

A warning, then. A prophecy, now.

There were no Muslim candidates in 1788. But there were Muslims in America — thousands of enslaved Africans whose presence exposed the republic’s deepest contradiction. Between 5 percent and 20 percent of enslaved Africans were Muslim, many literate in Arabic, bearing names like Fatima, Ali, Hassan, and Said. Their faith was violently suppressed, yet fragments endured — in memory, language, and resistance.

Even the founding generation reflected this tension. Thomas Jefferson studied the Quran and treated Islam as a serious intellectual tradition, even as he owned enslaved Muslims. Islam existed in theory, in human reality, and yet was denied civic recognition.

That tension carried forward into the nation’s greatest moral reckoning: the Civil War.

Muslims fought for the Union. Mohammed Kahn enlisted in the 43rd New York Infantry. Nicholas Said — born Mohammed Ali ben Said in Nigeria, raised Muslim, later converted to Christianity — served as a sergeant in the 55th Massachusetts Colored Regiment and as a Union clerk. Captain Moses Osman held a high-ranking post in the 104th Illinois Infantry. Union rosters show names like Ali, Hassan, and Said, hinting at a wider Muslim presence than history often acknowledges.

Yet rifles were not the only weapons. Islam entered the moral imagination through words and witness. Sen. Charles Sumner, nearly beaten to death on the Senate floor, quoted the Quran to condemn slavery. Ayuba Suleiman Diallo — Job ben Solomon — had already unsettled transatlantic assumptions through literacy, eloquence, and dignity. His story endured into the Civil War, republished in 1864 to reinforce the war’s moral purpose. Overseas, Hussein Pasha of Tunisia urged the US to abolish slavery “in the name of humanity,” showing Muslim advocacy was part of a global ethical conversation.

Muslims remained largely invisible in America’s public self-understanding — until the 20th century produced a figure too large to ignore.

Muhammad Ali, still the most recognizable man on Earth decades after his gold medal at the 1960 Rome Olympics, transformed boxing and American consciousness alike. He was named “Athlete of the Century” by Sports Illustrated, GQ, and the BBC; “Kentuckian of the Century” by his home state; and became a global icon through speed, grace, and audacious charm.

Ali’s significance extended far beyond the ring. By insisting on the name Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay, he forced America to confront the legacy of slavery embedded in naming itself. His embrace of Islam was unapologetic and public. His refusal to be drafted into the Vietnam War cost him his title and livelihood, yet anticipated the anti-war movement. His fights in Kinshasa, Manila, and Kuala Lumpur shifted attention from superpower dominance toward global conscience.

Ali’s humanitarian work was relentless: delivering over 232 million meals, medical supplies to children in Jakarta, orphans in Liberia, street children in Morocco. At home, he visited soup kitchens, hospitals, advocated for children’s protections, and taught tolerance in schools through his book Healing. For this, he was honored as a United Nations Messenger of Peace, cited by Amnesty International, and recognized by President Jimmy Carter as “Mr. International Friendship.”

Ali showed the nation something fundamental: that Islam is American. That Muslims have always belonged to the moral and civic fabric of this country. That a nation built on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, on religious tolerance, on care for the poor, is naturally aligned with Islam. Mamdani is American not in spite of his faith, but because Islam is American.

It is against this long arc — from slavery to abolition, civil rights, global conscience, and the moral courage of Muhammad Ali — that Zohran Mamdani’s inauguration comes into focus.

Mamdani’s life traces modern routes of migration and belonging. Born in Kampala, Uganda to parents with roots in South Asia, he was raised in New York City. Yet his rise fulfills an older constitutional promise. In his inaugural address, he thanked his parents — “Mama and Baba” — acknowledged family “from Kampala to Delhi,” and recalled taking his oath of American citizenship on Pearl Street.

When Mamdani declared, “New York belongs to all who live in it,” he answered a question first posed in fear in 1788, tested in war, dramatized by Muhammad Ali, and deferred for generations. He named mosques alongside churches, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, and mandirs, making visible what history had long rendered partial. When he spoke of halal cart vendors, Palestinian New Yorkers, Black homeowners, and immigrant families bound together by labor and hope, he articulated a civic vision rooted in lived American reality.

Notably, Mamdani did not frame his Muslim identity as something to defend. It simply existed.

“Where else,” he asked, “could a Muslim kid like me grow up eating bagels and lox every Sunday?”

Hybridity was not an exception. It was inheritance.

Yet it is equally important to recognize that Mamdani’s historic victory does not make him infallible, nor should it. The fact that he is the first Muslim mayor of New York City is not a personal achievement alone — it reflects the barriers that Muslims, like many others, have historically faced in participating fully in American democracy. Discrimination, racial and religious bias, and systemic obstacles made this moment possible only now, not because of any failing on his part. He will, like all mayors before him, make mistakes. He will face limits, criticism, and flaws — because he is human. To hold him to an impossible standard would be to misunderstand both history and democracy.

There is, too, something unmistakably American about Mamdani’s politics. By invoking La Guardia, Dinkins, and de Blasio; by embracing democratic socialism without apology; by grounding his agenda in labor, affordability, and collective responsibility, he situates himself firmly in an American tradition — one that echoes the abolitionists, the New Deal, and the moral courage of Ali.

And as Malcolm X reminds us, this is the guiding principle for American civic life: “I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in forcing anyone to accept it.”

This is what makes the moment historic. Not that a Muslim has finally entered American politics, but that an old constitutional anxiety — once voiced as a warning — has become an ordinary fact of civic life. Islam, Mamdani, and the ideals of this nation converge in a single, undeniable truth: America is not a Christian nation, nor a nation for whites, nor a nation for the rich alone. It is a nation built on principles shared by all who live in it, and Islam has always been part of that inheritance.

The work, as Mamdani said, has only just begun. But the story his inauguration tells — that Muslims were enslaved at the nation’s birth, debated at its founding, fought in its wars, shaped its abolitionist conscience, transformed its civil rights culture, and now govern its greatest city — is no longer hypothetical.

It stands, unmistakably, on the steps of City Hall.

These signs show a new force is coming to clean out the White House

The media is freaking out over a new Rasmussen poll that found:

“A majority of voters under 40 want a democratic socialist to win the White House in the next presidential election.

“… 51 percent of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Thirty-six percent (36 percent) don’t want a democratic socialist to win in 2028, while 17 percent are not sure…

“Among the youngest cohort (ages 18-24) of voters, 57 percent want a democratic socialist to win the next presidential election…

“Among those who voted for Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election, 78 percent would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election…” (emphasis added).

I was on Ali Velshi’s MSNOW show discussing this, along with Michael Green who recently wrote a thought-provoking article about how the official poverty line in America is completely out-of-date and out of touch with the needs of most Americans. I shared a few statistics from my recent book The Hidden History of the American Dream: the Demise of the Middle Class and How to Rescue Our Future:

  • When, in 1957, my dad bought the house I grew up in, the average cost of a single-family home in America was about 2.2 times the average annual wage. Today it’s more than ten times the average wage.
  • When my Boomer generation was the same age as today’s Millennials, we owned a bit over 22 percent of the nation’s wealth; Millennials today control only about 4 percent of the country’s wealth (and it’s the same for Zoomers).
  • From the 1930s right up until the Reagan Revolution, it was possible for seniors to live comfortably on Social Security alone; Reagan undid that with his “reforms” so today that’s nearly impossible.
  • When I ran my first seriously successful business in the early 1970s, it cost me around $35/month for comprehensive health insurance for each of my 18 employees; at that time hospitals and health insurance companies were required by Michigan law (where I lived; most other states were identical) to be run as non-profits. Today, health insurance can be as much as one-fifth of a company’s payroll expense.
  • When Reagan came into office in 1981, a single wage earner could support a family with a middle-class lifestyle, and fully 65 percent of us were in the middle class (up from around 20 percent in the 1930s). Today, after 44 years of Reaganomics, it takes two full-time people to achieve the same status, which triggers huge childcare expenses, which is part of why only 43 percent of us are middle class .

FDR’s great — and successful — Democratic Socialist experiment following the Republican Great Depression was to drive the economy from the bottom up, reversing the “Horse and Sparrow” trickle-down economics and deregulation of the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations that provoked the Great Crash.

He did that by:

  • Expanding the notion of the commons — the stuff we all collectively own and is administered or funded and regulated by government — to include free public education nationwide (and cheap college), old-age retirement (Social Security), and public power and transportation systems (Tennessee Valley Authority, federal support for local transit, roads and highways).
  • Legalizing unions, an effort that was so successful that when Reagan came into office fully a third of us had good union jobs and, because they set the local wage floors, two-thirds of Americans had the equivalent of a union wage and benefit package.
  • Establishing a minimum wage on which a single worker could raise a family of three and still stay above the federal poverty level (today’s federal minimum wage is $7.25: adjusted with the Consumer Price Index, that $1.60 minimum wage in 1968 is equivalent to about $14.90 an hour in 2025 dollars).

In the years since, we’ve continued to expand the commons by establishing national single-payer healthcare systems for low-income people (Medicaid) and retired people (Medicare), both of which came out of LBJ’s Democratic Socialist program that he called The Great Society.

Meanwhile, Republicans and a few neoliberal Democrats have pushed back against these Democratic Socialist programs that made the American middle class the first in the history of the world to exceed more than half the population.

  • Reagan’s war on unions has cut our union membership down to well under 10 percent in the private sector.
  • His gutting federal funding for education has exploded college costs to the point where three generations are saddled with over $2 trillion in debt that can’t be discharged by bankruptcy.
  • Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich (from 74 percent down to 27 percent) and corporations tripled the national debt (from $800 billion to $2.4 trillion) just in his eight years; since then the four GW Bush and Trump tax cuts have, when combined with Reagan’s, produced a $38 trillion national debt so big that we now spend more on servicing their debt than we do on our defense budget or would on administering a national healthcare system.

Back in the 1940s, after the incredible success of the New Deal, President Roosevelt wanted to further expand the commons by expanding the scope of his Democratic Socialist programs. Just before he died, he proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” that included:

  • “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the nation’s industries, shops, farms, or mines. (Unionization and an above-poverty-level minimum wage.)
  • “The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation. (Ditto and government as the employer of last resort.)
  • “The right of every farmer to raise and sell products at a return that gives his family a decent living. (Don’t manipulate farm prices with stupid tariff wars, etc., and make the government the purchaser of last resort.)
  • “The right of every businessperson, large and small, to trade free from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. (Break up the giant corporations and encourage average people to start small businesses, including with loan supports.)
  • “The right of every family to a decent home. (Today this would mean no more corporations, hedge funds, and foreign billionaires owning single-family homes to squeeze us dry by jacking up rents.)
  • “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health. (FDR favored a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare for All.)
  • “The right to protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment (i.e., robust Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance).
  • “The right to a good education.” (Free or inexpensive college, quality public schools in every community.)

Much to the chagrin of my Republican-activist father, my grandfather (a 1917 Norwegian immigrant) frequently and proudly described himself as a socialist. When I asked him what he meant, he always pointed me to FDR, the New Deal, and his proposed Second Bill of Rights.

And here we are again.

My grandfather’s generation saw up-close and firsthand the tax-cutting and deregulation binge of the Roaring 20s (which were only “roaring” for the morbidly rich), and then had the lived experience of watching FDR put the country back together and create the world’s first widespread middle class.

Millennials and Zoomers today are seeing the same thing, between the Bush Housing Crash of 2008, the botched Covid Crash of 2020, and the GOP’s relentless program to drive the wealth of the nation into the money bins of the billionaires who own that party.

They see the example of most European countries, where the commons includes college (many will actually pay you a stipend to attend), healthcare, and daycare/preschool, and union density is often well above 80%. Housing is subsidized or heavily regulated, leading several to have essentially ended homelessness. Giant corporate monopolies are prohibited and local small businesses are encouraged.

Europeans call these programs Democratic Socialism or social democracy, and young Americans clearly are enthusiastic about bringing the “European Dream” to this country.

My sense is that — much like in the 1930s — a significant majority of Americans are sick of the neoliberal “let the rich run things because they know best” bullshit that Republicans, “Tech Bros,” and a shrinking minority of on-the-take Democratic politicians embrace.

Meanwhile, nobody’s sure why the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is refusing to release the autopsy they did of the 2024 election, producing speculation it may have uncovered examples of Russian and Republican manipulation of both voters and the vote, but I’m guessing the real reason is that the neoliberals who largely run the DNC saw feedback that reflected the Rasmussen poll I opened this article with.

The exploding popularity of progressive politicians from Zohran Mamdani to Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren’t an anomaly; they’re a signpost to both electoral and governing success for the next generation of genuinely progressive Democratic politicians.

This Trump bromance was strangely heartening — but don't count on it lasting

Across the political spectrum — with alarm on the right and delight on the left — the display of warmth from President Trump toward Zohran Mamdani last Friday set off shock waves. Trump’s lavish praise of New York’s mayor-elect in the Oval Office was a 180-degree turn from his condemnation of the democratic socialist as “a pure true communist” and “a total nut job.” The stunning about-face made for a great political drama. But what does it portend?

Trump and his MAGA followers are hardly going to forsake their standard mix of bigotry, anti-immigrant mania and other political toxins. Demagoguery fuels the Republican engine — and in the 11 months until the midterm elections, skullduggery to thwart democracy will accelerate rather than slow down.

While countless media outlets have marveled at the appearance of a sudden Trump-Mamdani “bromance,” the spectacle has rekindled hopes that America can become less polarized and find more common ground. But what kind of common ground can — or should — be found with the leader of today’s fascistic GOP?

It’s true that Mamdani has a huge stake in diverting the Trump bull from goring New York. Billions of dollars are at stake in federal aid to the city. And the metropolis would be thrown into a chaotic crisis if Trump goes ahead with his threats to send in federal troops. Mamdani seems to have deftly prevented such repressive actions against his city, at least for a while.

Understandably, Mamdani’s main concern is his upcoming responsibility for New York City and its 8.5 million residents. But important as the Big Apple is, Trump’s draconian and dictatorial orders nationwide are at stake. It’s unclear that the chemistry between the two leaders will do anything at all to help protect immigrants in Chicago or Los Angeles or anywhere else in the country.

The president’s accolades for a leftist certainly confounded the perennial left-bashers at Fox News and many other right-wing outlets. Such discombobulation among pro-MAGA media operatives has been a pleasure to behold. But there’s more than a wisp of wishful thinking in the air from progressives eager to believe that Trump’s effusive statements about Mamdani, an avowed socialist, will help to legitimize socialism for the U.S. public.

Trump’s widely reported and astonishing turnaround about Mamdani might cause some Americans to reconsider their anti-left reflexes. But it’s also plausible that ripple effects of the episode could help to legitimize, in some people’s eyes, Trump’s leadership even while it continues to inflict horrific policies and anti-democratic politics on the United States. Gracious and avuncular performances by despots are nothing new. Neither are cosmetics on the face of a fascist.

A hazard is that the image of Trump as a tolerant and open-minded leader, in convivial discourse with New York’s progressive leader, could undercut the solid accusations that Trump is imposing tyrannical policies on America. Just a day before he met with Mamdani, the president publicly suggested the execution of several Democrats in Congress.

The most publicized few seconds of the Trump-Mamdani session with reporters was when a journalist asked about Mamdani’s past charge that Trump is a fascist. The interchange was widely reported as an amusing moment.

The danger of normalizing autocracy is heightened when the utterly serious appraisal of Trump as a fascist can be recast as a media punchline.

Over the weekend, Mamdani stood his ground during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, pointing out that in the Oval Office he had said “yes” to the reporter’s question about Trump being a fascist. And he added, “Everything that I’ve said in the past, I continue to believe.”

How long Mamdani will remain in Trump’s good graces is anyone’s guess. No doubt the mayor-elect is fully aware that Trump could turn on him with a vengeance. If Trump can do that to one of his most loyal ideological fighters, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, as he did recently, he can certainly do it to Mamdani.

To call Trump “mercurial” is a vast understatement. And yet, in countless ways, with rhetoric and with the power of the presidency, he has been unwavering and consistent — as immigrants being terrorized by ICE agents, or single mothers trying to feed their families, know all too well. Given all the harm his policies are doing every minute, it would be unwise to take seriously Trump’s broken-clock pronouncements that are occasionally accurate and decent.

Democratic socialists don’t need Trump’s approval. We need to defeat his MAGA forces. It’s unclear whether what happened with him and Mamdani in the Oval Office will make that defeat any more likely.

None of this is a criticism of Zohran Mamdani. This is an assessment of how the follow-up to his Oval Office drama with Trump could go sideways.

Trump and Mamdani found each other newly useful last Friday. Only later will we know who was more effectively using whom.

It’s all well and good to laud Mamdani’s extraordinary political talents and inspiring leadership for social justice. At the same time, we should recognize that he has entered into an embrace with a viperous president.

And when a rattlesnake purrs, it’s still a rattlesnake.

'He blew it up in minutes': Trump has 'complicated' GOP rep campaign after Mamdani meeting

Donald Trump may have complicated the campaign trail for a GOP hopeful by meeting with Zohran Mamdani, according to a political commentator.

The president would call the New York City mayor elect a "really good" candidate for the job, with a flood of compliments from Trump surprising political commentators. Nick Reisman, writing in Politico, believes the impression Mamdani made on the president, and Trump's subsequent comments, puts the gubernational bid of Elise Stefanik at risk.

Rep. Stefanik is building her campaign against Governor Kathy Hochul but Reisman believes Trump has blown Stefanik's chances out of the water by heaping praise onto Mamdani.

Stefanik had made it clear where she stands on Mamdani, telling News 12 earlier today, "He is a jihadist. This is an area where President Trump and I disagree. But what we all want to work toward is making New York more affordable and safe, and that’s where I have a very strong record and working relationship with the administration."

The hard line against Mamdani in Stefanik's campaign has collapsed according to Reisman, who wrote, "The New York Republican is mounting an uphill gubernatorial bid in a deep blue state, building her campaign on the argument that Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is the nation’s worst chief executive — and tying Hochul to the 34-year-old democratic socialist who will soon lead New York City. Trump blew up that message in minutes."

"In the Oval Office, he said he wouldn’t worry about living in New York under Mamdani, noted how many voters they share and even complimented the mayor-elect’s looks. And in a rare bit of daylight with Stefanik, he declined to repeat her claim that Mamdani is 'a jihadist.'"

Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel noted the striking impression Mamdani had left on the president, suggesting Trump may even prefer the 34-year-old democratic socialist to JD Vance.

Kimmel said, "Trump now looks over in the corner, he sees JD Vance. All sweaty and eager. Looks away, he sees Stephen Miller, sucking on his pinkies and he looks around at all these weird, unattractive, AI-generated human vomits in his office and is like, 'Why can't I have this Mamdani around?'"

Mamdani would say of his meeting with Trump, "It was a productive meeting focused on a shared admiration and love which is New York City, and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers, the 8.5 million people who call our city their home, who are struggling to afford life in the most expensive city in the United States of America."

'Sweaty and eager': Kimmel rips into Trump staff after president won over by Mamdani

A meeting between Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani has surprised some political commentators with how friendly it seemed.

The president and New York City's mayor elect met at the Oval Office for a meeting that looked favourable to many, including talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, who joked that Trump may prefer Mamdani to his own administration. Speaking in the opening monologue of Jimmy Kimmel Live, the 58-year-old suggested Trump was won over by Mamdani.

He said, "After weeks of painting Mamdani as the fourth horseman of the apocalypse, they didn't know what to do with themselves. This is how upside down this crop of MAGA-teers is. They're mad at Trump, some of them are furious at Trump, because he was friendly with the new mayor of New York.

"Last week he had a big celebratory dinner for the Saudi Prince, whose goons dismembered a columnist for the Washington Post. No problem. This? Too much. I've got news for you guys, anybody who's surprised that Trump got along with Mamdani, you should not be surprised. Trump loves when famous people come to visit."

Mamdani and Trump were seen smiling together in the White House, with the president admitting he had more in common with the Democrat mayor's policies than first thought. Trump said, "We agree on a lot more than I would have thought."

Kimmel would go on to say "big star" Mamdani had won the president over because Trump had looked at who was in his cabinet. The talk show host imagined a scenario where Trump had "looked over at the corner" while shaking Mamdani's hand, and saw JD Vance and various members of the Trump administration.

Kimmel said, "Trump now looks over in the corner, he sees JD Vance. All sweaty and eager. Looks away, he sees Stephen Miller, sucking on his pinkies and he looks around at all these weird, unattractive, AI-generated human vomits in his office and is like, 'Why can't I have this Mamdani around?'"

The talk show host went on to describe the surprisingly friendly meeting between Trump and Mamdani as the "classic opposites attract love story".

Mamdani would say of his meeting with Trump, "It was a productive meeting focused on a shared admiration and love which is New York City, and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers, the 8.5 million people who call our city their home, who are struggling to afford life in the most expensive city in the United States of America."

I've found the secret sauce for Democrats to win back power

Rather than belabor you today with the latest Trump outrages, I want to share with you conclusions I’ve drawn from my conversation yesterday with Zohran Mamdani (you can find it here and at the bottom of this piece) about why he has a very good chance of being elected mayor of New York City on Tuesday.

He has five qualities that I believe are likely to succeed in almost any political race across America today. If a 34-year-old state assemblyman representing Astoria, Queens, who was born in Uganda and calls himself a democratic socialist, can get this far and likely win, others can as well — but they have to understand and be capable of utilizing his secret sauce.

Here are the five ingredients:

  1. Authenticity. Mamdani is the real thing. He’s not trying to be someone other than who he is, and the person he is comes through clear as a bell. I’ve been around politicians for most of my life (even ran once for governor of Massachusetts) and have seen some who are slick, some who are clever, some who are witty, some who are stiff, but rarely have I come across someone with as much authenticity as Mamdani. Authenticity is the single most important quality voters are looking for now: someone who is genuine. Who’s trustworthy because they project credibility and solidity. Whose passion feels grounded in reality.
  2. Concern for average working people. Mamdani isn’t a policy wonk who spouts 10-point plans that cause people’s eyes to glaze over. Nor is he indifferent to policy. Listen to his answers to my questions and you’ll hear a lot about the needs of average working people. That’s his entire focus. Many politicians say they’re on the side of average working people, but Mamdani has specific ideas for making New York City more affordable. I’m not sure they’ll all work, but I’m sure voters are responding to him in part because his focus is indisputable and his ideas are clear and understandable.
  3. Willingness to take on the powerful and the wealthy. He doesn’t hesitate to say he’ll raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for what average working people need. You might think this would be standard fare for Democrats, but it’s not. These days, many are scared to propose anything like this for fear they’ll lose campaign funding from big corporations and the rich. But Mamdani’s campaign isn’t being financed by big corporations or the rich. Because of New York City’s nearly four-decade-old clean elections system that matches small-dollar donations with public money, Mamdani has had nearly $13 million of government funds to run a campaign against tens of millions of dollars that corporate and Wall Street Democrats — and plenty of Republicans — have spent to boost Democratic former governor Andrew Cuomo. We need such public financing across the nation.
  4. Inspiration. Many people are inspired by Mamdani. Over 90,000 New Yorkers are now going door-to-door canvassing for him (including my 17-year-old granddaughter). Why is he so inspiring? Again, watch our conversation. It’s not only his authenticity but also his energy, his good-heartedness, and his optimism. At a time when so many of us are drenched in the daily darkness of Trump, Mamdani’s positivity feels like sunshine. It lifts one up. It makes politics almost joyful. He gives it a purpose and meaning that causes people to want to be involved.
  5. Cheerfulness. Which brings me to the fifth quality that has made this improbable candidate into a front-runner: his remarkable cheerfulness. Watch his face during our discussion. He smiled or laughed much of the time. This wasn’t empty-headed euphoria or “morning in America” campaign rubbish. It’s directly connected to a thoughtfulness that’s rare in a politician, especially one nearing the end of a campaign — who’s had to answer the same questions hundreds if not thousands of times. He exudes a buoyancy and hope that’s infectious. It’s the opposite of the scowling Trump. It is what Americans want and need, especially now.

There’s obviously much more to it, but I think these five qualities — authenticity, a focus on the needs of average working families, a willingness to take on the rich and powerful in order to pay for what average working families need, the capacity to inspire, and a cheerfulness and buoyancy — will win elections, not only in New York City but across America.

Mamdani hasn’t won yet, and New York’s Democratic establishment is doing whatever it can to stop him (Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s billionaire former mayor, just put $1.5 million into a super PAC supporting Cuomo’s bid and urged New Yorkers to vote for Cuomo).

If Mamdani wins, his success should be a lesson for all progressives and all Democrats across America.

- YouTube www.youtube.com


  • Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
  • Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org.