SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
affordable housing
What Zohran Mamdani’s Victory Tells Us About America
People across the country need leaders who will stand with them and fight for them with bold ideas that create real solutions for real problems.
Nov 16, 2025
On a crisp November night, I stood shoulder to shoulder at the Brooklyn Paramount Theater with ecstatic New Yorkers celebrating Zohran Mamdani’s victory to become New York City’s first Muslim and South Asian mayor. The ornate hall was filled with people of all races, ethnicities, genders, and ages. I saw elderly South Asian men dancing, young people cheering, women in hijabs and trans women in saris. The venue was filled with hope and promise, and the audience represented the multicultural and multiracial ideals that make America great.
For New Yorkers and millions of people who have felt the political weight of the past years, Mamdani’s ascendance to Gracie Mansion is more than a victory; it is a cultural and emotional reckoning. The current events of the past few years have alienated so many people from politics, but on election night, it was clear that the energy has shifted. Mamdani has ushered in a new generation of politics, one that does not divide across race, religion, or age, but one that brings people together to drive change on the issues that impact their lives.
As a first-generation Muslim immigrant, I felt the November air fill with joy, hope, and an abundance of possibilities. As the CEO of a Muslim voter mobilization organization, I saw how hard the Muslim community worked for this moment, and I recognized the need for leaders like Mamdani and Ghazala Hashmi, who won her race to become Virginia’s first-ever Muslim and South Asian lieutenant governor.
I lead a team of primarily young US-born Muslim Americans, many of whom were born and raised against the backdrop of 9/11. They never lived in an America that embraced their Muslim identities. Yet, they still choose to become activists and organizers working to build a more inclusive and representative America and counter the political machines that demonized them, their families, and their neighbors—both at home and abroad.
New Yorkers showed us that hope and positivity can still win over hate and divisiveness.
Without a doubt, America changed after 9/11, and it slid toward authoritarianism that was largely fueled by rabid anti-Muslim bigotry. Elected officials sought to blame an entire American community for the actions of a few foreigners and waged forever wars that have continued to harm and destabilize entire nations decades later.
Even in today’s Trump era, the America that welcomed me and my family in 1988 from Syria no longer celebrates multiculturalism and the freedom of speech, and it is certainly not seeking peace and justice. Instead, it has continued the war machine of administrations past and fueled new wars against immigrants on American soil.
The election of Donald Trump in 2024 seemed to cement our descent toward isolationism and cruelty—indeed, we are sliding. From the weaponization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement against immigrant communities to the assault against the media to the unabashed corruption and cronyism, American democracy has been severely damaged.
But in the midst of all of this, in the age of Trump 2.0, a young, South Asian man who is unapologetically Muslim was elected mayor of America’s largest city. How could this happen, and what does it tell us about our country? The answer lies in both Mamdani’s platform and in our identity as a nation.
Mamdani’s campaign redefined grassroots organizing, political strategy, and digital outreach. He ran a disciplined and creative campaign that stayed on message no matter what his critics said: Make New York City affordable for all. He spoke the language of unity as his opponents relied on fearmongering and scare tactics. He brought people together under the belief that every day New Yorkers could be agents of change to create the city that they deserve.
Mamdani’s call for affordability was not just a campaign slogan; it was a collective affirmation of what New York City could be. He resonated with voters who are desperately struggling with unaffordable housing, food insecurity, inaccessible transportation, an overburdened healthcare system, and the exorbitant cost of childcare. These issues are not just top of mind for New Yorkers—they are indicative of what most Americans are struggling with. Mamdani remained laser focused on kitchen table issues and committed to a future that cared about the working class. Mamdani transcended his identity and connected directly with everyday people.
But identity does matter, especially for a Muslim-American in New York City. Despite Mamdani’s best efforts to focus on the issues central to his platform, he was forced to confront what his identity meant to the mayoral race—and most importantly, to himself. In the midst of perhaps the ugliest anti-Muslim campaign that we have ever seen directed at a public figure, Mamdani spoke clearly about his values that are grounded in his faith and how it taught him to care for others. He refused to hide it and plainly asked New York to embrace him for who he is. And New York responded with an emphatic yes.
The movement that Mamdani galvanized by meeting everyday New Yorkers where they were led to the highest turnout of voters in a mayoral election since 1969, surpassing all expectations. Over 1 million voters essentially rejected the smears and rose above the hate. They too stayed focused on the issues that actually mattered. New Yorkers showed us that hope and positivity can still win over hate and divisiveness. New Yorkers also showed us that voters can not be bought by deep-pocketed billionaires but can be brought together without demonizing and dehumanizing one another.
Most importantly, Mamdani’s victory showcased that people are hungry for change. We can no longer move forward with politics as usual. Americans across the country need leaders who will stand with them and fight for them. Americans need leaders with bold ideas that create real solutions for real problems.
Past leaders have shown us that America can turn on the people who make this country great. But on November 4, we saw that America is equally capable of producing leaders like Mamdani who fight for the common good.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Cities Should Not Be Training Grounds for War
What neighborhoods need are affordable housing, accessible healthcare, well-funded schools, and good jobs—not Humvees on their corners.
Nov 07, 2025
When President Donald Trump stood before military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico this September and declared that American cities should serve as “training grounds” for US troops, he did more than test the limits of civil-military relations—he crossed them. His proposal isn’t just bluster. It represents a dangerous escalation in domestic militarization that undermines the Constitution and endangers the very people our government is sworn to protect.
American neighborhoods are not battlefields. These our the places where we build our homes, send our children to school–the places we take the buses to work every morning. These cities are markers of who we are, not training grounds. Treating them as warfields sets a precedent that imperils every citizen, especially the Black, immigrant, and working-class communities he has repeatedly vilified. Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland don’t need military drills. They need investments in housing, healthcare, and education.
There’s a reason the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the role of federal troops in domestic law enforcement. The law enshrines a fundamental democratic principle: Civilian life must be separate from military power. Trump’s plan to “train” troops in US cities would erase that line entirely.
He has already blurred these boundaries before—from ordering federal forces into Los Angeles during immigration protests to threatening governors who refused to deploy National Guard troops on his terms. Each instance chips away at the legal and moral walls that protect civilian governance.
Democracy thrives when communities are supported, not surveilled; when people are empowered, not patrolled.
Presidents have rarely invoked exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Dwight Eisenhower did so to enforce school desegregation in 1957; George H. W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those were extraordinary moments of crisis—not political theater. Turning urban neighborhoods into “training zones” is neither an emergency response nor a lawful one. It’s an authoritarian rehearsal.
Equally troubling is the administration’s push to reshape the armed forces around an exclusionary, hyper-masculine “warrior ethos,” while dismantling diversity and inclusion programs. Combining that militant culture with domestic deployments is a recipe for disaster. Soldiers trained to neutralize foreign enemies should never be tasked with policing American citizens. That pairing risks injury, mistrust, and tragedy. This culture of war needs to end.
The US military has long earned public trust precisely because it stood apart from partisan politics. Using troops in domestic political battles destroys that trust—and corrodes the foundation of democracy itself.
Communities need peace, not militarization. No number of military drills will solve crime, poverty, or unrest. What neighborhoods need are affordable housing, accessible healthcare, well-funded schools, and good jobs—not Humvees on their corners.
At the Peace Economy Project, we’ve spent decades showing how misplaced our national priorities have become. The United States now spends nearly $1 trillion each year on its military, yet millions of Americans struggle to pay rent or buy groceries. Trump’s proposal to rehearse war inside our own borders exposes just how warped this imbalance is.
Some dismiss his statements as rhetoric. But we’ve already seen troops deployed unlawfully, governors coerced, and protesters tear-gassed. Each time the line blurs between civilian life and military power, it becomes easier to cross again. We are marching steadily toward authoritarianism.
What begins as “training” can morph into surveillance, detainment, or suppression of protest. Once normalized, that level of militarization will be nearly impossible to reverse.
What We Must Do
We cannot allow our neighborhoods to become rehearsal spaces for war. Congress must move swiftly to reaffirm the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and establish clear penalties for violations. Governors must reject attempts to federalize local security for political purposes. Civil society—from churches to universities to advocacy groups—must remain vigilant, united, and vocal.
Above all, we must remember: Democracy thrives when communities are supported, not surveilled; when people are empowered, not patrolled.
Our cities are not training grounds. They are where families grow, where culture flourishes, and where democracy takes root. The path to peace and safety does not run through military drills in our streets—it runs through justice, opportunity, and care.
As Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project, I call on every elected official, civic leader, and citizen to reject this dangerous experiment in domestic militarization. We must defend the line between war and peace, between authoritarianism and democracy—before it disappears altogether.
Because if we allow our streets to become training grounds for soldiers, we risk losing the very freedoms those soldiers are sworn to defend.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani’s Win and the Price of Urban Life: Why City Voters Are Seeking Change
The soaring costs of city life appear to be sending urban voters toward progressive leaders who promise relief, both in the US and globally.
Nov 06, 2025
From New York to California and beyond, soaring costs seem to be rewriting city politics, as voters respond to candidates who promise to ease the financial squeeze. Zohran Mamdani’s historic win in NYC underscores a shift that has been emerging in recent years—both in the US and globally—and could extend to other major cities.
For example, in Boston, progressive Democrat Michelle Wu, elected in 2021, ran on making city life more affordable with expanded tenant protections, investments in housing, and childcare support. Her most prominent challenger, Josh Kraft, son of Forbes 400 billionaire Robert Kraft, flamed out even before the election. Out west, Oakland’s progressive Democrat Barbara Lee, elected in 2025, focused on tackling homelessness and making housing and daycare more accessible for families. And in Chicago, democratic socialist Brandon Johnson, who took office in 2023, campaigned on “Green Social Housing” and other programs to lower living costs for working families.
Across these cities, the math is clear: When basic necessities like housing, childcare, and utility costs reach stratospheric levels, voters turn to leaders who offer solutions. These mayoral victories reflect the economic pressures impacting urban life and show why cost-of-living issues are now a defining feature of city politics.
Let’s take a look at how these four cities—New York, Boston, Oakland, and Chicago—stack up in terms of costs.
When a One-Bedroom Costs a Fortune
Across the US, if you’re renting a one‑bedroom apartment, you’re looking at spending about $1,495 a month as of October 2025.
But if you happen to live in one of the country’s pricier cities, that number skyrockets fast. In New York City, a simple one‑bedroom will set you back around $4,026 per month, almost three times the national average. Boston renters face similarly steep costs—one‑bedroom apartments in the city average about $3,455 per month. Over in Oakland, it’s about $2,090 per month, and Chicago clocks in at roughly $1,893 per month.
The point is clear: If you’re renting in America’s major cities, you’re paying beyond what most renters pay across the country, and that housing squeeze helps explain why affordability is a defining issue in urban politics right now.
When Daycare Drains Your Wallet
For parents juggling work and childcare, the national average cost of full-time daycare comes in at roughly $1,039 a month. In major cities where cost of living is high, that number climbs dramatically.
In New York City, center‑based care costs about $26,000 a year on average, which works out to about $2,167 per month. In Boston, families can expect rates around $2,856 per month for about 130 hours of care. In Oakland, the cost for full-day care for children above 36 months is approximately $2,600 per month in many centers. And in Chicago, estimates for full-day daycare center-based care hover in the ballpark of $2,300 per month.
It’s no surprise that voters in these cities are drawn to mayoral candidates who talk seriously about childcare. When daycare alone can eat up a significant portion of a family’s monthly budget, affordability quickly becomes a top political issue.
Basic Services Break the Budget
Nationally, households in the 50 largest metro areas spend about $310 a month on utilities (electricity, gas, heating, water). But in these cities, utility costs blow past the national average, adding another layer of financial pressure for residents.
In New York City, the average monthly utility bill comes in at roughly $571. Meanwhile, in Boston residents pay around $443 a month for utilities. In the Bay Area, the average bill in Oakland comes in at about $342 a month, which is lower than New York and Boston but still higher than in many parts of the country. Chicago households report average monthly utility bills of approximately $352.
Bottom line: If you live in one of those big‑city hubs, utility bills are another piece of the affordability puzzle that voters in these cities are increasingly factoring into who they elect to lead.
Affordability is the New Political Pulse
Rising prices are taking center stage in urban politics, affecting election outcomes and pointing to a growing trend in city governance. Mamdani’s upset in New York is already sending ripples across the country, giving a boost to candidates with progressive or democratic-socialist platforms.
In Minneapolis, state senator Omar Fateh, a progressive Democrat and longtime advocate for renter protections, ran for mayor on a platform focused on affordable housing and expanded public services. In Seattle, activist Katie Wilson, also aligned with the city’s progressive wing, is challenging incumbent Bruce Harrell, centering her campaign on housing, public transit, and the broader cost-of-living crunch.
And this trend isn’t just an American story:rising urban costs show up in political trends worldwide.
Consider Vienna, Austria. Mayor Michael Ludwig, a Social Democrat, has been at the helm since 2018, reinforcing the city’s storied social-housing tradition (which the New York Times called a “renter’s utopia”). Roughly 60% of residents live in subsidized or publicly-owned apartments, while the city continues to invest heavily in childcare and energy-efficient infrastructure. The result is a model of urban living where the cost of everyday life is more manageable.
Copenhagen, Denmark, under Mayor Sophie Hæstorp Andersen of the Social Democrats from 2021 to 2024, similarly emphasizes public housing, affordable early childhood education, and green-energy initiatives to keep city life manageable. And in Barcelona, Spain, Mayor Ada Colau of the leftist Barcelona en Comú party, led from 2015 to 2023, expanding affordable housing, rent controls, and social services.
The economy of the city is pretty much the politics of the city. Zohranomics is essentially urbanomics: the politics of affordability, writ large across city streets. In expensive urban areas, the numbers aren’t abstract, they’re votes. And as the pressures of urban life mount, politics increasingly follows the bottom line.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular