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
democratic socialism
After Hochul’s Mamdani Endorsement, Trump Threatens New York Federal Funding
"Donald Trump is threatening to withhold money from NYC if they elect Zohran Mamdani, who [is] standing up to his billionaire donor buddies, instead of his friend Andrew Cuomo who will roll over for them," said one organizer.
Sep 15, 2025
"Threatening voters and cities over their elections is what authoritarians do," said one progressive organizer Monday after US President Donald Trump did just that—suggesting he would rip federal funding away from New York City, and possibly the state, if democratic socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the November election.
The president's threat came after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, announced her endorsement of Mamdani in an op-ed in The New York Times, after months of pressure from progressives.
Trump said Hochul had "Endorsed the 'Liddle Communist'" and called the governor's support "a rather shocking development."
"How can such a thing happen?" Trump asked of Hochul's endorsement of her own party's popular and charismatic nominee. "Washington will be watching this situation very closely. No reason to be sending good money after bad!"
The comments appeared to be a threat to state or city funding, said critics including Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
"Donald Trump is threatening to withhold money from NYC if they elect Zohran Mamdani, who [is] standing up to his billionaire donor buddies, instead of his friend [former Gov.] Andrew Cuomo who will roll over for them," said D'Arrigo, referring to reports that Trump has considered helping Cuomo, who lost the primary to Mamdani in June but is running as an independent in the general election, and to Cuomo's own comments about the positive relationship he would have with the president if elected mayor.
Another observer accused Trump of "using taxpayer money as a gun to voters' heads."
Mamdani, a Democratic member of the state Assembly, won the primary in June, decisively beating Cuomo—who had rapidly plummeted in the polls leading up to the primary vote as Mamdani promoted a policy agenda laser-focused on making the city more affordable and engaged directly with New Yorkers across the five boroughs.
Despite Mamdani's victory, Hochul has been among a number of powerful Democratic politicians who refused to endorse the party's nominee to lead the nation's largest city following the primary, leading to condemnation from progressive organizers and lawmakers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
New York Democrats House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand have all declined to endorse Mamdani thus far, with Jeffries falsely claiming Mamdani has not won over voters in the House leader's district and Gillibrand suggesting as recently as last week that Mamdani has fueled antisemitism by not condemning phrases associated with Palestinian resistance.
Hochul relented on Sunday, writing that she has had "disagreements" with Mamdani in conversations they've had in recent weeks, but that in their talks she has "heard a leader who shares my commitment to a New York where children can grow up safe in their neighborhoods and where opportunity is within reach for every family."
"I heard a leader who is focused on making New York City affordable—a goal I enthusiastically support," she added.
Trump also ran his reelection campaign last year on promises of lowering the cost of living for Americans—but while Mamdani has backed up his pledge of improving affordability with policy proposals like fare-free buses, a network of city-owned grocery stores, and no-cost universal childcare, the president has pushed a spending bill that's expected to increase the number of uninsured people by 14.2 million and has restarted student debt collection, ending a Biden-era program to make payments more affordable and threatening to garnish the wages of struggling borrowers.
The president previously threatened New York City's funding in June and said in July that his administration could take over the city's government if Mamdani wins the November election and enacts policies Trump doesn't support.
"If he does get in, I’m gonna be president and he’s gonna have to do the right thing or they’re not getting any money. He’s gotta do the right thing,” Trump said on Fox News. “If a communist gets elected to run New York, it can never be the same... We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to."
At The New Republic last week, Alex Shephard wrote that by refusing to throw their considerable influence behind Mamdani, Schumer, Jeffries, and Gillibrand are "suggesting that they will throw him—and the city he represents—to the wolves come 2026."
"Trump has made it clear that he hopes to target New York City just as he's done to Los Angeles and Washington, DC—with deployed National Guard troops and ICE agents running rampant," wrote Shephard.
Democrats including Schumer and Jeffries, he added, "are shooting their party in the foot... Predominantly renters, Mamdani’s voters were also disproportionately young, Asian, and Hispanic—all groups that moved toward Trump in last year’s election, and that Democrats will need if they want to take back Congress and the White House."
"Democrats say they are determined to be a big-tent party," Shephard continued. "But somehow there’s no room in it for the politicians who can actually help fill it?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Not-So-Impossible Quest to Evict War Profiteer L3Harris From Northampton, Mass.
The sudden emergence of candidates for every single local office, who are eager to remove L3Harris from the city, reframes our weekly protests and actions at L3Harris from a futile gesture to a burgeoning movement.
Aug 31, 2025
On Wednesday, August, 20, I go to protest—as I do every Wednesday at 6:30 am Eastern Time—at local arms profiteer, L3Harris. I know something might be up, because one of my companions at last week's L3 demonstration warned me that people plan to block the company driveway. The police will make arrests. Protest leaps deftly over a small barrier to become civil disobedience.
I have attended countless demonstrations across my accumulating decades, but had never distinguished myself sufficiently to be chosen for arrest. As a lifelong resident of a country known across the globe for crimes against humanity, how is it possible for me to have tiptoed so gently that no cop anywhere, ever, tackled or cuffed me for a ride downtown? My spotless record indicates that I have paused at the threshold of moral opportunity and timidly shrunken myself into something tiny, almost invisible—a green aphid on a tomato leaf, a wisp of smoke from an extinguished match head, a name forgotten in the presence of a long ago face. Our weekly demonstrations at L3Harris have been too small to elicit even a single police cruiser, and even now, none have yet arrived. We live in the new US era of arbitrary arrests. Pristine criminal records have become a luxury of bygone days.
Last week we had seven protesters, and now we shatter that record-breaking turnout with an array of colorful people who number at least four times that many (maybe more)—some wear grim reaper getups, and others are masked, hooded, cloaked, or simply covered over with rain gear and warm coats on a rare, cold, rainy day momentarily punctuating a month of drought and oppressive heat. But these people (organized by Demilitarize Western Mass with a number of individual participants from Jewish Voice for Peace)—however many we have—now block the entrance with their bodies. They have stretched a yellow ribbon labeled, "crime scene" across the road. The crime itself, represented explicitly with a line of faux bloodstained body bags, each the size of an infant, might ordinarily be lost—crimes against humanity depend on the oblivious indifference of participants who work within the lower layers of homicidal supply chains. We stir the faint embers of conscience, the hypothetical internal torment of L3 workers, but we perform primarily to arouse the sleeping giant of Northampton, a city whose moral resolve has been largely illusory.
The L3Harris website might easily be seen as a parody of so-called "woke" culture. One page solicits job applications with a picture of a Black man with a child on his back. Workers at L3Harris have access to "employee resource groups" organized around diverse ethnic, religious, and racial identities. The human imagination would seemingly explode with flabbergasted disbelief at how far absurdity can be stretched—corporations have created cultures with such limitless credulity that George Orwell himself would now scream into the void. At L3Harris you can join "MENA"—a company association for people with Middle Eastern or North African descent who build sensors to guide bombs to the chosen Gazan addresses (schools, hospitals and apartments). I don't see any employees who appear to be Middle Eastern or North African at our Northampton outpost of the death industry. L3 also has an employee resource group called "PRIDE" for its LGBTQ workers. I suspect that we witness a time lag between the old jargon that characterized former US President Joe Biden's style, and the new language of current President Donald Trump's white supremacy. Both Biden and Trump align around L3Harris and massive bombing of civilians. Even the worst crimes against humanity require the balm of cultural trends. Who but god itself could conceivably imagine the roiling thoughts of L3 workers whose cars have been stymied by the accusing souls of dead babies suddenly lined up on the pavement of their employee parking lot entrance.
Ralph Nader sets the Gazan death toll at 400,000 currently—we futilely attempt to replicate the scope of suffering with theatrical props. A stretch of white cloth streaked with more red paint lies across the entire L3Harris driveway entrance, and beside that, puddles of somewhat pinkish liquid glisten in the light mist that falls.
One woman with a bullhorn leads chants: "Hey, ho! L3Harris has got to go! From Palestine to Mexico, L3Harris has got to go!" I team up with a woman in a black raincoat holding my end of a sign that reads, "L3 your boss Chris Kubacik makes $19.8 million a year supplying weapons to Israel." Another companion placard has a photograph of CEO Kubacik blandly smiling to reveal a couple of vampire teeth with a drop of blood oozing at each point. This is all wonderful—any spark of life, whimsy, or celebration these days has an aura of abrupt surprise, as if a spaceship has descended from the void of interstellar darkness and unloaded a cargo of atrophied torsos and oversized heads.
Is L3Harris, the epicenter of Northampton, the only part of Northampton that truly matters, the dusky shadow of ourselves that we paper over with slogans? Our civil disobedience acts out a theatrical production with a skeleton cast. Only the protesters, the police, a reporter for the local progressive newspaper (The Shoestring), the L3 employees, and a few passing cars are here to play their parts. The two most important roles—the 30,000 Northampton residents and the Northampton elected city officials—are not here. The guidance systems that align bombs with anatomies take shape behind the ordinary walls of a local workplace in a town that thinks of itself as a beacon of universal tolerance. An ocean of blood resolves into a moral trickle. From time to time, activists have assembled at the entrance of L3Harris, but not yet with sustained resolve. We have barely imagined an endgame for resistance, but clearly, we need to release Northampton from the bondage of neoliberal somnolence.
History will possibly link Northampton and L3Harris in the manner that we link Los Alamos, New Mexico and the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People live quietly in Los Alamos too—people who drink coffee and catch their breath, people who look at basketball scores, work as grocery baggers or nuclear physicists, but we forget the normal things that go on at Los Alamos as we may one day forget about Smith College, The Iron Horse Music Hall, or The David Ruggles Center that commemorates the role that Northampton played as a stop on the Underground Railroad.
My comparison between Northampton and Los Alamos might raise eyebrows, as I hope it will. Los Alamos, as a township, had no historical existence at all and rather coalesced around the top secret Manhattan Project begun in 1943. The township officially emerged only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were blown to smithereens—the fruits of Los Alamos. Northampton, on the other hand, has a rich history as one of the birthplaces of the US mental health industry, and as the home of such morally uncompromising religious zealots as Jonathan Edwards and Sylvester Graham. In 1805, 15,000 Northampton residents gathered to celebrate the hanging of two Irish immigrants condemned by a kangaroo court that required no evidence. A few decades later our town became a major stop on the Underground Railroad. Northampton continues to flutter mysteriously in the political breezes. L3Harris did not build Northampton from scratch, but arrived quietly as an afterthought. Most of us don't even know that it is there, manufacturing death and selling lethal components around the globe.
The Manhattan Project was kept secret by design and centered in Los Alamos because of its remote proximity to nowhere. In our times the military-industrial complex no longer needs to conceal its intent. Our secrets are not secrets at all, but, rather, we share a repressed understanding that—whatever tiny measure of agency the masses might possess—war is none of our business. The balance of control has made ordinary people into particles of sediment carried passively downstream by the momentum of corporate aspirations and the Orwellian gifts of politicians and media. But Northampton likes to sometimes think of itself as a world apart.
Can we really do the impossible and evict a major component of the US military-industrial complex with the tools of civil disobedience and local elections?
There might be 30-35 of us here, and now the cops have arrived looking uncertain, but peeved. A line of L3 employees' vehicles wait to turn into the blocked driveway. The biggest, most muscular cop recognizes me with a smile—we both workout at Planet Fitness and I wave to my fitness comrade. Some L3 employees have parked at the mental health facility across the street and cross our picket line like so many strike breakers. A young man in his early 20s wears a particularly fierce scowl. Most armaments employees self-consciously avoid eye contact with us. The moral fault lines of the US seldom become as explicit as they now are.
The civil disobedience ends with a whimper. A couple of particularly nasty, loud-voiced cops intimidate us, and we take down the yellow tape, remove the bloody babies in body bags, and move aside while fire hoses wash away the blood of Gaza. As a piece of counter-theater, the cops grab two women from Jewish Voice for Peace and shove them roughly into cruisers. My imagination runs wild. The police are an appendage of the city, its mayor, and city council members. This protest is the tip of the iceberg—what would an event like this look like if the police were constrained by a socialist mayor—our version of Zohran Mamdani? Can Northampton—the so-called most progressive city in America—live up to the 3.5% rule. The 3.5% rule generally refers to the needed percentage of people nationally willing to engage in sustained civil disobedience in order to bring about the collapse of an oppressive regime, or a drastic shift in policy. The 3.5% rule may not be entirely applicable to town politics, but still, I wonder what would happen if Northampton elected a Zohran Mamdani sort of mayor and mobilized civil disobedience with a thousand protesters blocking the entrance to L3Harris' parking lot?
Speaking of Planet Fitness, I note that L3Harris and "The Planet" pay the town similar property taxes despite the enormously unequal revenues recorded by each business. Bomb guiding systems and periscopes for nuclear subs bring in some 40 times the national revenue generated by free weights and treadmills. Northampton politicians gave L3Harris over a decade of tax breaks—these town authorities justified this because L3Harris provided local jobs. But the act of pandering to corporate giants has not solved Northampton's financial struggles. The schools wrestle with financial shortfalls every year, and this has led to cuts and layoffs. Rents have become impossible for working people; the streets, rutted and pock marked with neglect, swallow tires and bust axels. Last winter a snow storm and brutal freeze made streets almost impassable for two weeks, but, more than any other issue, the underfunded schools have inspired an unprecedented political movement featuring younger candidates vying to unseat the centrist town council incumbents that have been faithful to Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra. Some identify as democratic socialists, including 24-year-old Will O'Dwyer, whose campaign website lists a number of laudable policy intentions including:
Oppose further tax breaks and subsidies for L3Harris and support the removal of the company and its operations from Northampton.
Niko Letendre-Cahillane is another young democratic socialist running for a councilor seat in my ward one district. His campaign website lists the following proposal:
Recognize that Northampton is part of a wider global community, and will push for divestment from weapons manufacturers and harmful and extractive businesses, while supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement to end apartheid in Palestine.
Letendre-Cahillane specifically named the removal of L3Harris from Northampton as a critical campaign goal in a recent public debate.
Luke Rotello, running for a council seat in Northampton ward five, states on his website that he "will seek ways to remove war profiteers from our city." He also specifically named L3Harris as the target for removal in public debates.
The incumbent from ward three, Quaverly Rothenberg, has hosted several activists in her office for months now who wish to brainstorm strategies to remove L3 from Northampton.
I have been told by more experienced observers of local politics that it is possible to have councilors from all seven of Northampton's wards, and two at-large councilors who will all work to remove L3Harris from Northampton.
Current Northampton Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra stated in a debate on August, 26—I am paraphrasing—that she is not happy with L3Harris being in Northampton, but there isn't anything the town can do about it. This is rather par for the course for this mayor who has failed to prevent the loss of critical school staff, and who has blatantly soft-pedaled her pitch to get the local Smith College (with their multibillion-dollar endowment) to increase the college's piddling PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) to make up for the shortfall. Sciarra calls herself an "unapologetic progressive." In Northampton every politician to the left of Donald Trump claims to be progressive. Phrases like "social justice," "human rights," and "standing up for working families" fly out of their mouths like spittle pouring from the mouth of a rabid dog.
Sciarra's strongest opponent in the upcoming mayoral election preliminaries, Dan Breindel, calls Sciarra a Republican. Nobody paying attention would mistake Sciarra for a "progressive" given her stingy refusal to apply ample resources to the critically underfunded schools and her penchant for austerity combined with gaudy, gentrifying downtown projects. The population who send their children to public schools is much poorer than the overall voting public. Northampton has the most unequal distribution of wealth in Western Massachusetts. Politicians like Mayor Sciarra can piss all over the rights of poor constituents and appeal to a substantial base of retirees and moneyed residents who can afford to send their kids to nearby Williston—a private school. And Sciarra is a dead weight upon the aspiration to force L3Harris to leave town. Mayoral candidate, Dan Breindel, on the other hand, wrote this in an email to me:
On a personal level, I am extremely anti-war, so please rest assured my aim is to rid the world of the military-industrial complex, starting with this town. 100%. Not only are they (L3Harris) here in our backyard making money off murder, when they considered leaving a few years back the city effectively gave them one of our most beautiful plots of land, which they in turn restrict all public access to. So there's nothing good about having them here and it's frankly baffling they've been here as long as they have seemingly without any real government opposition.
The sudden emergence of candidates for every single local office, who are eager to remove L3Harris from the city, reframes our weekly protests and actions at L3Harris from a futile gesture to a burgeoning movement. I had previously been discouraged by our lack of numbers, but even small protests have meaning. Some of my fellow anti-war protesters are barely aware that their struggle to evict L3Harris now has a resounding echo in the effort to overthrow the neoliberal, corporate-friendly mayor and city council. What role will a truly progressive mayor and council have in growing and energizing our protests? I fantasize about taking on the role of liaison between young socialist candidates and mostly older anti-L3Harris protesters. I also think about being arrested. My time has come to cross that threshold.
Can we really do the impossible and evict a major component of the US military-industrial complex with the tools of civil disobedience and local elections? Our efforts have escalated on many fronts—notably, Mathew Hoey, who once collaborated with Noam Chomsky to bring attention to the US nuclear expansion into South Korea, has written a superb op-ed for the local Hampshire Gazette. Hoey details how L3Harris' proximity endangers the local community which may become a "counterforce" nuclear target. It simply astonishes me that local people in our fascist times have the energy and imagination to undertake a seemingly impossible quest. It now seems less impossible than it did mere months ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani for NYC Mayor: The Fight We’ve Been Waiting for
Should Mamdani’s campaign prevail over establishment candidates and billionaire cash, the victory will realign the nation’s politics more profoundly than anything since the first Bernie presidential campaign.
Jul 27, 2025
I have no doubt that Zohran Mamdani, upset winner over the heavily favored former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, would have greatly preferred that his much better financed opponent would graciously accept the will of his party’s voters, thereby allowing the Democratic nominee (Mamdani) to sail on through the final election in November as is generally the case. And so would we, his supporters, all.
Instead, he finds himself actively opposed by elements of just about every significant anti-democratic, anti-working class faction in American politics. As the Talking Heads song put it, this race “ain’t no disco; this ain’t no fooling around.” Should Mamdani’s campaign prevail over all of them, the victory will realign the nation’s politics more profoundly than anything since the first Bernie Sanders presidential campaign—a shift the nation is obviously in desperate need of.
On the one side we have a candidate arguing the need to pull out all the stops, to try all avenues—increased rent control and housing construction, reduced transit fares, city-owned supermarkets, higher taxes on great wealth, and so on down the line—in an effort to allow the city’s working class to remain the city’s working class, rather than become a stream of economic refugees who can no longer afford to live there. On the other side we’ve got a magpie’s cast of characters, united only by their dread of the prospect of a mayor siding with the struggling many, while openly acknowledging that the overprivileged few—the billionaires who think that the city owes it all to them—are not the saviors they think themselves to be, but are actually part and parcel of the problem.
First up in the cast, of course, is the Republican Party, nominally in the person of its candidate Curtis Sliwa, founder of the unarmed crime prevention group the Guardian Angels. Sliwa, however, is not expected to be a factor in the final outcome. Naturally, the party’s interest in the race is primarily represented—as it is in all things—by our intermittently coherent president, who has fulminated about arresting Mamdani, revoking his citizenship, cutting off federal funding to the city, and even taking direct control of it—a threat he was bound to make sooner or later to some local government not to his taste.
The upshot of all this? This is our race.
Then we have the Democrats more interested in corporate cash than in the working class—unfortunately a rather large sector of the party—along with those troubled by the fact that Mamdani opposes Israel’s ongoing obliteration of Gaza, two groups with significant overlap. This dominant wing of the party is actually directly involved in this race to an unusual degree by dint of the fact that the minority leaders of both branches of Congress—Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer—are Brooklyn voters. So are they going to pull the lever for their party’s nominee in November? We don’t know. Neither has actually opposed Mamdani, but the failure of the party’s leaders to endorse him thus far is without recent precedent. Since Schumer was recently pleased to be seen smiling in a group photo with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you can see the problem. Others have been outright hostile. Democrat Laura Gillen, representative of a New York city-adjacent district. for instance, has characterized Mamdani as “a threat to my constituents.”
Next we have the independent candidates themselves, who have now come to seem more like anti-Mamdani place holders, even though one of them is actually the current mayor of New York. That would be Eric Adams, elected to the position as a Democrat, who declined to enter his party’s primary after running into a few bumps in the road during his term of office. The problems were indictment on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals, and soliciting and accepting a bribe; and a subsequent pardon by the ubiquitous Donald Trump. The other major one is Andrew Cuomo, one-time Democratic governor of New York, forced to resign in the face of numerous charges of sexual harassment, and loser of the Democratic primary, despite the backing of independent expenditure committees spending more than $25 million—the heaviest spending in the history of New York City politics. Cuomo has decided that the voters deserve a second chance to make up for their error in not choosing him the first time and declared that this time “It’s all or nothing. We either win or even I will move to Florida.” His campaign has subsequently declared this was a joke—the Florida part, not the second shot. But there is precedent: Trump decamped there after the state’s voters rejected him and certainly he could fix the ex-governor up with something at Mar-a-Lago. It’d only be fair after everything he’s done for Eric Adams.
And last, but certainly not least, we have the billionaires, starting with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, never one to shy from putting his money where his mouth is—he spent over $1 billion on his own four-month presidential campaign in 2020 (he won American Samoa)—dropped $8.3 million on the Cuomo effort. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and William Lauder, executive chairman of The Estée Lauder Companies, were in for $500,000. Expedia chairman Barry Diller, Netflix chairman Reed Hastings, and hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb were down for $250,000. Alice Walton, of the Walmart family, contributed $100,000. Citadel CEO Ken Griffin was in for $50,000. Ackman, Loeb, and Griffin were 2024 Trump supporters, by the way.
And reinforcements are on the way, with Hamptons polo patrons Kenneth and Maria Fishel of Renaissance Properties lining up new billionaires—in this case for Eric Adams—including grocery (Gristedes and D’Agostino) and real estate mogul John Catsimatidis, himself a former (Republican) candidate for New York City mayor. As Kenneth Fishel told Fortune, “This is about keeping New York vibrant, keeping it free from socialism, and keeping it safe.” At this point, this story might sound like something out of that recent Francis Ford Coppola movie that no one went to see, but it’s what’s actually happening.
(Personal disclosure: As one who was once slightly famous long ago, when elected to the Massachusetts Legislature at 32 as a self-described socialist—said to be the first since the Sacco and Vanzetti era—I am wildly jealous. Reading the news on election night, I was literally moved to tears of joy. And I don’t imagine I’m the only one feeling envious.)
The upshot of all this? This is our race.
Who’s the we in “our”? Anyone who feels that we the people have to find a way to wrest control of the economic future of this country from the likes of Trump, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, all of the above-named billionaires, and the ones we don’t know. Whether it be knocking, calling, texting, posting, giving a buck—even if just that—all of us should give this race at least a bit of our attention. Just think of how sweet it will be to beat that whole crew.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular