Former U.S. President Donald Trump voiced a potential intervention in New York if Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, wins the city’s mayoral race. Interestingly, Mamdani, currently serving tenure as a New York state assemblyman, managed a surprising victory over previous Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary held on June 24. Mamdani is poised to compete against the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, in the general election scheduled for November 4. Trump, along with several members of his administration, expressed their vehement opposition to the prospect of Mamdani, who identifies as a socialist, becoming the city’s mayor.
Trump suggests such a win for Mamdani would lead to catastrophic consequences, going so far as to proclaim he would intervene and ‘take control’ of New York to steer it away from what he perceives as a disaster. Moreover, there were threats from the president to deprive the state of federal funds if Mamdani is chosen as mayor and fails to ‘moderate his behaviour.’ However, it begs the question, does the president have the jurisdiction to interfere and ‘run’ New York?
Trump’s inflammatory comments surfaced during a Cabinet meeting on July 8. He claimed that if a ‘communist’ were elected to steer New York, then he might step in to regain the city. Bravado emanated from his statement, ‘We have tremendous power at the White House to run places where we have to. I’m going to vamp New York up. I love New York. We’re going to correct the course of New York. Perhaps, we might have to rectify the situation from Washington.’
But the question remains, does Trump possess the authority to actually ‘govern’ New York? The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution distinctly affirms that several powers belong exclusively to the states, which include instituting local government. Thus, the citizens of New York maintain the right to elect their mayor without any external interference – whether their choice is Mamdani or otherwise.
While no precedence avows a president to ‘govern’ a city or embark on a federal takeover, presidents have previously dispatched federal agencies to address emergencies and offer assistance. A notable instance occurred in June, when Trump sent troops from California’s National Guard to aid federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents amidst anti-ICE riots.
Trump referenced Title 10, a federal mandate that bestows the president with the authority to position National Guard troops under federal control if the U.S. is threatened with an invasion or is witness to a rebellion against federal jurisdiction. Alternatively, if regular forces prove insufficient for the president to enforce federal laws. However, even calling for a state of emergency won’t provide the required power to ‘govern’ New York.
Elizabeth Goitein, a specialist in presidential power at the Brennan Center for Justice accentuated: ‘There’s no emergency power that allows the president to take over a city.’ No U.S. president has ever tried to subvert and ‘govern’ a city before, though presidents have used federal resources for specific purposes.
For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower nationalized the National Guard and dispatched members from the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. This action was in response to Governor Orval Faubus exploiting his power and utilizing the National Guard, later local police, to reject black students amid attempts for a more integrated Little Rock Central High School.
Eisenhower’s decision to deploy the National Guard was catalyzed by a plea from Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann requesting federal troops on the 24th of September. In addition to New York, Trump has speculated over intervening in the District of Columbia.
During the same Cabinet meeting on July 8, he remarked on the perceived high crime rate and a potential deal between the district and the Washington Commanders, indicating that the federal government ‘could run D.C.’ He stated, ‘We don’t want crime in D.C. We want the city to operate efficiently. We’re thinking about doing it, to be honest with you. We want a capital that’s run seamlessly, and it wouldn’t be hard for us to do it.’
Different from New York, the District of Columbia doesn’t have state status, but it would still be a challenging feat to orchestrate such a takeover. It would necessitate that Congress abolish the city’s ‘home rule’, which since 1973 has allowed the district to be administered by a mayor and a locally elected D.C. Council.
Under the provision of home rule, Congress does exercise some oversight. Congress scrutinizes new legislation proposed by the Council before it is instituted as law, the district’s budget, and the president’s appointment of judges for the district. Finally, Congress holds the power to modify or nullify any local laws.
Although Trump’s threats of intervention raised eyebrows, nothing in the current legal framework would allow for a straightforward ‘takeover’ of a city, even in a state of emergency. Both historical precedence and constitutional law point towards the importance of state autonomy and local governance.
Despite the charged rhetoric, federal involvement in local politics would involve navigating a complex web of precedents, legal restrictions, and potential backlash. It is pertinent to realize and respect the autonomy of states and the power it holds in the United States’ political setup.
Thus, while it’s dramatic to entertain the idea of Washington ‘taking back’ a city, the legal and logistical realities paint a far more nuanced picture. What stands above all is the democratic process, allowing citizens the freedom to elect their representatives untouched by external interference.