The race for mayor of New York City has just been nationalized in the most dramatic way possible. On the eve of the election, the President of the United States has intervened, not just with an endorsement, but with a direct and constitutionally explosive threat against the city’s 8 million residents.
In a lengthy social media post, President Trump warned that if Democratic Socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani wins, it is “highly unlikely” he will send federal funds to the city. He labeled Mamdani a “Communist” and declared that New York has “ZERO chance of success” under his leadership.
Is This a “Strong Conviction” or a Constitutional Crisis?
The President framed his threat as a matter of fiscal responsibility, a refusal to “send good money after bad” into a city he believes is doomed to “Complete and Total Economic and Social Disaster.”
This action, however, is a direct assault on the fundamental principles of American federalism. It is a test of whether a president can use the immense financial power of the federal government as a political cudgel to punish American citizens for their democratic choices.
Does the President Even Have the Power to “Cut Funds”?
The short answer is, unequivocally, no. The Constitution, in Article I, grants the “Power of the Purse” exclusively to Congress. The President cannot, on his own, decide to withhold funds that Congress has lawfully appropriated for a specific purpose.
This very issue was at the heart of a major constitutional crisis in the 1970s. President Richard Nixon, frustrated with a Congress controlled by the opposing party, simply refused to spend money on programs he disliked, a practice known as “impoundment.”
In response, a furious, bipartisan Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law makes it illegal for the President to unilaterally withhold or redirect funds that Congress has ordered to be spent. The President’s threat is a direct challenge to this 50-year-old legal and constitutional guardrail.
Why Would Trump Endorse a Democrat?
The President’s “anti-Mamdani” stance led him to a stunning political conclusion: an endorsement of former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as a moderate independent.
“Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!”
He also took aim at the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, effectively warning his own party’s voters not to split the opposition. “A vote for Curtis Sliwa… is a vote for Mamdani,” Trump wrote, attempting to consolidate all anti-Mamdani support behind Cuomo.
What Does This Mean for the Rule of Law?
Zohran Mamdani immediately used the President’s threat to frame the election as a battle against the “establishment.” He argued that the intervention from the President – and other billionaires – proves that his campaign is a genuine threat to their power.
“The MAGA movement’s embrace of Andrew Cuomo is reflective of Donald Trump’s understanding that this would be the best mayor for him… Not the best mayor for New York City.”
This last-minute intervention is a profound and dangerous moment. It is a declaration by the President that he views the federal budget not as a public trust, but as a personal weapon. It is a test of whether a city’s voters can be intimidated into voting against their will by a threat to their financial survival – a test that strikes at the very heart of democratic self-government.
