This Sunday, decision time. The Supreme Court imposes limits on the power of federal judges, handing more power to the White House. It only takes bad power away from judges. As Senate Republicans rush to get President Trump's massive tax and spending bill to his desk before the July 4th deadline.
Call your senators, call your congressmen. We have to get the vote up. At the end of the day, this is a process whereby not everybody's going to get what they want. What programs will be funded and which will be cut?
And how much will the bill add to the debt? We can't be cutting health care for working people and for poor people in order to constantly give special tax free debt to corporations and other entities. Plus, damage report. The US strikes on Iran's nuclear program ignited debate over what was destroyed.
It's been obliterated, totally obliterated. The president was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. My guest this morning, Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Empire Shega, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, shocks the political world, winning the New York City Democratic mayoral primary over former governor Andrew Cuomo. We have won because New Yorkers have stood up for a city they can afford.
I'll talk exclusively to Zora and Mom Donnie. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press. I'm NBC News in New York, the longest running show in television history.
This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welcome. Good Sunday morning from our NBC headquarters here in New York. President Trump's signature piece of legislation hangs in the balance this weekend. Overnight Senate Republicans moving one step closer to passing his massive tax and spending bill by his July 4th deadline.
We have before us today a once in a generation opportunity to deliver legislation to create a safer, stronger, and more prosperous America. It's time to get this legislation across the finish line. Now, without the votes to block it, Democrats are working to delay the process, demanding the full 940-page bill be read from the Senate floor. Medicaid will be fed to the sharks under this bill.
Healthcare costs will go up for everyone, even if you don't have Medicaid. But Republicans have already lost two votes. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina, and they can only afford to lose one more. Senator Tillis saying he's voting no because of the cuts to Medicaid for his state.
Overnight, the president threatening to primary him over his opposition. Missouri Senator Josh Holly told NBC he plans to vote yes, while insisting the party should have done better. I mean, we can't be cutting healthcare for working people in order to constantly give special tax treatment to corporations and other entities. And Elon Musk calling the latest version of the bill, quote, utterly insane and destructive for the economy.
Now, the bill includes an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, more money for both defense spending and the border, plus changes in cuts to Medicaid. Despite the criticism from within his own ranks, President Trump urging Republicans to fall in line. Look, we have a lot of very committed people and they feel very strongly about a subject, you're not even thinking about that are important to Republicans. The problem we have is that it's a great bill.
It's a popular bill, but we get no Democrats only because they don't want to vote for Trump. Joining me now is Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma Senator Mullen. Welcome back to Meet the Press. Chris, and thanks for having me on.
Thank you so much for being here on a marathon weekend for you on the Hill. I know you're one of the key negotiators in all of this. As I just noted, two Republicans have already come out and said they are going to vote no on the bill. We anticipate the final vote will be coming soon.
How confident are you that the bill will pass, Senator? We're very confident. Listen, Chris, and the hardest part was getting on the bill. What we mean by getting on the bill is once we pass the House version, which is what we passed last night, then we put our amendments on it and we go into debate.
Although right now, there's a stall tactic, obviously, by the Democrats, they're making a read by page by page, which I think is great. I hope the American people pay attention to it. I hope the Democrats pay attention to it, because it's going to be very hard for them to argue about what this actually does. This cuts spending is the largest deficit cut by any Congress ever in history.
It makes tax cuts permanent, which instead of taxes going up January 1st by $4 trillion that actually free stores the tax cuts, and it's going to, the average household of four is going to bring home pay over $10,000 more a year this year than they did last year. So that is great. I hope it really, I hope the Democrats pay attention to realize we're delivering for the American people. But once that happens, we go into a 20-hour debate, then we're going to do the vote around that, and we're going to pass this bill, and we're very confident we have the votes to do that.
Senator, I hear what you're saying. The CBO actually says that middle income households would only see an overall increase between $500 to $1,000, not that full $10,000 you cited. Let me delve into some of the broader opposition, though, that we're seeing in the most recent polling in the bill, 59% of voters say they oppose it. And Elon Musk posted yesterday that the bill is, quote, political suicide for the Republican party.
Do you think this legislation could cost Republicans in the mid-term, Senator? No, let's unpack some of the stuff you said. What the CBO was talking about was actual bring home pay. When you start talking about the child deduction, or the child deduction that we actually doubled, when you start talking about the taxes that they are going to see the increase plus, you start looking at the increase in wage bring home, that's where we get the $10,000.
The CBO, what you're talking about specifically, is just the extension of the tax cuts. So there's a lot of other factors playing there. As far as Elon Musk goes, listen, I respect Elon. I think he's right for his opinion, but he just doesn't know.
And so I have to disregard that. What we're doing is delivering for the American people, and they know that. So if you look at any polling in the red states, especially where President Trump won, which he won the red states over one week, President Trump is popular, and the bill is extremely popular. Other polls can be, as you know, can be decided by what demographic you want to poll, and I imagine if they were to go poll blue states, well, the bill probably wouldn't be popular there.
Senator, I hear what you're saying about Elon Musk. Back in February on this program, you called Elon Musk, quote, the best entrepreneur we've ever had in our lifetime. And I mean that. Okay, so why would you dismiss his perspective, Senator?
Well, I used to be in business full-time, it's what I did, I was never in politics. I thought I understood politics until I got in it. When I got into it, I realized, whoa, person I do is learn how to take a big, deep breath and realize I have to accept other people's opinion, that's what negotiating is. And then when you finally marry the two, and you think, well, politics, I guess, kind of does work like business, because you have to negotiate business deals, you have to negotiate different personalities over here in the hill.
And so you may not ever get a perfect bill, but you get a good bill. And this is definitely moving in the right direction, because when we vote on this, it probably sometime tomorrow, every Republican and every Democrat is gonna have two choices for the American people. We either one, move forward as a yes vote, and move forward into President Trump's era in his policies, bring it back to the economy, secure in our border, making it safe or home and abroad, and making sure we have energy independence, and bringing down deficits and making sure tax cuts are permanent. Or B, we go back to the Biden era policies, which was wrecking our economy.
We had an unsecure border. We wasn't appreciated or even respected around the world in our economies in the tank. So you have a yes vote or a no vote, say where we're at or move forward. And I think the American people made it very clear in November, they wanna move forward.
Let's talk about what has been one of the biggest sticking points. The issue of Medicaid Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina, as we mentioned, says he's voting against the bill because he believes it includes funding cuts that will force his state to decide who's coverage to eliminate and what critical services to cut. Senator, as you know, President Trump promised no Medicaid cuts. Is the big, beautiful bill a broken promise?
Absolutely not. What we're doing is cutting the waste, fraud, and abuse. And I wanna use that word abuse out of the Medicaid system and make sure it's for the people that it was originally did. Keep in mind right now, there's 35 million people that live under the poverty line inside the United States.
Yet there's 70 million that's on Medicaid. Now it's unsustainable. Medicaid was designed for those in the most dire need, and that's what we need to make sure it's there for. Now what people are upset about, especially in states, is every since Obamacare, there's been this loophole that allows the states to actually charge providers an absorbent amount to pay their share.
And so instead of the states paying their share, they're charging the providers, which one requires the United States taxpayers and other states to offset these high provider taxes inside different states. North Carolina has a high provider tax. What we're saying is it needs to be even. Every state should be the same.
And so we're gradually bringing down what states provide and making it even across the board. And so there's an even playing field. So one state like Oklahoma is an off-city high provider taxes in North Carolina or California. But Senator, 7.8 million people are expected to lose Medicaid coverage.
And you cited the 35 million figure there. Are you suggesting that 35 million people covered by Medicaid are all involved in waste fraud and abuse? No, what I'm saying is how do you explain that we don't have 35, I say, or I don't wanna use that as a drug or a term, but I just wanna use the numbers here. There's 35 million people under the poverty line inside the United States.
And there's 70 million people that are signed up for Medicaid. You're gonna tell me that there's not room to cut fraud, waste, and abuse in the program. People that are today, eligible for it underneath current programs, are still gonna be eligible for it tomorrow, too. We're just getting out the ones that should never be there.
I mean, what is so hard about requiring an able-body individual with no dependence, no sickness, to work 20 hours a week? I know you work more than 20 hours this week than alone. What is so hard about having a work requirement there with someone that has no medical condition and no dependence? We don't pay people in this country to be lazy.
We wanna give them an opportunity. And when they're going through a hard time, they wanna give them a help at hand. That's what Medicaid was designed for, and it's unfortunately, it's been abused. And so what we are focused on is making sure that Medicaid is there for people in the future that need it and get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse.
So it's just worth noting, 92% of people on Medicaid are either working or would qualify for an exemption. I do wanna move on to this landmark Supreme Court decision, though, that basically said that district level judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions against executive actions, basically meaning that President Trump's order blocking trying to end birthright citizenship could soon take effect in various parts of the country. Now, it's really unclear what that would mean for the children of undocumented immigrants, new babies who are born here. So let me ask you, do you think babies who are born to undocumented parents should be deported Senator?
Well, here's what we know. There's a whole industry that stood up to bring people here in their last month of pregnancy to have a child here, and they come here on a vacation visa, and they have a child, so their child will be able to be US citizens. It's a whole industry, you know it, and I know it. What we're trying to do is end those that are gaming the system.
Should those babies be deported Senator? Is their parents? Are you saying those babies should be deported with their parents? Well, they should go where their parents are.
Why would you send a child with their parents? I mean, why would you want to separate them? I wouldn't want to be separated from my kid, and no parent should want to be separated from their kids. So with their parents are deported, then the child should most definitely go with the parents.
All right, let me turn to foreign policy in Iran. Obviously, something we've all been very focused on as well this week. One of the key unanswered questions in the wake of President Trump's attacks against Iran nuclear programs is the fate of almost 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Let me ask you, can Iran's nuclear program be considered quote unquote obliterated if its nuclear stockpile is still unaccounted for?
Absolutely can. And now what we did is we destroyed the infant structure. Well, you can't destroy as a knowledge and some of the other small components. But there is no way President Trump, who's the first president to actually have the backbone to go in there and do this, because if you remember every president since Clinton has been talking about Iran, how big of a danger in a threat to the world they'd be if they had a nuclear weapon and there was no way they could do it.
Every president since Clinton has talked about it, Trump's the first one to actually do it. Now, why would we leave the airspace? When we controlled it completely, we could have stayed there for a month if we wanted to, if we didn't believe and have actual knowledge to know that we destroyed their infrastructure. Here's what we do, here's what we know too, is for dough was in Iranian regime's mind, is that it was indestructible.
And they had actually moved product into for dough, which is why we focus so much emphasis on for dough. And for dough is destroyed. There's no way that they can bring their program back without rebuilding it, and that will take years from then to rebuild it. But like I said, we can't knock out all the knowledge, but we did knock out a lot of the people with the knowledge.
All right, and of course, President Trump saying he is leaving the door open to potentially more strikes against any indication. They are rebuilding the nuclear program. Senator Mullen, thank you so much for joining us on an incredibly busy Sunday. We really appreciate it.
Thank you everyone. All right, and when we come back, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut joins us next. Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Senator Murphy, welcome back to Meet the Press. Yeah, thanks for having me. Thank you so much for being here. As we noted, it is an incredibly busy weekend.
I know you're running on fumes as are all the senators. So we appreciate it. Let's start right there as I was just discussing with Senator Mullen. There are two Republicans who say they are a no on this legislation.
Senator Murphy, do you think there's any chance that the so-called big, beautiful bill does not pass the Senate? I do think there's a chance it doesn't pass. They are trying to ram it through as quickly as they can, likely in the middle of the night tonight because every day that this bill hangs out there becomes less popular. As you noted, by almost a 2 to 1 margin, the American people hate this piece of legislation because it's going to represent the biggest transfer of wealth and money from the poor in the middle class to the rich in the history of the country.
It's not about efficiencies in Medicaid. CBO, which is the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan says it's going to kick between 10 and 15 million people off their health care. And for what? To be able to afford a new $270,000 tax cut for the richest families in the country, new tax cuts for corporations, new tax cuts for billionaires.
This bill stinks it's a moral abomination. Everybody that learns about it hates it. And so there's a chance that it won't pass. That's in part why we're forcing them to read it because every single day that people learn about it, they're flooding their members' offices with calls to tell them to stop this bill.
Nobody is asking for 16 million people to lose their health care just for the corporations and the very rich can get a new tax cut. That's super unpopular and we're going to work this thing until the final vote. You know, Senator, the bill also provides billions of dollars in funding to border security. The White House's borders are Tom Holman waiting on that aspect.
I want to let you listen to what he had to say this week and get your reaction on the other side. If we get this bill passed, we got more agents on the road. We buy more beds, we get more transportation flights. More agents mean more bad guys arrested, taking off the streets of this country every single day.
Every day we rest a public safety threat or a national security threat. This makes this country much safer. Who the hell would be against that? Senator, you were a lead negotiator in the bipartisan border deal that was coming together last year.
Shouldn't it be a priority for everyone to get immigration and border funding passed in this bill? Let's say you about that argument that Holman makes. Well, you are right. We had a bipartisan agreement last year to put billions of new dollars into border security, but also to change the laws to reflect the current reality.
What this administration is doing is violating the law every single day. Whether they like the asylum laws of the nation or not, they have to obey the law. And they are not just going after bad guys. They arrested a high school kid in Connecticut who was about to graduate who had no criminal record just because cruelty is the underlying purpose of their new immigration policy, not going after dangerous people.
So yes, we should have a bipartisan commitment, not just to funding the border, but to actually reforming the laws. They are acting in a lawless manner every single day. They are not focusing on dangerous people. They are literally going to home depots.
They are busting into people's private homes. They are targeting Latinos all over the country, whether they are undocumented or not. This isn't about trying to keep the country safer. This is about trying to make this country scared of folks who speak a different language or come from a different place.
You know, border crossings are at a record low. Do you give the Trump administration some credit for that and argue when you look at those figures, do you think things are moving in the right direction at least in that regard, Senator? No, I don't give them credit for that because border crossings are low because they're violating the law every day. So we have a law in this country that says if you are fleeing terror or torture from another country, you can come here and apply for asylum.
The Trump administration has suspended that law. They are not allowing anybody to come here to apply for asylum. We wrote that bipartisan bill last year to reform the asylum process, to make sure that only the right people are coming in and that we judge those cases expeditiously at the border. So it's true, there are very few people crossing on a daily basis, but that's because the Trump administration is violating the law and it should matter to every American that on so many facets, the Trump administration doesn't care about the law.
This is becoming a lawless administration. We are on a road to see our democracy after a feat to the point that it will be unrecognizable and the border is just one example of many ways which this administration doesn't care about the law anymore. Senator Stang on the topic of the law. You know, the Supreme Court did issue that ruling this week which effectively will limit judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
You just heard my conversation with Senator Mullen about this. What is your reaction to what the Supreme Court ruled this week? Well, first let's just talk about what it means for kids that are born in this country. Both the Constitution and the law is clear.
If you're born in the United States of America, you're a US citizen. But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child that they were born in Oklahoma might not be.
That's chaos. By taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he is clearly acting in an unlawful manner as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens. You are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy. So that case is really dangerous because it sets up a patchwork of citizenship laws, but it's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws of the Constitution.
Let's turn to the very latest on Iran. Now, you are, of course, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You are briefed on the strike against Iran on Thursday based on the intelligence that you have received, Senator. Would you have ordered that strike if you were Commander-in-Chief?
Well, what President Trump told the country is that Iran's nuclear capability was obliterated and it just was not obliterated. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Commission just confirmed that we only set back their program by a handful of months. We were at the negotiating table trying to come to a diplomatic agreement. No, I would not have authorized strikes literally at the moment that we were sitting down with the Iranians trying to come to a peaceful settlement.
The only way that you were going to stop around from getting a nuclear weapon is an agreement because as Open Reporting has suggested, these strikes did not destroy all of their rich uranium. It did not destroy all of their centrifuges and it certainly didn't destroy their knowledge. And so it stands to reason that they can reconstitute their nuclear program within months. And what are we going to do?
We're going to carry out these massive $100 million strikes every three or four months. No, you need a diplomatic agreement and these strikes ultimately set back those diplomatic conversations. Well, let me follow up with you because you've said the strikes were illegal because they were carried out without congressional approval. Your colleague, Congressman Alexandria Casio Gortez actually took it a step further.
She said it's grounds for impeachment. Senator, do you agree with that? Is the fact that President Trump acted unilaterally grounds for impeachment? Well, that's a decision the House makes.
That's not a decision that Senate makes. But it is clear that this is illegal. I know he says that these were time limited strikes. They were targeted strikes.
But do you think she's on the right track, Senator? Do you think she's on the right track? I suggested he should be impeached over not going into Congress first? Well, again, that's a decision the House makes.
But I will say, I mean, if you compare his conduct and this administration to the conduct that he got impeached for in the first administration, his conduct and this administration is much worse, much more lawless, and much more unconstitutional. I have to ask you about the big news here in New York, Zoron Mondami's victory, his big win in the Democratic primary for New York mayor. I'm going to speak to Assemblyman Mamedani in just a few moments from now. What lessons do you think Democrats should take from his win?
Well, I think it was a really important win. I hope Democrats do take some lessons from it. He was laser-like focused on the issue of costs. He was laser-like focused on the issue of transferring power from people who have way too much of it, like the big real estate companies that jack up everybody's rent in New York and putting that power in the hands of regular citizens.
He was authentic, right? I mean, yeah, he's got some views that are a little bit out of the conventional mainstream. But you know what? The traditional political pundits have no idea what's actually mainstream in this country.
And when you're talking about costs, when you're talking about derigging the economy every single day, when you're presenting big bold ideas on how to do that, you're going to do pretty well in elections. And so Democrats should learn from his victory. Leader Schumer and Jeffries have not endorsed Mr. Mondani yet.
Do you think they should? Well, I mean, I guess I don't give recommendations to my colleagues. I'm going to support him. I'm going to support him.
And I think the Democratic Party would be well served by learning from his focus on lowering costs. That was what got him this nomination win. All right, Senator Murphy, thank you so much for joining us on a jam-packed weekend. We really appreciate it.
Thank you. And when we come back, as we just said, a massive shake-up in the New York City mayor's race with Zorron Mondani's upset win in the Democratic primary. He joins me right here live, next. Welcome back, a stunning political upset this week in the race to lead America's biggest city, 33-year-old Democratic Socialist and New York State Assemblyman, Zorron Mondani, is poised to win the Democratic primary for New York City, beating out former Governor Andrew Cuomo.
He's now set to head to the general election, but his likely primary win is already sending shockwaves through the Democratic Party. And joining me now is Zorron Mondani. Mr. Mondani, welcome to Meet the Press.
Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for being here. We really appreciate it.
There is so much to discuss. We have to start with your remarkable victory in the primary for mayor. You're 33 years old. As I just said, you started out at close to 0% in the polls, Mr.
Mondani, you came back to topple one of the biggest names in New York politics, Andrew Cuomo. What was the secret to your success? Do you think it was your message? Do you think that voters were voting against Andrew Cuomo?
A little bit of both? How do you see it? Ultimately, it was the focus on the fact that we live in the most expensive city in the United States of America. It's also the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
And yet, one in four New Yorkers are living in poverty. And the rest are seemingly trapped in a state of anxiety. And what we've seen is that this is a city that needs to be affordable for the people who build it every day. Our focus was on exactly that.
And by keeping that focus on an economic agenda, we showed New Yorkers that this could be more than just a museum of what once was. It could be a living, breathing testament to possibility. Well, let me ask you about what I was just discussing with Senator Chris Murphy. The fact that you have leader Schumer, leaders Hakeem Jeffrey, who wrote very nice things about your victory said you'd want a very strong campaign, have not endorsed you.
Congresswoman Alexandria Casio Cortez has endorsed you. Do you think the Democratic establishment is afraid of you? I think that people are catching up to this election. This is an election that went against so much of the analysis that had been told about our party and where we needed to head to.
And ultimately, what we're showing is that by putting working people first, by returning to the roots of the Democratic Party, we actually have a path out of this moment where we're facing authoritarianism in Washington DC. Well, let's talk about your policies, your vision for this city. Here are some of the things you've proposed. Free buses, rent-stabilized housing, a $30 minimum wage, creation of city-owned grocery stores.
It's a very long list of proposals. So let me ask you, if you were to be elected the next mayor of New York, what would your day one priority be? The first thing is living up to these promises that I've made because I've made them because I intend to keep them. And in the city of about eight and a half million people, close to two and a half million New Yorkers live in rent-stabilized housing.
The mayor through a board called the Rent Guidelines Board sets whether or not those rents increase or stay the same. The previous mayor administration froze the rent three times. This one led by mayor Adams increased it by 9%. So the first thing that I would do is start to constitute a board that boats in reflection of reality.
And the reality I'm speaking of is that the median household income of those tenants is $60,000 a year. The landlords of those units have seen their profits increase by 12%. It's time for relief for working class New Yorkers. Okay, well, of course, a big question is how are you gonna pay for it?
You've proposed increasing taxes on wealthier New Yorkers. The Democratic governor, though, of your state, Kathy Hookle, says she's not going to support increasing taxes in order to get it across the finish line. I wanna let you take a listen to a little bit of what she had to say recently and respond on the other side. Here she is.
Raising taxes on people at a time when affordability is the big issue. I'm actually cutting middle class taxes. I don't want to lose any more people to go to Palm Beach. We've lost enough.
How are you going to raise taxes if you can't get Democrats to support it? So I think what we've shown over the last eight months is our ability to take that, which is considered a non-starter and make it seem inevitable. We've shown that with this campaign. And ultimately, we're seeing that our vision to tax the top 1% of New Yorkers.
These are New Yorkers who make a million dollars a year or more. And our proposal is to just tax them by 2% additional. It's something that has broad support and will continue to increase that support over the next few months. So you think you're gonna be able to twist Governor Hookle's arm and get her to support raising taxes?
I mean, what about the fact that she says she's concerned New Yorkers might leave. They might go to Florida. I think it's time for a leadership that doesn't twist arms, but rather builds partnership. And I'm looking forward to having that with the governor.
Because ultimately, my policy is my vision. It's driven by an assessment of what's actually happening. The Fiscal Policy Institute found that the top 1% of New Yorkers leave at one-fourth the rate of other income groups. And when they do leave, it's actually to other states considered high-tax, New Jersey, California.
So it's not fiscal policy. It's quality of life. And ultimately, the reason I want to increase these taxes on the top 1% the most profitable corporations is to increase quality of life for everyone, including those who are gonna be taxed. Here's how the Washington Post editorial board wrote about your proposals.
They say a massive minimum wage would depress low-skilled employment. His rent freeze would reduce the housing supply and decrease its quality. Cutting bus fares would leave a transit funding hole that unless somehow filled with a road service. Meanwhile, the grocery business operates on thin margins, and his plan for city-run stores would probably lead to fewer options, poor service, and shortages.
Mr. Moundani, are your proposals going to hurt the very people you're trying to help? Not at all. There have been many editorial board who have had concerns, and what we've shown is that more than 400,000 New Yorkers are excited about this decision.
And the reason they're excited about it is it is one that is in line with the scale of the crisis in the city. We are talking about our tax base growing smaller and smaller each day with New Yorkers leaving to New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Connecticut. If we do not meet this moment, we will lose this city. And our proposals are ones that are thought out.
They are ones that are also clearly going to be funded by these revenue streams. I'll give you an example. When we talk about grocery stores, I put forward a proposal for a pilot of one grocery store in each borough. These are five grocery stores that would cost 60 million dollars in a city budget of more than 113 billion.
And ultimately, the reason that we are so excited by them is we've seen that they've worked in Kansas. We've seen that when a feasibility study was done in Chicago, it was shown to be something that was not only feasible but pressing and urgent in an urban setting. And finally, it costs less than half of what the city's already set to spend on subsidizing corporate supermarkets without any guarantee of cheaper prices, any guarantee of collective bargaining agreements, or that they accept Snapper Wick. Well, you take me to my next question about grocery stores, not executives including one of the top grocery stores owners, billionaires threatening to shut down his supermarket in the city.
John Castametes, who runs Christiades at grocery chain, you're probably very familiar with him. He said this on Election Day, quote, if the city of New York is going socialist, I will definitely close or sell or move or franchise the Christiades locations. In order to run New York City successfully as mayor, do you not need the support of a billionaire businessman like John Castametes? I don't know if I need his support specifically, but I want to make clear that my vision for this city is a vision for every single New Yorker, including business leaders across the city.
And the reason I say that is that my proposals, even the ones to increase the top corporate tax rate of New York to match that of New Jersey, are ones that would also benefit those business leaders. Because when I have conversations with them, what I also hear is that just how expensive the city is, is preventing them from attracting and retaining the talent they need to grow their business. And ultimately, I'm looking forward to having those meetings, having those sit-downs to make clear why this vision would benefit all. We went on your website and realized there's a policy proposal that says your plan and I'm going to quote it for folks is to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners and the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.
Explain why you are bringing race into your tax proposal. That is just a description of what we see right now. It's not driven by race, it's more of an assessment of what neighborhoods are being under-taxed versus over-taxed. We've seen time and again that this is a property tax system that is inequitable.
It's one that actually Eric Adams ran on saying that he would change in the first hundred days. He's since sought to defend it and lost at every juncture in court. And I understand you're saying we're simply describing the types of neighborhoods that would see these increases in taxes. And yet by invoking race, do you run the risk of potentially alienating key constituents?
I think I'm just naming things as they are. And ultimately the thing that motivates me in this is to create a system of fairness. It is not to work backwards from a racial assessment of neighborhoods or our city. Rather it's to ensure that we actually have an equal playing field.
And right now what we see with the property tax system is one that is overtaxing a number of New Yorkers and under-taxing others. And an inability of political will to resolve that. So no plans to change that language on your website? That's it.
The focus here is to actually ensure a fair property tax system. And the use of that language is an assessment of the neighbor. You are a self-described democratic socialist. Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
I don't think that we should have billionaires because frankly it is so much money in a moment of such inequality. And ultimately what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country. And I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fair for all of them. Well, let me ask you about what Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has had to say that a lot to say about your campaign.
He called you a communist because he's the president. I want to give you a chance to respond directly to him. How do you respond? Are you a communist?
No, I am not. And I have already had to start to get used to the fact that the President will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I'm from, who I am, ultimately because he wants to distract from what I'm fighting for. And I'm fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower that he has since then betrayed. And when we talk about my politics, I call myself a democratic socialist in many ways inspired by the words of Dr.
King from decades ago, who said, call it democracy or call it democratic socialism, there has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God's children in this country. And as income inequality has declined nationwide, it has increased in New York City. And ultimately what we need is a city where every single person can thrive. All right.
Stay right there. We're going to take a quick break. More of our exclusive conversation with Zoron Mamdani when we come right back. Stay with us.
We are back here live in New York with State Assemblymen and the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, Zoron Mamdani. Thank you so much for sticking around for more questions. Let's talk about immigration deportation. Are you committed to keeping New York as a sanctuary city?
Absolutely. Because ultimately we've seen that this has kept New Yorkers safe for decades. It's a policy that had previously been defended by Democrats and Republicans alike until the fear mongering of this current mayor. And it's a policy that we've seen ensures that New Yorkers can get out of the shadows and into the full life of the city that they belong to.
And it's one that I will be proud to stand up for. Well, you know, the borders are Tom Homan has said that he is planning to deploy ice agents to New York, work site enforcement to essentially increase and enhance the number of ice agents here. If that happens on your watch, how do you plan to handle it? We have to stand up and fight back.
And we haven't seen that from our current mayor who has instead been working with the Trump administration to assist in their goal of building the single largest deportation force in American history. I mean, we saw ice agents arrest a migrant at federal plaza and then we saw NYPD officers arresting a pastor who was peacefully observing that arrest. Those days are going to come to an end when I'm the mayor. The NYPD's job is to create public safety in the city, not to assist ice agents in their mission to attack the very fabric of the city.
I want to talk about the historic nature of your candidacy. If you were to win, you would become the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Along the way throughout the course of this primary campaign, you have received death threats. You've received all sorts of attacks online.
Congressman Andy Ogles called for you to be deported, for example, because you were born in Uganda. He also issued an Islamophobic epithet, which I am not going to repeat here. But what type of toll has this taken on you personally and on your family? It's been difficult.
It's been difficult to have to deal with the regular and repeated smears and slander upon my name and on the very basis of my faith. And I think what's so sad is that this is but a glimpse into what life is like for many Muslim New Yorkers and many New Yorkers of different faiths who are constantly being told that they don't belong in the city and in this country that they love. And ultimately what continues to give me hope is that these moments are but small examples, something that goes against what so many New Yorkers actually feel. Because what we know is that this is a city for all of us.
And what Tuesday night showed is that what New Yorkers want more than anything is a vision that binds us all together. I want to ask you about an issue that has divided some New Yorkers in recent weeks. You were recently asked about the term globalized the Intifada if it makes you uncomfortable. In that moment you did not condemn the phrase.
Now just so folks understand it's a phrase that many people hear as a call to violence against Jews. There's been a lot of attention on this issue. So I want to give you an opportunity to respond here and now. Do you condemn that phrase globalized the Intifada?
That's not language that I use. The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that, which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights. And ultimately that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that to have meaning have to be applied to all people. And that includes Israelis and Palestinians.
But do you actually condemn it? I think that's the question and the outstanding issue that a number of people, both of the Jewish faith and beyond have. Do you condemn that phrase, globalize the Intifada, which a lot of people here is the call to violence against Jews? I've heard from many Jewish New Yorkers who have shared their concerns with me, especially in light of the horrific attacks that we saw in Washington DC and in Boulder Colorado about this moment of anti-Semitism in our country and in our city.
And I've heard those fears and I've had those conversations and ultimately they are part and parcel of why in my campaign I've put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%. I don't believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech in the manner, especially of that of Donald Trump, who has put one New Yorker in jail, who has just returned to his family, Mahmoud Khalil, for that very supposed crime of speech. Ultimately what I think I need to show is the ability to not only talk about something but to tackle it and to make clear that there's no room for anti-Semitism in the city. We have to root out that bigotry and ultimately we do that through the actions.
And that is the mayor I will be, one that protects Jewish New Yorkers and lives up to that commitment through the work that I do. But very quickly for the people who care about the language and who feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it? My concern is to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible takes me into a place similar to that of the president who is looking to do those very kinds of things, putting people in jail for writing an op-ed, putting them in jail for protesting. Ultimately it's not language that I use, it's language I understand there are concerns about, and what I will do is showcase my vision for the city through my words and my actions.
Let me ask you broadly, your surprise victory has some progressive Democrats saying, boy, you may have determined the model for the Democratic Party nationally in this moment. Do you think your campaign represents the playbook for how to win in the Trump era for Democrats? I think it showcases a new approach to politics in our city and it's for others to decide across our country. Ultimately what we wanted to do from the very beginning of this race was change our political instinct from lecturing to listening.
And after the presidential election where we saw New York be the state in the nation with the largest swing towards Donald Trump, 11 and a half points, and we saw that swing took place far from the caricatures of Trump voters. I went to those hearts of the New York City that were the fulcrum of those swings, Hillside Avenue in Queens, Fordham Road in the Bronx, and I asked Democrats, who did you vote for and why? And I heard from them again and again, I voted for Donald Trump because I could afford things that are now out of my reach today. And ultimately when I asked them what would it take to bring you back to the Democratic Party, they said a relentless focus on economic agenda, and that's the campaign that we built.
Do you think that your apparent victory is a sign that there is an appetite for young progressives like a congressman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president in 2028? It's an honor to be endorsed by Congressman Ocasio-Cortez and to have been represented by her for so many years because she's showcased so much of what we're trying to do in this campaign, the ability to not only stand up and fight, but also to win. And ultimately what people want to see is someone who doesn't just believe in something but can deliver on those things. And now, especially more than ever, we need to be a party that's not just against Donald Trump, but also for something.
And our campaign was for working people, for bringing dignity back into those lives, and that's what the Congressman has showed time and again. I can't let you go without doing a little bit of local politics. So Mayor Eric Adams already in the general election as an independent candidate. We're waiting to see if Andrew Cuomo officially throws his hat into the ring.
Do you think you can win if the two of them are in the race? Can you beat both of them? Absolutely, we can beat anyone that's in this race because what we've shown is that this is a campaign that has the support of more than 400,000 New Yorkers. In the first round of Tuesday night, we got more votes than Eric Adams did by the last round of 2021.
And ultimately it's a referendum on how he made this city so unaffordable. For too long, politicians have pretended to simply be bystanders to a cost of living crisis. They've actually exacerbated it, and our vision is one that will respond to it and make this city affordable for every new order. Alright, Assemblyman Zoramandani, thank you so much for the conversation.
Really appreciate it. Please stay safe on campaign trail. Thanks for having me. Alright, and when we come back, I'll meet the press minute, reflecting 10 years since the landmark Supreme Court case legalizing same-sex marriage.
Say with us. Welcome back. 10 years ago, this week, America marked a milestone. The Supreme Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Michael De Leon and Gregory Burke were married in 2004 in Canada, but their union was not recognized in their home state of Kentucky. They became plaintiffs in the case, and just two days after the ruling, they joined me the press to reflect on their newly recognized rights. Gregory, Michael, you have two kids. Yes.
You now get to tell your kids that your marriage is legal wherever you live. How important is that, Michael? It's very important, especially since in the state of Kentucky, I am their only parent right now. State of Kentucky does not recognize you as their parent.
Because they don't recognize our marriage, they won't allow us to have a second parent adoption of our children, so we don't have that option. So we are using past tense. That's an important outcome of this, is for us to now that we're recognized as a marriage couple to be able to, but both names on their birth certificates. They've always seen us as both of us being their parents, so this is the big win for us.
And a little update here, the couple has now spent 43 years together. And that is all for today. Thank you so much for watching. We will be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's the press.
We will be back next week.