Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

In a contentious move reflecting escalating political tensions, Republican Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia plans to introduce legislation that would block all federal funding to New York City while Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds office. The bill, expected to be formally introduced Friday, represents an unprecedented attempt to financially penalize a major American city based on its elected leadership.

The provocatively named “Moving American Money Distant from Anti-National Interests Act”—deliberately abbreviated as the “MAMDANI Act”—would rescind all unobligated federal funds and prohibit any future federal expenditures to New York City during Mamdani’s tenure as mayor.

“If New Yorkers want communism, we should let them have their wish and not artificially prop them up with our successful capitalist system,” Carter said in a statement. “Taxpayer dollars from Georgia should not be wasted on programs that will bankrupt the financial capital of the world.”

Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, won Tuesday’s mayoral race, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent, and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa. His victory was largely expected in the heavily Democratic city, which hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since Michael Bloomberg won his second term in 2005.

The two-page legislation explicitly states that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period in which Zohran Mamdani is mayor of New York, New York” any unobligated federal funds for the city “are hereby rescinded” and “no Federal funds may be obligated or expended for any purpose to New York, New York.”

While the bill has virtually no chance of advancing in the current House of Representatives, it symbolizes how Republican leaders have strategically positioned Mamdani as a new focal point for criticism against the Democratic Party. A House Republican campaign operative indicated to Fox News Digital that the GOP intends to connect vulnerable Democrats across the country to Mamdani and his progressive policy positions.

Carter, who is currently running for U.S. Senate in Georgia, added in his statement, “Any New Yorker with common sense is welcome to move to the great, FREE state of Georgia.”

The legislation ignores the historical reality that New York State has consistently been a net contributor to federal coffers, sending more tax revenue to Washington than it receives in federal spending. This “donor state” status contrasts with many states that receive more in federal funding than their residents contribute in federal taxes.

Political analysts view this legislative maneuver as part of a broader Republican strategy to nationalize Mamdani’s victory and use it as a campaign tool in competitive districts across the country. By framing Mamdani’s progressive policies as representative of the entire Democratic Party, Republicans hope to create electoral challenges for moderate Democrats, particularly in swing districts.

The targeting of a specific elected official with punitive federal funding restrictions would set a troubling precedent if ever enacted. Constitutional scholars have previously raised concerns about similar attempts to withhold federal funding from cities or states based on political disagreements, noting potential violations of federalism principles and equal protection guarantees.

Mamdani’s campaign and office have not yet responded to the proposed legislation, which comes as the mayor-elect prepares his transition team and policy agenda for America’s largest city.

The proposed “MAMDANI Act” highlights the increasingly polarized nature of American politics, where legislative proposals sometimes function more as political statements than as serious policy initiatives. As the 2026 midterm election cycle approaches, similar symbolic gestures aimed at energizing political bases and defining opponents may become increasingly common.

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.

9 Comments

  1. Cutting off federal funds to punish a city for its elected leadership is a concerning overreach of federal power, in my opinion. While I may not agree with the mayor’s socialist views, voters have spoken and this feels like an undemocratic attempt to undermine their choice.

    • I share your concerns. Wielding federal funding as a weapon against a city’s elected officials, regardless of political affiliation, sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the principles of local self-governance.

  2. This is a complex issue without easy answers. On one hand, federal funding shouldn’t be used as political leverage. But on the other, a democratically elected socialist mayor could potentially enact policies that clash with federal priorities. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  3. Jennifer Williams on

    I’m curious to see how this proposed legislation plays out. Targeting a city’s federal funding over ideological differences feels like a risky escalation that could have far-reaching consequences, both practical and political.

  4. Jennifer Thomas on

    As a resident of New York City, I’m worried about the potential impacts this proposed legislation could have on critical services and infrastructure. Federal funding is vital for many city programs, and withdrawing it based on political disagreements seems like an overreach that could harm everyday New Yorkers.

  5. This proposed MAMDANI Act seems like a concerning attempt to punish a city’s elected leadership through financial means. While political disagreements are understandable, using federal funding as a political weapon could set a dangerous precedent.

  6. William Taylor on

    Withholding federal funds from NYC based on the mayor’s political views is a worrying development. Regardless of one’s political leanings, using the power of the purse to penalize a city’s residents seems undemocratic and heavy-handed.

  7. While I can appreciate the desire to promote ‘successful capitalist’ policies, using the withdrawal of federal funds as a cudgel against a democratically elected mayor seems heavy-handed and potentially counterproductive. I wonder what the broader implications could be.

    • Jennifer Smith on

      Agreed, this feels like an abuse of federal power to undermine local democracy. Even if one disagrees with the mayor’s socialist leanings, using financial pressure to force ideological alignment is concerning.

Leave A Reply

A professional organisation dedicated to combating disinformation through cutting-edge research, advanced monitoring tools, and coordinated response strategies.

Company

Disinformation Commission LLC
30 N Gould ST STE R
Sheridan, WY 82801
USA

© 2025 Disinformation Commission LLC. All rights reserved.