DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 37

WHEELIN’ AND DEALIN’: Gov. Kathy Hochul claimed this morning she has a budget deal. Moments later, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie told reporters that, actually, nothing is final.

It’s a Planet Albany pantomime that’s played out over the last several years — a governor anxious to tout what’s generally been agreed to after a weeks-long impasse and an Assembly speaker who denies anything is truly finalized.

Only this year is different.

Heastie was noticeably more exasperated than in prior years when he told reporters this morning that the Legislature has yet to sign off on a budget agreement, contradicting the governor’s victory lap.

“There’s no budget deal,” the Bronx Democrat said. “There’s no deal. I said to her last night I was comfortable with saying we’re close. It’s close.”

He pledged to no longer discuss policy-related matters with Democratic lawmakers until the budget’s financial picture was in clear focus — suggesting he’s at something of a breaking point with a governor he considers an ally.

“We’ve signed off on nothing major,” he said. “This is what’s wrong with this process.”

Earlier in the morning, Hochul stood in the Red Room praising the “general agreement” (a chestnut that will join the pantheon of other state budget-deal upspeak like “tentative framework”).

She ran through a list of what has been, well, generally agreed to: Protections for undocumented immigrants, changing the environmental review process in order to fast-track home building and a package of car insurance laws meant to reduce premium costs.

Budget details tend to matter, not just to the 19 million New Yorkers who the document will impact, but to the army of advocates, lobbyists, staffers and lawmakers who have sweated the specifics for the last four months. And what’s yet to be determined is consequential.

The pied-à-terre tax on pricey second homes? 

“We are working to come up with the right way to calculate,” Hochul said. “What you have is a rather bizarre property tax system in New York City right now.”

Changing the Tier 6 pension, a move that may cost $1.5 billion?

“We’ll release those numbers as soon as it’s absolutely done, but it won’t be the scale that was out there in the news,” she said.

Why come out now with so much TBD?

“All these financial details — as we’ve done in the past — we talk about initially the policy agreements, and this is a policy agreement we’ve accomplished, working tirelessly with the two leaders I have such respect for, Carl Heastie and Andrea Stewart-Cousins,” Hochul said.

It’s true that this has been Hochul’s strategy in the late stages of the budget — to fete the policy wins and leave the financial stuff written in pencil.

It’s also true that most voters aren’t following the blow-by-blow of the arcane Albany process and care far more about the results. As she runs for reelection, Hochul can show voters victories on issues like a school cellphone ban.

But while the governor has long placed a bet on voters not minding late budgets, Republicans are eager to trot out the “D” word — dysfunction — to describe the Albany fracas.

“We’ve gone so far away from having responsible leadership in this state and caring about what it means to have a budget on time,” Republican Assembly Minority Leader Ed Ra said. “It’s May 7 — the latest budget in my time in the Legislature — and she’s out here announcing a deal that doesn’t actually exist.” — Nick Reisman

From the Capitol

WONKS WEIGH IN: As noted above, details on the state’s spending plan remain scant. But some experts are seeing good news in what’s out there.

The fiscal hawks at the Citizens Budget Commission applauded policy measures like changes to the State Environmental Quality Review Act that were made to spur more home building, as well as the car insurance changes

Still, the group has concerns even as the final numbers aren’t yet clear. The $268 billion topline spending figure may increase once the dust settles.

“What we do know is that the budget is bigger, but not likely better for fiscal stability compared to the governor’s proposal,” the group said. — Nick Reisman

FROM CITY HALL

ICE CLASH: Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing mounting pressure from progressive leaders to enact stricter rules on how the NYPD can interact with federal immigration authorities — the latest sign of a broadening chasm between the mayor and his own supporters, our Chris Sommerfeldt reports today.

Attention on the issue intensified Saturday when police officers blocked protesters advancing toward U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who were transporting an immigrant detainee from a Brooklyn hospital. As video of the chaos went viral, accusations that Mamdani’s NYPD had coordinated with ICE in violation of local sanctuary laws quickly accumulated. The mayor has rejected that claim.

In a letter to Mamdani, Rep. Nydia Velázquez, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and four other elected Democrats who endorsed the mayor’s 2025 campaign wrote that they believe the NYPD “coordinated on the ground with ICE agents” outside the hospital. And they implored him to immediately overhaul NYPD policies in response.

“Officers arriving at a scene where federal agents are already operating cannot be left to improvise. They need a bright-line rule, communicated up and down the chain of command, that informs them when to disengage, when to step back, when to refuse a request for assistance, and how to document what they observed,” they wrote in the Wednesday letter, which was obtained by Blue Light News. “The absence of such a standard, or the failure to enforce one, is how we ended up with NYPD officers visibly working alongside ICE outside a hospital.”

Specifically, they called on Mamdani to release new rules within 30 days that “clearly outline” how NYPD officers should interact with ICE agents in the field. The rules, they wrote, should dictate when “disengagement” and “refusal of assistance” to ICE is appropriate so NYPD officers “do not aid, facilitate, or appear to facilitate civil immigration enforcement.”

Among the letter’s other signatories was state Sen. Julia Salazar, one of the earliest supporters of Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral campaign and a fellow democratic socialist.

The fact that Mamdani’s elected supporters opted to call him out in such a direct way is a strong indication elements of his base are growing frustrated with his handling of public safety issues — and his perceived drift to the political center since entering City Hall.

Read more from Chris in Blue Light News Pro.

SECOND TRY: Council Speaker Julie Menin is moving forward with a controversial bill that would boost pay for home health workers — legislation that’s also tangled up with her run for the leadership post last year.

As POLITICO previously reported, Menin is working with Council Member Chris Marte on a measure that would outlaw 24-hour shifts for home health aides who are only paid for 13 hours. Their collaboration began to unfold after Marte dropped his own bid for the speakership last fall and threw his support behind Menin.

The effort, however, has put the speaker in a political bind. A previous version of the bill drew opposition from major labor unions, the mayor and Hochul over concerns it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, endanger patients and deprive workers of flexibility.

Menin, in the hopes of blunting that opposition, prepped a new version for a vote last night. The modified bill exempts home health workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement, delays the implementation for a year and allows home health workers to opt into longer shifts through the fall of 2027.

“As part of the ongoing legislative process, the Council has updated the bill after many conversations with stakeholders,” Council spokesperson Benjamin Fang said in a statement. “We look forward to phasing out the 24-hour workday, an outdated practice that places workers under extreme physical and emotional strain.”

The changes to the bill, however, do not seem to have appeased much of the opposition that killed it the first time around. A person with knowledge of negotiations said the modified version sparked backlash this morning. The legislation still sticks the state with the cost — the reason Hochul opposed it last time around. And some of the same critics are now reiterating their opposition, putting the bill on shaky ground should Menin attempt to bring it to a vote.

“This bill still leaves people with disabilities without care, creates legal conflicts with State Medicaid rules, lacks the funding necessary to keep from endangering the lives of people with disabilities, and risks destabilizing access to critical care for thousands of New Yorkers,” a Legal Aid Society spokesperson said in a statement. “We can and must pursue reforms that protect home care workers from exploitation without jeopardizing the health, independence, and dignity of the people who depend on these services every day.” — Joe Anuta

IN OTHER NEWS

— QUOTE CONTROVERSY: A recent TV ad from Anthony Constantino’s congressional campaign used a fabricated quote attributed to the Times Union. The dubiously sourced claim? “Constantino is now guaranteed to be a major entity in Congress.” (Times Union)

— STUDENT EXODUS: Enrollment in New York City’s public schools could plunge by as many as 153,000 students over the next decade. Falling fertility rates and more charter schools are driving the downturn. (The New York Times)

— ICE UPHEAVAL: Nigerian immigrant sues ICE after his arrest sparked chaotic protests in Brooklyn. Chidozie Wilson Okeke’s lawsuit says he was “unlawfully, brutally and violently detained.” (Gothamist)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

President Donald Trump has made the SAVE America Act a central GOP priority ahead of the midterms. Voters still don’t know how to feel about it.

New results from The POLITICO Poll show that while many Americans support some core provisions of the SAVE America Act — such as requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote — that support is not overwhelming. And they are far less certain about the sweeping elections bill overall, even as Trump has for months pressured Republican lawmakers to pass it.

Democrats in particular oppose much of the SAVE Act, and many of them are unenthusiastic even about the voter ID provisions that generate the broadest support — a sign that Trump is prioritizing legislation that has little crossover appeal.

A 42 percent plurality of voters who supported former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 back requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, including when registering by mail. But that number is dwarfed by the three-quarters of Trump 2024 voters who support such a measure, according to the survey conducted by Public First.

Asked about the bill overall — by name, but without providing information on what’s included — just 37 percent of Americans said they support it, and 21 percent oppose it. A larger share, 42 percent, say they neither support nor oppose the SAVE America Act, or are unsure.

Slightly more Americans say the bill will make elections fairer (38 percent) than those who say it will make elections less fair (32 percent). But 30 percent say they don’t know — another sign that their views on the issue are still forming even as the president wields it as a campaign cudgel.

“We are either going to fix” elections, he wrote on his Truth Social recently, casting it in existential terms, “or we won’t have a Country any longer.”

The findings reveal that though voter ID and proof of citizenship are popular, the SAVE America Act has not broken through in the same way. In addition to requiring proof of citizenship, the bill would also require states to regularly review voter lists and remove non-citizens.

“Voter ID is very popular, but the SAVE Act has been loaded up with other stuff,” said Buzz Brockway, a GOP strategist and former state representative in Georgia. “I think Senate Republicans should strip the bill back to Voter ID only. It still won’t pass because of Democratic opposition, but it would be a more popular bill.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the SAVE America Act is “commonsense legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans … who want to ensure our elections are secure and that only American citizens vote in American elections.”

The SAVE America Act passed the House in February and has stalled in the Senate amid GOP divisions and staunch Democratic opposition. Four Republican senators — Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — recently voted against an amendment that would have helped the legislation get across the finish line as part of a broader reconciliation package, raising new questions about its path forward in a narrowly divided Congress.

Critics of the legislation say it would make it much harder for Americans who lack the proper documentation — such as a paper copy of a birth certificate or passport — to vote.

“The SAVE Act will make it exceedingly and unacceptably difficult for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, to be heard,” Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said in a brief interview recently. “And so if all the people in the election can’t be heard, who are eligible to vote, then that’s something other than democracy.”

“I don’t think the American public knows what is in store for them if [the SAVE ACT] passes,” said Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono. “Millions of people are going to need to re-register.”

In the absence of movement in Congress, Republicans in some statesare pushing forward with their own efforts to impose proof of citizenship requirements to their voting laws. Several red states, including Arkansas and Kansas, are expected to vote on measures this November that mirror the federal SAVE America Act.

Lawmakers in the battlegrounds of Alaska and Michigan have also garnered the required signatures to put citizenship questions before voters — two states that could test whether Americans’ support for such measures in public opinion polling translates to the ballot box.