Congress
Mamdani makes big political gamble in backing Espaillat challenger
NEW YORK — When Mayor Zohran Mamdani endorsed former city Comptroller Brad Lander’s run against Rep. Dan Goldman, many Democrats accepted it as a favor to a political ally — even if it came at the expense of bucking an incumbent.
But each successive endorsement has created new friction that has led some Democrats to question whether the mayor keeps his political commitments.
When he backed Assemblymember Claire Valdez for retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s seat, Democratic power brokers weren’t as understanding, with even progressives openly grousing about how Mamdani spurned Velázquez’s succession plan by opting for a fellow democratic socialist over her preferred pick.
Then, last week, the mayor endorsed another democratic socialist, Darializa Avila Chevalier, in her primary challenge against Rep. Adriano Espaillat — despite his previous commitment to back the incumbent.
“It’s very difficult to say about someone that you don’t trust that person,” Velázquez, an early endorser of Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral run, told Blue Light News after his Avila Chevalier nod. “But your actions are raising serious concerns about taking you at your word — and that is very, very, very problematic in this business.”
The mayor’s involvement in some of the city’s most competitive congressional primaries should come as little surprise. It’s no secret that Mamdani, whose mayoral campaign was boosted by the city’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, entered office unafraid to defy his party’s old guard in bold ways. But he’s also exhibited a tendency to hedge his bets by cooperating with the political establishment, most notably in his dealings with President Donald Trump and Gov. Kathy Hochul.
His decision to support Avila Chevalier is his biggest political gamble yet. While Lander and Valdez face tough races, their paths to victory are generally viewed as more achievable than toppling Espaillat, a five-term incumbent with deep ties to the district. And Avila Chevalier’s social media history — including her description of former President Joe Biden as “a rapist” and calling for the abolition of all forms of policing — hasn’t exactly helped her make inroads outside her far-left base of support.
The endorsement against Espaillat also stands to carry consequences for the mayor well beyond the primary election.
Last summer, Mamdani privately promised Espaillat he would support his reelection run, according to Velázquez and a person with direct knowledge of the conversation who was granted anonymity to discuss it. Mamdani made that behind-the-scenes commitment in conjunction with Espaillat endorsing him in the general election for mayor shortly after he defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in last June’s Democratic primary (Espaillat had supported Cuomo in the primary).
Velázquez, a matriarch of New York’s progressive movement, said in her interview with Blue Light News that Espaillat confided in her that he and Mamdani even shook hands on the reciprocal endorsement pledge last summer.
Acknowledging that she’s still “infuriated” with Mamdani for the way he endorsed Valdez over her preferred pick for her seat, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, Velázquez said she will never again take the mayor’s word on anything — whether it be about politics or policy — at face value. And she pointed directly to his broken promise to Espaillat.
“I will say I want it in writing,” Velázquez said.
Applied broadly across the city’s political spectrum, that sort of approach would spell trouble for the mayor given that he negotiates budgets with the City Council while banking on members of the state Legislature and New York’s congressional delegation to push his priorities in Albany and on Capitol Hill, respectively.
Aside from serving in Congress, Espaillat has a number of allies he helped get elected to the Council. And that lawmaking body is currently in the midst of negotiating the Mamdani administration’s first city budget. One Council member said that process has grown more tense due to his Avila Chevalier endorsement.
“Now we know his word isn’t worth anything,” said the member, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.
A spokesperson for Mamdani declined to comment. In a statement to Blue Light News, Avila Chevalier said, “The establishment can decide their feelings on this. The voters of this district have already proven they trust the mayor and support his vision by electing him last June with a 19 point margin.”
Prior to Mamdani backing Avila Chevalier, her campaign was flying under the radar compared to high-profile primaries across the city. The crowded race to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler in Manhattan, Lander’s challenge of Goldman and the campaign for Velázquez’s seat have all sucked up much of the city’s political oxygen.
Lander is well-known in Goldman’s district, which covers Brooklyn and Manhattan, and has a loyal progressive following — in part because of his criticisms of Israel. He has proven to be a serious threat to the two-term incumbent: A recent Emerson College survey found Lander leading Goldman by more than 30 percentage points. And he (along with Valdez and Avila Chevalier) can soon expect an influx of ad spending from a progressive super PAC backing candidates who’ve criticized Israel.
The quest for Velázquez’s seat, where Valdez is up against Reynoso and City Council member Julie Won, is more open. But the Brooklyn-Queens district, which has been dubbed the “Commie Corridor,” featured some of Mamdani’s best performances in last year’s mayoral election — a sign that his support on the trail there will be a powerful asset. The DSA also has a strong base in the district, and the organization is working overtime to boost Valdez over Reynoso, who has the backing of the progressive Working Families Party.
Avila Chevalier’s race, meanwhile, presents as more of a longshot. An organizer at Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian encampment, Avila Chevalier was recruited to run for the seat by Justice Democrats, a progressive group. The district, which covers upper Manhattan and the Bronx, delivered for Mamdani in last year’s mayoral election — and offered Espaillat detractors an opening.
But Espaillat, the first formerly undocumented member of Congress, has held the 13th District since 2017 and before that represented portions of it as a state senator. Over the years, he has built a robust network of political allies known as the “Squadriano.” Even before the Mamdani endorsement, outside groups had committed more than $1 million in outside spending to boost him over Avila Chevalier, who outraised him in the first quarter of the year — an indicator that political observers were aware the race could be close.
Avila Chevalier’s backers were also aware it would be a difficult fight.
When the city chapter of the DSA discussed endorsing Avila Chevalier in December, some leaders expressed concerns about the organization’s bandwidth for the race this cycle, especially since it was also backing Valdez.
“I worry we’re not going to have capacity for two very challenging congressional races,” Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the city’s DSA chapter, said at the December endorsement meeting, according to audio obtained by Blue Light News. “A weak performance in 2026 will create a narrative that the left isn’t the future, that we aren’t on the rise. We can’t make that mistake again. We have to concentrate our resources.”
That sentiment has clearly shifted, as the DSA chapter ultimately endorsed Avila Chevalier — along with Valdez — in January.
Asked about his past reservations about Avila Chevalier, Gordillo said in a statement Tuesday that his group “was proud to support Darializa’s campaign early on. Since our endorsement of Darializa, membership in our Bronx / Upper Manhattan branch has outpaced every other branch in the city. What that tells us is that uptown and the Bronx are ready for change.”
Things haven’t always been copacetic between Avila Chevalier and the DSA, though.
“Glad I trusted my gut on DSA and their racial justice organizing cause babyyyy the stench of anti Palestinian racism on the BDS thing ain’t gonna wash out easy,” she wrote in a March 2022 post from her since-deleted X account, an archive of which has been obtained by Blue Light News.
The broadside against the DSA was referring to the national DSA’s decision at the time to de-charter the organization’s BDS Working Group amid internal policy feuds. In her statement Tuesday, Avila Chevalier said she is proud to have the backing of the DSA, which has a “strong history of elevating pro-Palestine candidates to office, even at times when it was politically inconvenient to do so.”
The Mamdani endorsement is poised to accelerate Avila Chevalier’s momentum — likely bringing in more attention and money to Avila Chevalier in the closing stretch of her campaign.
Public polling is scarce in the race. Earlier this year, Avila Chevalier’s campaign touted an internal survey that found her trailing Espaillat by 14 percentage points in a head-to-head matchup.
But before pulling the trigger on endorsing Avila Chevalier in a joint TV appearance last week, Mamdani reviewed another, yet-to-be-released poll that showed her with a better outlook, according to a person with direct knowledge of the mayor’s deliberations who was granted anonymity to discuss them.
“There was a close examination of the numbers, and the polling is looking good for her,” said the person, who did not know more specifics about the poll or who conducted it.
Mamdani has stuck by Avila Chevalier in recent days as more reports emerge about her social media activity. When asked Tuesday if her posts raised concerns for him, Mamdani pivoted to touting her as a “champion for working people.” When pressed again on the posts, he dodged the question, replying: “She said herself that a lot of these don’t reflect her views today.”
For his part, Espaillat has sought to downplay Mamdani’s endorsement. On Saturday, he gathered with more than a dozen unions and elected leaders for a show-of-force rally that included Council Speaker Julie Menin — whom Mamdani has frequently found himself on the opposite side of. In a statement, Espaillat spokesperson Reginald Johnson said, “We can’t gamble the future of our working families to score political points.”
Other powerful Democrats are standing by Espaillat in the aftermath of Mamdani’s intervention. Speaking to reporters Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “The mayor and I have agreed to strongly disagree” regarding Espaillat, whom he called “a bold, effective leader.” Jeffries vowed to “work hard to make sure he’s reelected.”
Former Democratic Rep. Max Rose, who has been outspoken about Mamdani endorsing Avila Chevalier, said that the nod sends the message to the New York delegation that “what matters actually is what the DSA tells him to do, not who you are and what you’ve stood for.”
“The mayor’s capacity to be on his own politically will not last forever,” Rose said. “He will need others to stand with him when he is politically weakened, and I promise you, if he only has the DSA to stand with him, that will not be enough.”
Democrats are readying a long list of investigations they want to launch into Donald Trump.
Reps. Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, who would lead the Oversight and Judiciary committees, respectively, if the party takes back the House, said they’re wasting no time in preparing an all-out oversight campaign targeting Trump, his family, and his administration.
Both know that House Dems’ efforts now could provide a backbone for the accountability message the party intends to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.
“We are going to be looking at systems of bribery, kickback and financial corruption and opportunities for disgorgement and restitution to the American people,” Raskin said. “That would be No. 1.”
Topping their long list of controversies they want to probe: Trump’s acceptance of a Qatari jet for use as his new Air Force One, and his family’s massively profitable cryptocurrency investments.
Raskin also said he intends to probe what he deems “fraudulent and vindictive prosecutions,” including those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James. Garcia, meanwhile, said he is determined to fill in gaps he sees in the GOP-led investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
White House spokesperson Olivia Wales responded to Democrats’ plans by stating the president “will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and radical Democrats who want to massively raise taxes, defund the police, and are soft on crime.”
Garcia and Raskin’s preparations in some ways resemble how their predecessors planned ahead of the 2018 midterms. But that year, Democrats tiptoed around the prospect of impeachment for fear of alienating voters, then launched a flurry of investigations aimed at Trump once they were in power.
Now, after two impeachments that failed to remove Trump from office and with a party base intent on pulling no punches, House Democrats are reluctant to take anything off the table — while also recognizing the limitations of impeachment as a check on Trump’s power.
“Nobody on the Democratic side is afraid of impeachment,” Raskin said this week, adding that he considers it a “tool in the toolbox.”
What else we’re watching:
— SCANDAL-PLAGUED CANDIDATES TEST PARTIES’ LIMITS: Democrats and Republicans this election cycle keep playing whack-a-mole as candidate after candidate becomes embroiled in controversies ranging from domestic violence to sexual misconduct. Neither party has developed a clear playbook yet for when to step in or what counts as disqualifying. But identifying that line could become a key effort in determining who controls the next Congress, as several races with problematic candidates have been or could become battlegrounds.
— LAWMAKERS BRISTLE OVER POCKET RECISSION SEASON: With less than 45 days left in the fiscal year, the time is right for pocket rescissions — the controversial tactic Trump used last year to cancel billions of dollars in foreign aid without Congress’ consent. If the White House takes that tack again, it will not be well received on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers in both parties continue to bristle over Trump’s ongoing assault on their funding power.
Chris Marquette, Riley Rogerson, Erin Doherty, Andrew Howard, Alec Hernandez and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.
Democrats haven’t yet won the House majority. But top party leaders are wasting no time in preparing an all-out oversight campaign targeting President Donald Trump, his family and administration should they flip the chamber in November.
At the center of the effort are California Rep. Robert Garcia, who is poised to lead the Oversight Committee under a Democratic takeover, and Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is in line to lead the Judiciary Committee. They are each already planning to use their potential gavels to investigate key Trump controversies — such as his acceptance of a Qatari jet for use as his new Air Force One and his family’s massively profitable cryptocurrency investments.
Garcia and Raskin both said in interviews they have a long list of administration officials that they plan to probe and possibly bring before their committees. But each said they intend to focus intently on Trump himself.
“Ideally, it’s the president’s sons and the president and the family,” Garcia said, adding a litany of other members of the Trump inner sanctum he wants to hear from. They include chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and son-in-law and foreign envoy Jared Kushner, as well as former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Cory Lewandowski, who served as her chief of staff.
In addition to the crypto profits and the much-criticized Qatari 747, Garcia said he planned to probe federal contracts awarded to members of Trump’s family and the series of pardons Trump has granted early in his second term.
Raskin, a veteran of the investigative onslaught that took place in the second half of Trump’s first term, said he planned to focus on allegations of self-enrichment by Trump and his family — as well as illicit foreign influence on American institutions and rising authoritarianism in government.
“We are going to be looking at systems of bribery, kickback and financial corruption and opportunities for disgorgement and restitution to the American people,” Raskin said. “That would be No. 1.”
Asked to comment on Democrats’ oversight plans, White House spokesperson Olivia Wales responded with a statement outlining Trump’s legislative achievements.
“The President will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and radical Democrats who want to massively raise taxes, defund the police, and are soft on crime,” she said. “The choice has never been more clear: doubling down on President Trump’s winning agenda or far-left liberal policies and partisan gridlock.”
Raskin and Garcia are forging ahead even as voters reject some Democrats who were at the forefront of the Trump accountability effort that unfolded eight years ago. And while the preparations Garcia, Raskin and others are making now in many ways resemble how their predecessors planned ahead of the 2018 midterms, there are differences.
Democrats in the leadup to the elections that year warily tiptoed around the prospect of impeachment in fear of alienating voters, and they laid out some investigative targets that did not implicate Trump personally.
Once in power, though, they launched a flurry of investigations aimed at Trump — including the president’s tax returns, his acceptance of foreign “emoluments” and later his effort to leverage aid to Ukraine for political favors. In virtually every case, the administration stonewalled Democratic investigators.
Now, after two impeachments that failed to remove Trump from office and with a party base intent on pulling no punches, House Democrats are reluctant to take anything off the table — while also recognizing the limitations of impeachment as a check on Trump’s power.
“Nobody on the Democratic side is afraid of impeachment,” Raskin said this week, adding that he considers it a “tool in the toolbox.”
The larger project for Democrats if they win power in November is to use subpoena power and public hearings to provide a backbone for the accountability message they intend to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries emphasized the wide-reaching scope of oversight inquiries during his campaign kickoff speech last month, in which he unveiled House Democratic midterm messaging that included a pledge to “hold the crooks accountable.”
“Anyone,” Jeffries said, “who is stealing from the American people, screwing over the American people, or shortchanging the American people is going to be held accountable beginning on Day 1.”
While the Oversight and Judiciary panels would be the leaders of the investigatory push in a Democratic House, other committees are set to target Trump as well in a bid to deliver the bold action Democratic primary votes have demanded.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said he expected the oversight subpanel would be a highly sought-after assignment should Democrats win gavels — with a potential “big” emphasis, he said, on probing Trump family corruption.
He added he was “very concerned” about how the Trump administration has managed the IRS and Social Security, particularly after the Department of Government Efficiency upended federal agencies last year.
“We certainly will exercise our oversight responsibility,” said Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, who is expected to return as Ways and Means chair in a Democratic majority.
Garcia and Raskin, meanwhile, have other pet priorities beyond the personal benefits Trump and his family have allegedly garnered in office.
Raskin said he intends to probe what he deems “fraudulent and vindictive prosecutions” including those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James.
“The prosecution function has been utterly tainted and the Judiciary Committee obviously can’t let that go,” he said.
He has also set his sights on Paramount Skydance’s proposed $110 billion buyout of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal Democrats have blasted not only as an antitrust violation but also a threat to national security and free speech.
Previewing his intentions for the majority, Raskin requested a transcribed interview with Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison in a letter last week. While he cannot haul Ellison, a close Trump ally, before the committee now as a member of the minority party, Raskin said his inquiry into Paramount would be a “priority” if Democrats win subpoena power.
Garcia, meanwhile, said he is determined to fill in gaps he sees in the GOP-led investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He said he wants to bring key witnesses back to testify under oath, potentially in public hearings “because most of them were not called under oath and most of them were not called under subpoena.”
That could include big names in the world of finance, such as Leon Black, the co-founder of Apollo Global Management, and Jes Staley, a former top executive at JPMorgan Chase — both of whom had substantial communications with Epstein and met with the committee privately.
“I think we’re going to have, in the majority, public Epstein hearings,” Garcia said.
The Epstein investigation is similar to the Trump corruption probe in that it would potentially span multiple committees, and Garcia and Raskin both praised each other and said they are planning to work in concert on both issues.
Raskin said he doesn’t envision any issues with coordination between two panels
“There’s enough Trump family corruption to go around,” he said. “I don’t think we have to worry about that. We will just be dividing it up.”
Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.
Republican lawmakers are still locked in a power struggle with the White House over control of federal cash, long since President Donald Trump swept back into office with unprecedented orders undermining Congress’ power of the purse.
Earlier this month, GOP senators overwhelmingly agreed to a bipartisan government funding bill that would temporarily block the Trump administration from finalizing a federal rule to let political appointees steer money toward grants “aligned with the president’s agenda.” The House could clear that bill next month, and Trump is expected to sign it to avert a shutdown before the midterms.
And while the days of widespread funding freezes might be over, the Trump administration continues to create new rules for federal grants and then deny funding based on them — only to be repeatedly shot down in court this summer.
Lawmakers in both parties have also blasted White House budget director Russ Vought this year for delaying the release of cash for congressionally backed programs for antipoverty services, foreign assistance, banking in underserved areas and more.
“Congress has appropriated money, and you don’t have the authority to impound it,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chastised Vought this spring over the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars the Trump administration is supposed to send quarterly to states.
Now Republicans are watching for clues about whether Vought, between now and Sept. 30, will claim the authority to nix appropriations in the final weeks of the fiscal year through what’s known as a pocket recession. He used the move last year to unilaterally cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid through the legally dubious maneuver.
“Pocket rescissions would be a very interesting way to curry favor with the legislative branch — especially the one part of the legislative branch which has delivered on all of the administration’s shit,” Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, a senior Republican appropriator, said in a recent interview.
Indeed, the White House needs the support of GOP appropriators in both chambers to advance Trump administration priorities.
Those top lawmakers have already taken some modest steps to stop the White House from shirking Congress’ intent on spending by inserting stricter language into bipartisan funding bills Trump signed into law for the current fiscal year. That included new rules for shifting money between accounts and more explicit instructions for how dollars should be spent.
Some Republican lawmakers have also been resisting the administration’s push this summer to enact billions of dollars for the military and agriculture programs through another party-line budget reconciliation package. Top House Republican appropriators slammed the White House in June for pursuing a “risky and uncoordinated” strategy to enact funding for the Iran war through a party-line bill that’s not guaranteed to pass.
Relying on the reconciliation process to skirt the Senate filibuster is a key step to achieve the “paradigm shift” Vought has touted throughout Trump’s second term, designed to make funding negotiations “less bipartisan” so Republicans don’t have to agree to nondefense increases in order to get enough votes to boost military budgets.
“At what point did we stop legislating?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another senior appropriator, said last month after Vought privately pitched Senate Republicans on the latest party-line plan, which would inherently take funding power away from the appropriations committees.
Murkowski was also among the Senate Republicans who chided the White House for not seeking input from lawmakers before forging ahead with its plan to put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants and minimize the role of the objective peer-review process for selecting recipients of those dollars.
“There was no consultation at all,” she said. “When you start issuing grants based on political connections, that’s not good for the system here.”
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) publicly called on Vought to extend the public comment period for the plan last month, to no avail.
She also continues to pan the pocket rescission gambit, saying in a recent interview that the administration should “go through the proper process with the Appropriations Committee” if it wants to rescind money intended for a specific program.
Under a decades-old law, the White House is allowed to send Congress a request to revoke funding, then withhold the cash for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore the proposal. Republicans last summer voted to approve Trump’s request to rescind $9 billion for public media and foreign assistance.
Then Trump used that same law weeks later to send Congress a request to rescind $4.9 billion in foreign aid — this time with less than 45 days left before the end of the fiscal year. Vought immediately declared the funding canceled, arguing that the administration had to withhold the funding until it expired at the end of September, regardless of congressional action.
The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comment on whether the White House plans to execute new pocket rescissions in the coming weeks. But Trump’s new pick for deputy director at the agency, Hal Duncan, told lawmakers this summer that the agency isn’t ruling out any “fiscal tools.”
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said White House officials have given him no assurances that they won’t deploy the tactic again this year and that his reaction would hinge on the type of funding eliminated.
“It would depend on what it is — it really would,” the Oklahoma Republican said last month.
In courtrooms throughout the country, federal judges continue to weigh in on whether Trump is illegally encroaching on Congress’ funding power.
Last month a federal judge declared that the administration can’t cancel grants based on new rules or goals established after the fact. The Trump administration later admitted in a different case that it canceled $7.6 billion “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state.” Then a federal judge halted changes to teen-pregnancy prevention grants, concluding that it’s unlawful “to impose conditions … that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained.”
The Supreme Court has yet to conclusively rule on the president’s spending tactics, and many Democrats on Capitol Hill argue Republicans shouldn’t rely on the courts to defend Congress’ authority. GOP leaders have repeatedly bucked Democratic calls for action, including to reverse the cancellation of specific grants, nullify Trump’s pocket rescission last fall and head off a future end-run around Congress by barring rescissions requests in the last months of the fiscal year.
“When are our Republican colleagues going to assert our legislative authority?” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a top appropriator, said in an interview. “I mean, why in the hell did they run for Congress?”
Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a senior appropriator in line to be the No. 2 Democrat in the next Congress, was more charitable.
“I just think there’s a bipartisan desire to get back to the way the Constitution is supposed to operate,” he said in an interview, “where we decide how the money is spent.”
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words