New York City Mayor Zorhan Mamdani unveils the Sunnyside Yard Project, a 12,000-home rail deck requiring federal approval—Trump showed interest in collaborating despite past tensions. Discussions on ICE detentions (e.g., Elmina Agaieva) led to her release, while housing bonds and work requirements (SNAP) highlight bipartisan hurdles. The mayor defends NYPD amid snowball chaos, praises Tisch’s leadership, and dismisses partisan sniping, focusing instead on long-term solutions for NYC’s affordability crisis. Pragmatism over ideology may redefine urban governance in America’s priciest city. [Automatically generated summary]
And obviously, the economy is above all by an order of magnitude.
So I just don't know that it's going to, you know, and again, as the caller just proved, I mean, Democrats have already made up their minds about the Epstein issue and regarding Republicans and Trump.
And Republicans have already made up their minds about the Epstein issue.
So I don't think it's going to have, it's been in the headlines a lot, and it certainly has taken up a lot of media oxygen, but I don't know that it's moved many voters.
We'll go to Miami, Florida.
Robert, Independent.
Yeah, good morning, and good morning, Tom.
I'm an independent that is leaning Democratic, but for one reason, and that is the staunch support of young women and girls in Title IX and supporting them in sports.
And I'm going to ask you, Tom, I can't believe many Democratic leaders, they just refuse to define what an adult woman is.
Doesn't that surprise you as a reasonable person?
I do not see how young men or boys can say now they're girls and we're competing in women's sports or young girls' sports.
That is a turnoff to myself, my family, and many people and grandparents who have young girls and women that participate in sports and train their whole lives for this.
So it's a turnoff to me, and I'd like your thoughts.
Thank you.
So that's a great question.
And it's a great example of, and this is why, you know, the president brought it up at the State of the Union.
The economy is up here.
It's what everyone's concerned about.
And they have anxiety about, you know, wages and prices and all those things.
But there are these other issues.
Illegal immigration is one.
I mean, it's that the president highlighted at the State of the Union.
But on the trans issue, particularly, you know, trans boys playing girls sports, it's an 80-20 issue that really does capture sort of the normie vote.
And I would include the caller in that group of people who, you know, it animates them, it motivates them because it's one of those issues that seems just so far outside of the mainstream position, even among a majority of Democrats, don't support this.
And yet, you have the base of the Democratic Party is willing to go to the mats on this issue over and over and over again.
Abigail Spanberger is a perfect example.
She managed to win that election in Virginia and become governor of Virginia as a moderate, but would not answer that issue, was hounded day after day after day during that campaign and just wouldn't say, no, I think it's unfair for boys to play in girls' sports.
She could not bring herself to say it because she was afraid of the backlash that would happen from the left wing of her party.
And so it is an issue that continues to, I think, benefit Republicans and pull in those sort of independent and normie voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
Herndon, Virginia, John, on our line for Republicans, good morning to you.
Go ahead.
Thanks for taking my call.
I've been a Republican for a long time during the Reagan time, and I know what Republicans can do.
But the reality is this guy is claiming he's a poll-taker.
I have no idea what polls that he's looking at.
Present right now, he has 36% his approval rate.
Okay.
You mentioned about mortgage.
People, they don't eat mortgage.
They go out there and buy grocery.
They buy foods.
They're looking for a job.
That's what they're looking for.
How are we going to win an election when everything that this man touched going down a drain?
And again, you say that Donald Trump, he can go to Texas and say that vote for this guy.
No one will accept it.
I will say this.
If any Republicans are listening out there, we need to get rid of all these Republicans because they don't work for us.
We hired them to do work.
We are American.
When we see things going wrong, we need to speak up.
We cannot be quiet.
We are the policy people.
All right, John, let me ask you.
John, in Herndon, Virginia, did you vote for President Trump?
No, I did not.
The second time, I did not.
But the first time I did.
Because remember, now we're going to war to Iran.
He's telling us that we're not going to war.
And now he's putting all these troops to Iran.
Listen, do we need to present for one party or do we need presidents who bring people together and have a vision for this country?
All right.
I'll leave it there.
Tom Bevin.
I don't even know how to respond to that.
You know, look, it probably just highlights the fact that there's still a section of the Republican Party who are anti-Trump, right?
Who did not vote for him this time around and who oppose him.
I do think it is definitely this time around was different than obviously his first term, where the number of Republicans in the party, in the caucus on Capitol Hill that were fighting him, he was fighting the Democrats, the media, and a significant portion of his own party.
I think this time around, it's been much more.
He's still fighting the Democrats, still fighting the media to a certain degree.
But the portion of the Republican Party that is anti-Trump is, I think, much smaller than it has been in the past.
And so they've sort of been able to consolidate Republican votes in part because I think there are plenty of Republicans out there who are more moderate and maybe don't like Trump's style and don't like, maybe don't even like some of his policies.
But the alternative is to that, you know, for them is voting for a Democrat, which, as we just pointed out, many independents don't even seem willing to do because of some of the policies that they're proposing.
Alex is calling from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Independent.
Yeah, I just wanted to kind of circle back to Tom's comments regarding why people want the FC files released.
Personally, it has nothing to do with the pedophilia.
I think it has more to do with money and politics.
I think a lot of young people, myself included, we want Citizens United from 2011 overturned.
We would like to see why there's committee members that have dual citizenship with other nations and they fund for or promote funding to those nations.
Quite frankly, none of what I'm seeing from either side of the aisle is really America first until it boils down to how are we supporting Americans?
How are we using that money to not just prop up a political campaign, but actually put money back into the systems that we live in each and every day, like the collar before me.
You know, it's not about so much, you know, making mortgage rates affordable.
It's about how does this fit my bottom line week to week so I can afford to exist.
Tom Bevin.
Well, look, I mean, housing costs are one of the biggest drivers that folks, it's housing, it's health care, it's cost of food, cost of energy.
It's all of those things.
So, but I look, I take the collar's point.
I mean, there are a lot of people out there in the United States today who are disaffected and don't see either party doing the job for them.
And that's not new, but it seems to be growing.
And that is unfortunate because I think we've seen a loss in trust in institutions, everything across, from the Supreme Court to Congress, the presidency, the media, of course.
We're about as low as you can possibly be.
Folks don't trust us anymore, and they don't trust a lot of things that they see around them because they've seen this sort of corruption.
And, you know, I'll just say, go back to the State of the Union address.
This idea, and we talked about this on our radio show the other day, you know, Trump proposed he wanted to see the stock trading ban passed.
The fact that we haven't passed that law, that Congress has been unwilling or unable to pass that law for so long is a perfect example of how people look at the institution of Congress and say, you know, they're a bunch of crooks.
Why is all this stuff being hidden from the American people?
There's not enough transparency.
There's too much corruption going on.
And we're now seeing this bubble up in some of the states and all these programs.
And I do think that is a powerful force.
And that's something that whichever party can be seen as being on the side of doing away with corruption and taking all these taxpayer dollars that are being wasted or abused and putting them back into programs that are actually showing benefits to the public.
That will be a very popular policy and they'll reap some rewards from that.
Dwayne in North Carolina on our line for Republicans.
Dwayne, you're talking to Tom Bevin of Real Clear Politics.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
Yes, I'm talking about that election that the runoff that's going on in Texas.
I mean, you know, Democrats ain't going to win.
You know, Bozo O'Rourke, he was close, but he ain't going to get it.
And Jasmine Crockett, you know, if she don't win it, she's going to claim racism.
But I live in North Carolina and I've had Cooper for eight years and he voted against this voter ID law, which is bringing me, you know, we need Watley here.
And what I'm, you know, the State of the Union was an absolute disgrace for the Democrats because you see where their priorities are.
When they say Congress should be representing American people and not illegal aliens, not a Democrat stood up.
And that is pathetic.
That is just absolutely pathetic.
And Dwayne, there are news reports today that Republicans will use that moment from the State of the Union in campaign messaging.
Tom Bevin?
Yeah, look, I think Trump set a trap for the Democrats and they walked right into it.
Now, it was a partisan speech, and I've heard from people who don't want to see the State of the Union be that partisan.
On the other hand, it was also, I think, there was a lot of upbeat and sort of patriotic.
It was almost Trump, and I know Democrats have sort of, I've seen in the media, they sort of denigrate it as like, it was like a game show and they were handing out medals and all that.
And I think that also is the wrong approach, the wrong message.
You know, Trump was, this is the 250th anniversary of the country.
This was a celebration of, you know, patriotism and all of the things that people love about America, including the hockey team winning gold and 100-year-old veterans who fought for America and multiple wars.
And the Democrats, again, Struggled mightily to muster any sort of enthusiasm for these things.
And then, after the fact, you know, as I said, in some circles anyway, sort of derided them and dismissed them.
So I do think that was probably not the right approach for Democrats.
But look, ultimately, the caller mentioned the race in North Carolina.
You know, Watley, the Republican, is, we just had a poll come out.
He's way up in the primary, but he's going to, he's trailing in the general election.
That is an uphill battle for Republicans to be able to win that seat, particularly in a midterm year where Republicans control everything in Washington.
And if voters are looking to voice their displeasure, they're going to elect a Democrat from North Carolina.
Tom Tillis is retiring from his seat.
And so that is an open contest.
And North Carolina has their primary on Tuesday night.
Michael Watley, as Tom Bevan was just saying, the frontrunner on the GOP side for that primary and Roy Cooper for the Democrats.
And then those two will face off in the general election.
Tom Bevin, this is expected to be an expensive and hotly contested race.
Yeah, North Carolina has become basically a purple state, a bellwether.
I mean, it's decided, you know, Trump's won it, but it's a couple of points here or there.
And North Carolina has certainly shown that its willingness to elect Democrats.
Rory Cooper's a two-term governor of that state.
And so he has great name recognition.
He's a well-established, well-vetted candidate, probably the best candidate Democrats picked up this cycle.
And he's going to be tough to beat in this environment, in that state, with his record there.
Again, there's plenty of ammunition against him, but at the end of the day, I think he's got to be considered a favorite there.
And Republicans are probably, I think the general consensus is that Republicans are probably going to lose the House because it's just too tough an environment, barring some sort of change in the political landscape.
And the margins are just so slim.
Republicans are probably destined to lose the House of Representatives.
Senate's a different issue, but Republicans are, we'll see what happens in Texas.
We just had a poll come out showing Graham Plattner winning the primary against Janet Mills there.
And then I think up 11 points on Susan Collins.
That's another big target.
So they're two seats.
And if Democrats can defend places like Georgia, where John Osoff is running or Michigan, then they are getting closer.
They need a net gain of four seats.
Three will only get them to 50-50.
And obviously, JD Vance would break the tie.
So they're going to have to get into Republican territory, whether it's Texas or Florida or Ohio or Iowa.
Alaska is another one.
They have opportunities.
And if the environment continues to worsen for Republicans, if they can't sort of improve their standing, then some of those states will definitely be in play.
And it's not out of the realm of possibilities that Republicans could lose the Senate as well.
Again, March 3rd, Tuesday, coming up next week are the primaries in Texas and North Carolina.
Republicans' Redistricting Hopes00:02:33
Tom Bevin, that caller said it's a runoff in Texas.
Well, we're not there quite yet, but what are the odds that on the, at least on the GOP side, possibly on the Dems side, that the candidates have to go to a runoff in May?
Yeah, I mean, less likely on the Democratic side because there's a third party, there's a third candidate, but he's pulling it like 1%.
But on the Republican side, you've got Wesley Hunt, who's in some polls getting 25 or 30%.
So he's got a significant chunk of the electorate, which would keep the other two under 50 and push that race to a runoff.
And then, as I said, the question is, okay, well, what happens with his voters?
Do they disproportionately migrate over to Cornyn and save him?
Or do they split evenly?
In which case, if you know, that might benefit be enough for Ken Paxton to win the runoff.
So it's hard to tell when you try and look at these things and figure out and read the tea leaves and predict where voters are going to do and what they're going to do.
That's always a dicey proposition.
So I suspect there will be a runoff, but we'll have to wait and see when we have some more data how voters feel about those two candidates.
And what about the redistricting efforts in Texas ahead of the midterms here in 2026?
What will the primaries on Tuesday night tell us about Republicans redistricting hopes to pick up more seats in Texas?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I mean, it's hard to say.
I think just sort of dialing back and looking at the landscape overall, the question is: well, can you know, have Republicans won redistricting wars enough to insulate themselves from losing the House of Representatives?
And Sean Trendy's our senior elections analyst, and he's an expert at redistricting.
We just had him on our radio show the other day, and his answer to that question, which I posed to him, was that Republicans are probably, given where everything, you know, when you talk about Texas, you talk about California, you talk about some of these other states that have been involved in redistricting Virginia, that Republicans are probably going to come out a seed or two ahead, but not enough to matter.
Now, there's the potential that if the Supreme Court, if they strike down the Voting Rights Act, that somehow that would get Louisiana involved and Mississippi involved and could boost Republican redistricting to the point where it might help them on the margins.
But again, right now, it looks like that the redistricting wars have basically, you know, they've battled, the parties have battled to a tie more or less, and Republicans might come out a little bit on top.
Reference Debate00:04:55
But it's really, at the end of the day, it's not going to be enough to matter substantially in the November midterms.
Kathleen in Chicago, Democratic caller.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
Good morning.
Okay, it's three things I need to ask Mr. Velvin.
He said illegal aliens.
Can I ask you, Mr. Velvin, have you ever ran across an illegal alien in America in the world?
These people are human just like you.
They're not aliens.
The next one, he said, Trump was toting all the accomplishments that he's made since he's been back in.
What has he done for the American people other than enrich himself, his family, using all our money, sending it to other countries?
People here in America, he done took self-care away from people.
Hey, Kathleen, what is the third?
Because we're running short on time.
You let him run off and run off.
And then, as soon as this disturbances, you all are worried about what Hillary Clinton had to say about Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, she has never seen Jeffrey Epstein, but Mariana Trump and Donald Trump, they're in pictures with Trump.
And he says there's no evidence that Trump did anything wrong.
If you read the files, and then they've been showing him on TV, that he's been accused of messing with a 13-year-old kid, as well as using his fingers to molest children.
So none of them have been found guilty of anything, but you cannot just say this man is not guilty.
All right, Kathleen, I will leave it there.
Tom Bevin?
Thanks, Greta.
What do you want me to do with that one?
Look, I'll start with the first one, which is Calling people who are illegally, illegal aliens or illegal immigrants.
It's interesting.
There was just a clip that was circulating on X the other day.
It was Bill Clinton in 1997, I believe, his State of the Union, maybe it was 95, it was, but his State of the Union address, and he talked about illegal immigration.
And he actually used the phrase illegal aliens and said that we're going to secure the border and that these folks are taking jobs that Americans might otherwise have and they're committing crimes and we're going to increase our deportation.
That used to be the mainstream position of the Democratic Party, right?
Now, 30 years is a long time, but fast forward, and here we are.
That's the position of the Republican Party.
And Democrats are over here saying, not only do we not want any of that stuff, we want to abolish ICE, we want to abolish DHS, we want effectively open borders, we want to decriminalize border crossings, which is what they said in 2019.
But you can't even call these folks aliens.
They're humans.
And so I think that just goes to show on the issue of illegal immigration, it has become a flashpoint in our country.
But the parties have, you know, at least the Democratic Party, I think, has moved pretty far to the left over the last two or so decades.
And that's what makes this a tough issue for, I think, that Congress can't even begin to deal with it because of how the two parties have sort of separated themselves.
Is the reference a legal one that Bill Clinton made and what you're saying, the word alien, referencing laws that Congress has put in place?
I'm sorry, say that again?
The reference to illegal alien that you're saying, you know, Bill Clinton made, is the reference a legal one, the word alien.
Is the reference a legal one?
Yeah, because of laws that were written by Congress in the 1970s and since then.
And the role of, I'm wondering about the role of laws here and the debate rather and the role Congress needs to play in immigration.
And it's not being done up on Capitol Hill.
No, it's certainly not.
And it hasn't been done for decades.
They've never been able to come to any sort of, you know, there's always a push for comprehensive immigration reform, which includes border security and all these other things.
And that's never been something that has been able to get through both chambers of Congress.
But as far as his language, my point was only that the language that the President of the United States was using in 1995 is now considered, you know, verboten and taboo for our caller and other members of the Democratic Party.
Understood.
Tom Bevin is co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics.
Price Perception Problem00:02:41
Tom Bevin, where can folks go to see your polling and how you put it together?
How do you put it together for folks that don't know?
You can go to rookclearpolitics.com or rookclarepolling.com and see all of the stuff that we have to offer on the website.
As I said, across the political spectrum, columns, video clips, and certainly the latest polls in all of these races.
All right.
Let's go to Bob, who's in Waterton, New York, a Republican.
Hi, Bob.
Hey there.
Thanks, Tom, for everything you're doing.
My big thing is about affordability for the upcoming elections.
And that's a lot of the Democrats pushing back on what's going on.
But over the four years of Biden, obviously everything went up pretty high for the inflation rates.
But if they're truly coming down to 2% and 2.5%, what we would like them, there's got to be a way to be able to prove it to the people.
Like the grocery stores, they feel it.
When you see fuel coming down, most people know what the price of fuel was six months ago and a year ago.
But the price of they always talk about eggs, but the price of like just say milk and bread and meats and things, somehow or other the White House has to prove to the people, both sides of all parties, that prices have come, you know, they're staying where they are or maybe coming down a little bit.
And Bob, I have to jump in at that point.
Tom Bevin, we'll get an answer for you and then we have to run.
Go ahead.
Yeah, look, I agree.
There are plenty of things that data points that Trump can point to, stock market this and that and the other thing.
The problem is, in my opinion, he's losing on the question of when voters say, does this person, does the president, is he looking out for people like me?
Is he working on the things that I care about?
And his problem, in my opinion, is that, you know, in his first term, he used to have these, he'd have these summits at the White House with like truckers and welders and laborers and all these things he was sort of focused on.
This first year has been as much about foreign policy and building a new wing in the White House and FIFA and all these other things.
As opposed to getting up every day, he's got basically an empathy problem.
First, he called it a hoax and he said, oh, things are good.
Well, he needs to say, look, things are getting better.
My administration is getting up every single day, laser focused on making progress on all these issues that you care about.
And then he has to back that up with events that media can do nothing but report on, right?
Where he has workers in the White House.
He has these things.
When he's talking about other things, when he's talking about taking over Greenland, it took up like 10 days worth of media coverage, right?
The media reports on that.
Continuing Conversations in York City00:15:18
And people are like, what does that have to do with the price of eggs or beef at the store?
So I think it's a messaging problem.
And it's also, it's a perception problem.
He has to change perceptions about where the economy is.
That's a tough thing to do.
Tom Bevin, co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics, go to RealClearPolitics.com for more.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And now remarks by New York City Mayor Zorhan Mamdani to reporters during a community center dedication in Brooklyn, where he addressed a recent closed-door meeting with President Trump.
Good morning, everyone.
It is truly a pleasure to be here.
And I want to say thank you so much for your introductory remarks.
Before we speak about the Weeksville Heritage Center, I want to share a few words about my recent visit to the White House.
Yesterday, I did something that I am truly reluctant to do.
I left New York City.
I traveled down to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Trump in the Oval Office.
I have said time and again that our city faces an immense affordability crisis.
It is felt by residents here in Weeksville, across Brooklyn, and across the five boroughs of the city that we all love and call home.
And it is felt whenever New Yorkers try to find a place to live, go grocery shopping, put their kids in child care, or even take public transit.
Addressing this crisis was the focus of my meeting with the president.
I proposed working together to build more than 12,000 new homes in our city, which would be the single largest housing development New York City has seen since 1973.
The president was interested in the idea, and I look forward to the ensuing conversations about how to build more housing in a city that doesn't have enough of it.
We also discussed the immigration cases I know are front of mind for so many New Yorkers.
I shared my concern with the president about ICE's detention of Columbia student Elmina Agaieva yesterday morning, as well as the detention of four additional New Yorkers in relation to the university: Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahadawi, Yunseo Chung, and Nikal Kordia.
I asked that their cases be dropped.
I'm grateful that shortly after our meeting, the President called me to inform me that Elmina would be imminently released, and indeed she was.
We're going to take some questions now.
Let's please try to keep it to one question if possible.
And we have a microphone right here from Audra.
So we're going to start with NJ at Channel 7.
Thank you.
Mayor, welcome back.
Thank you.
You described your meeting with President Trump as productive.
In what sense was it productive?
And I also want to ask you whether naming the finished product actually came up.
It was a productive meeting in the sense that after our first meeting in the Oval Office, one of the topics of conversation that we focused on was housing.
Housing not only because it was the foremost and continues to be the foremost crisis in New York City, but also because it's a place of immense interest in this moment across the political spectrum.
And I knew that leaving that meeting, it was my responsibility to return with tangible proposals for what a partnership could look like in building exactly that in New York City.
I'd stood with the president looking at a portrait of FDR the last time I was in the Oval Office, and I had shared the fact that who I believe to be the greatest mayor in New York City history, Fiorella LaGuardia, so much of his success was tied to his partnership with the federal government and how that could continue to be a model in the years to come.
And so in working with my team, we sought to answer the question of what could it look like to bring that kind of partnership back to New York City at a scale that's needed to address this crisis.
And so we put forward a proposal to build more housing in a single project than the city has seen since 1973.
More housing than you would get combining Hudson Yards and Battery Park City together.
And not just housing, but also parks, also childcare, also hospitals, an entire new neighborhood.
And I was heartened by the fact that the president was interested in this proposal, and I anticipate it will be the subject of conversations to continue.
What about you?
Thank you, Randy.
Sorry, I've got to move on.
Ayana, go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon, Mayor.
Who initiated the meeting with the President yesterday?
Did he invite you?
Did your office reach out about how long was the conversation?
And did any other topics come up aside from housing and the detained students?
Did you guys discuss ICE enforcement in New York City, the funding, federal funding to help potentially close the budget gap here in New York City?
So this meeting took place in part of a larger context of the last meeting that I had with the President, where we left that meeting knowing that we would continue to be in conversation and to have meetings, always bringing it back to how we can serve this city.
And I've said that time and again that I will speak to anyone to ensure that we can advance the agenda of keeping New Yorkers in New York.
And the focus of the conversation came back to what it would look like to partner with the city to create this scale of housing, what it would look like to create the largest rail deck in the world, larger than that of Paris, than that of Hong Kong.
We spoke about the detention of the Columbia student that morning, and I shared my concerns as part of my long-standing belief that ICE raids are not only cruel, they also do nothing to advance the cause of public safety.
And I care very deeply about public safety in our city, and we have continued to focus on delivering exactly that.
And I shared with the president that I thought that these continued detentions, as well as cases of those who are out of detention but face the prospect of having to be forced back into detention, do nothing to advance that cause, and I asked for those cases to be dropped.
Thank you.
Melissa, go ahead.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
Hi, Melissa.
In the latest Department of Homeland Security press release last night or statement, they seem to imply that the intention was not to detain Ellie Yagayeva, that they just released her because she's been placed into removal proceedings.
And I'm just wondering, during your advocacy with President Trump, what do you think the winning argument was?
And did they reverse course?
All I can tell you is what happened, which is that I shared directly with the President a list of names of Columbia students and those who've also been detained because of their activity on Columbia campus, and that these actions do nothing to advance the cause of public safety.
And I asked that these cases be dropped, and the president said that he would look into it.
Soon after the meeting, I received a phone call from the president saying that he was going to imminently release her.
Thank you.
A few of them are Columbia students.
One of them was detained on the basis of her being present on Columbia campus at a protest.
Thanks.
We'll go to Henry and then we'll go to Sahale.
Thank you, Audrey.
Hi, Mayor.
Welcome back.
Back to the housing proposal.
Yes.
What assurances did the President give you that he would follow through, especially given that he has worked to actually defund some of the major infrastructure projects of the tri-state area?
And why bring this one forward when it's so cost-intensive to cover the rail yard?
Could billions not be used better to build more housing elsewhere?
So the president shared his interest in the proposal, and I am encouraged by the fact that we will continue to talk about this proposal.
It is going to be a long process.
We are speaking about an idea that had its first beginnings in the 60s and 70s and 80s.
It's a long-standing proposal.
The reason to focus on this one specifically is in a city where we know that land is so precious and so finite, here lies an opportunity to create more of it by creating the largest rail deck the world has ever seen.
And then on top of that rail deck, building more housing than we've seen since the construction of co-op houses and co-op city.
And that presents within it an opportunity to deal with a housing crisis where right now we know there are far too few homes in New York City, even for those who already call New York City home, let alone for those who want to join us in this city.
Thank you.
He said that he was interested and that the conversation would continue.
Thank you.
We'll go to Haley and then Joe right next.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
Did you speak to any local, thank you.
I wanted to ask about the Sunnyside Yard Project as well.
Did you speak to any local electeds in that area about the project in advance to your meeting with President Trump?
And if not, what conversations are you planning to have in the near future?
You know, we've had a few conversations across elected officials, labor organizers.
Those conversations will continue because this is a long-standing project that will also require a long-standing commitment, and we're just at the very beginning of it.
And I broached this with the President because of the fact that this is one of the busiest rail yards in the entire, on the entire continent, frankly.
And the city cannot build on these rail yards without the approval and direction of the federal government.
It will also require the federal government shifting a few policies as it pertains to bond caps and risk sharing, all of which are impossible for the city to do on its own.
Thanks.
Joe, go ahead, and then we'll go to Inside Edition.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
How are you doing?
How's it going?
Sorry.
I was looking for you.
I'm here, not on the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
Could you tell me how the meeting came about, who approached who and when?
And I was also wondering if you can explain a little more broadly.
You know, on the campaign trail, you had a very different posture saying you would be kind of the president's worst nightmare.
Since taking office, you really have gone to great lengths, I think, to not criticize him and foster this relationship.
It's very different than most Democrats in the country.
Can you tell us why you're taking this tag?
So I said over the course of the campaign that I will always be honest and direct with New Yorkers about my views.
The President and I have many disagreements, which we share publicly and we share privately.
And I also said on that same campaign trail that I would be willing to work with anyone, no matter disagreements, so long as it was to the benefit of the city that we love.
That is what it comes back to.
Every conversation has to be advancing the agenda of working New Yorkers.
And when we think about 12,000 new homes for working and middle-class New Yorkers, we see the possibility of so many more people being able to put roots down here in this city.
And this was a meeting that was scheduled as part of following conversations from the prior meeting, which was in November.
There was always a sense that that would continue.
It's, as you know, not the first meeting I've had with the President.
It won't be the last.
And we will also continue to advocate for anything and everything that can help New Yorkers continue to remain in New York.
Thanks.
Go ahead.
And so when it was planned, sir?
I think this came in the aftermath of the prior meeting.
I would say that finalizing the dates, I'm not sure exactly when it was, but it's just part of a long-standing conversation.
Thanks, Joan.
If we could pass the microphone right over here to Inside Edition, then we've got time for a few more.
We'll go to Dana now.
Hi, Mayor.
Thank you for taking my question.
What is your reaction to the downgraded charge for the suspect arrested in the snowball pelting?
And what do you say to police officers who are very upset about that and very upset about the incident?
You know, I will say first and foremost that I believe that our police officers should be treated with respect.
They are at the heart of delivering exactly that public safety that I was speaking about earlier.
And they've also been at the heart of responding to the city's first blizzard since 2016.
Because police officers were not just out there continuing to do the jobs that they always do, but they also have a tow truck task force, which is one that was chiefly responsible for digging New Yorkers' cars out of the snow, of digging out ambulances, MTA buses, keeping the city moving in that manner.
And for that work and everything that they do, I'm deeply appreciative.
And what I've said in regards to the snowball fight is that it's a snowball fight that got out of hand, and I don't really have much more to say to it.
The charge, do you have a reaction to that?
Thank you.
We'll go to Sam and then Dana.
Right to your left.
It's very cheap.
See the microphone?
Sam right there.
Thank you.
Hi, Mayor.
How's it going?
How are you?
I have a couple questions.
One is that work requirements for SNAP go into effect on Sunday.
And I'm wondering if you're confident that HRA has the staff and the capacity needed to deal with that paperwork and the requirements.
Do you think the governor should step in with payments to help out?
My second question is if the city council staffer who had been detained by ICE also came up in your conversations with Trump.
So I'll say that I'm incredibly appreciative of the governor's partnership for advancing the needs of our city.
And she also stepped in the last time around.
We saw providing additional funding in SNAP benefits to ensure that so many New Yorkers would continue to be able to put food on the table.
I actually recall during Veterans Day, I sat with a number of veterans and one pulled me aside to say that that infusion from the governor was critical in him being able to continue to eat that week.
And so I think what the governor has done in the past has been truly significant and helpful.
And I am confident in HRA and I also know that the tasks in front of HRA and city agencies only continue to increase.
I always believe in their ability to meet the moment, but also our city administration's commitment to helping them in doing so.
And the names that we spoke about specifically were the ones in the context around students who were being detained on or around campus.
However, it was within a conversation where I made clear and I will always make clear that I believe that ICE raids at large are ones that are cruel and do nothing to advance public safety.
Thank you.
Dana, go ahead.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
Hi, Dana.
When you say that the President expressed interest in the proposal, what precisely do you mean?
I think that the President was interested in the idea of working together to build 12,000 homes and that this was a long-standing idea that has not yet come to fruition.
And within that lies an opportunity to deliver a new scale of development in this city and one that resolves, starts to resolve an issue that you will find on the tips of the tongue of any New Yorker across the city, which is housing and how New Yorkers can afford to live in this city.
And also, a critical part of this proposal is that half of the homes would be Mitchell-Lama homes, which have been considered time and again by so many, including by the President, as being critical to the stability of middle-class New Yorkers and their ability to lay down roots in the city they call home.
New York's Housing Crisis00:03:17
Thanks.
Josie, go ahead.
And then we'll go to Heather.
Hi, Mayor.
How are you?
Hi, Josie.
On the campaign trail, you talked about how you and the NYPD would be in lockstep because you're the mayor and your commissioner is below you as your commissioner.
That kind of hasn't panned out lately.
I'm wondering if you can respond to that as well as the hiring of Fred Kriezman.
Was he on the list your admin presented to the outgoing Adams administration to like clear house before you took office?
So I don't know the specifics on the second question.
I can tell you on the first is that I appreciate the work of my police commissioner, Commissioner Tisch, who has been doing the work to ensure that we're delivering public safety.
And that's work that we do in tandem.
That's work that we do also by being in constant communication with each other.
And I think what New Yorkers are focused on is are they safe in the city that they call home?
And that's the work that she's leading on.
Thank you.
We've got time for two more.
Okay, we're going to go Heather right here and then Catherine.
Hi, Mayor.
How are you?
How's it going?
If you secure this federal funding, realistically, what is the timeline of actually getting shovels in the ground and bringing these homes online for people to be moving?
I think this will take many, many years.
However, we are not daunted by the length of the project.
We also know that it's one that has been decades in the making.
And so many of us, we aspire to help to build a city that can build in the same manner that it used to.
You know, earlier we were thanking a number of elected officials, and one of them is State Senator Zelnor Myri.
And I recall he would share again and again that the Empire State Building was built in 13 months.
Today, that sounds as if it is an idea of fantasy.
And it is critically important that we do not fear the scale of these kinds of projects or think that they are impossible to deliver on.
We actually have to do everything we can to bring them to fulfillment.
Thanks, Sarah.
If you could pass the microphone just right here to Catherine.
Last question.
Thank you.
Hi, Mayor.
You said that conversations with President Trump will be an ongoing conversation.
Did you schedule a meeting for future or when do you plan to go back?
Does he have plans to come here to meet with you?
How is that going?
I can't give you the specifics of when exactly we'll meet again.
I will tell you, however, that as the mayor of our city, I will always look to keep an open line of communication with the president of our country and to do so always with the interests of New Yorkers in mind.
And that means making clear where there is disagreement, making clear where there is prospect for partnership, and always at the core of it asking: how can we make it easier for New Yorkers to live in the most expensive city in the United States of America?
How can we make it easier for them to live here, for them to be safe here, and for them to dream here?
Thank you so much.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Just go this way.
Just go this way.
I'm so sorry.
Welcome to Ceasefire, where we seek to bridge the divide in American politics.