Last week, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani vetoed Intro 175-B—a bill that would have required NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch to create a plan “to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation, and interference” during approved city protests at schools and other educational institutions. The city council passed the bill 30–19, with a single abstention—just a few votes shy of a veto-proof majority. A similar bill protecting houses of worship passed the council by a veto-proof margin of 44–5.
In a statement announcing his veto, Mamdani claimed that the school protest bill was overbroad in its definition of educational institutions, and therefore would affect “workers protesting ICE, or college students demanding their school divest from fossil fuels or demonstrating in support of Palestinian rights.” Council Speaker Julie Menin, who has worked diligently to pass the bill and may now seek to override the mayor’s veto, noted that it “simply requires the NYPD to clearly outline how it will ensure safe access when there are threats of obstruction or physical injury, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Mamdani’s objections to the legislation are absurd. That he even sees this bill as problematic reflects his roots not as a principled defender of free speech but as a campus radical-turned-politician.
Intro 175-B sought to address real threats to public safety. Since the Hamas attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023, campus protests, especially at New York City schools like Columbia University and NYU, have regularly featured illegal acts like obstruction, occupation of buildings, intimidation, arson, property damage, vandalism, and blocking traffic. None of these is a protected form of protest.
The proposed bill does not prohibit hateful or controversial speech but focuses on keeping such expression peaceful. Mamdani is concerned that the bill covers universities, museums, and teaching hospitals, but such places deserve order, too, when protests are occurring. If the city council had considered a similar measure in response to demonstrations like those outside Gracie Mansion earlier this year—in which anti-Muslim demonstrators gathered and police charged two men with throwing bombs—one can readily imagine the mayor raising few objections, or perhaps even supporting measures like the establishment of a buffer zone.
Mamdani’s veto of Intro 175-B can be best understood in the context of his activist worldview. He revealed this mindset in 2021, when he admitted that “the reason [he] joined the DSA” was “because there was no exception for Palestine, because the same fight, the same struggle was understood to be a universal one.” It was also apparent in his decision during last year’s mayoral campaign to appear on the Twitch stream of far-left political commentator Hasan Piker, whose recent defense of “microlooting” has generated controversy. Though he has tried to project moderation, Mamdani’s thinking remains closely aligned with the anti-Americanism of far-left Gen Z counterparts who violate the law while wrapping themselves in the mantle of “protest.”
As my colleague Tal Fortgang has argued, “we have a cure for anti-American [criminal] behavior: put the criminals who act unlawfully upon those ideas in prison, confiscate their funds, uproot their criminal networks, deter their would-be imitators, and give public spaces back to the decent Americans who deserve them.”
That Mamdani cannot even allow for publicizing regular security parameters in the face of rampant civil terrorism tells us how far his views are from those of common-sense New Yorkers.