How to Evaluate the Mamdani Administration
Happy New Year, everyone!
Happy 2026, everyone! This essay should reach you shortly after midnight, when the official term of New York City’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, begins.
Thus begins the grand democratic task of evaluating our city’s executive as his administration unfolds. There will be challenges when doing this, because:
Most people do not appreciate how complex New York City’s government and law are. They will comment on it nonetheless, based on drive-by impressions. This will be done on social media, in workplaces, at social gatherings, and in traditional media.
There are undying fans of Mayor Mamdani, who will be permanently blind to anything he does wrong. They will attack you for pointing at the wrong things. They might accuse you of belonging to the political party they hate, and being paid by people they hate. They will be politically contemptuous.
There are righteous haters (waiters) of Mayor Mamdani, who will be permanently blind to anything he does right. They will attack you for pointing at the right things. They might accuse you of belonging to the political party they hate, and being paid by people they hate. They will be politically contemptuous.
The haters and the fans both land in “fake” territory of some kind:
Nicole Gelinas puts it well here:
So if you want to know how to evaluate the Mamdani administration, I’ll tell you how I personally approach it.
Truth is the ultimate standard, in the “bend over backwards” way described by the physicist Richard Feynman when discussing what scientists owe the public and each other:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
[…]
I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.1
Put otherwise: Give credit and criticism where they are due, not where ideological hucksters hector you to.
None of this means being wishy washy. Spades should be called spades. But it does mean pre-committing to Truth—Veritas—as one’s final standard, not a political party or a social group’s consensus.
How one might be led astray: the Rent Guidelines Board and Mamdani’s pledge to “freeze the rent” as a case study
I mentioned above that government and law are far stranger and more complex than people expect. While some things are just what they say on the tin, many are not. In “The Law Can Be an Unreliable Narrator,” I gave several examples where reading the actual text of the law would lead you to incorrect conclusions.
Regarding the Mamdani administration specifically: the public discourse will be jammed when it comes time to “freeze the rent.” The mechanism for “freezing the rent” is a determination issued by the Rent Guidelines Board, which works in a very specific way, under very specific legal obligations etched into city and state law, with the state judiciary sitting above it all. The RGB issues its determination in June of each year, which I call “RGB season.” As I’ve previous written:
Pursuant to city (and state) law, the Rent Guidelines Board sets the rate by which one- and two-year leases may change in rent regulated apartments (the “rent guidelines”), which account for about half of New York City’s rental stock (market-rate units are a minority of the rental stock).
Also pursuant to city and state law: the RGB must consider a variety of factors when determining the rent guidelines it sets forth. Per § 26-510 of the New York City Administrative Code, the RGB:
“…shall consider, among other things (1) the economic condition of the residential real estate industry in the affected area including such factors as the prevailing and projected (i) real estate taxes and sewer and water rates, (ii) gross operating maintenance costs (including insurance rates, governmental fees, cost of fuel and labor costs), (iii) costs and availability of financing (including effective rates of interest), (iv) over-all supply of housing accommodations and over-all vacancy rates, (2) relevant data from the current and projected cost of living indices for the affected area, (3) such other data as may be made available to it.”
The RGB is also required to publish the research upon which they base their rent guidelines, which you can find here.
The basic idea: they must balance tenant needs for lower rents, with the reality that buildings have costs that rents pay. Pursuant to law, they cannot just set the rent guidelines however they like. They must be grounded in an analysis that balances multiple factors.2
I can already see the legions of commentators, political activists, and IG stories pumping out very incorrect information about the RGB in the first half of 2026, cresting in June and July. They will likely ignore the legal obligations of the Rent Guidelines Board, and the mayor’s rights and authorities relative to it. But you can already see how “freezing the rent” is not as simple as a mayoral edict, and there’s still so much more to know about the RGB and our rent regulation system (like how the RGB members get their jobs, which is a whole other can of bees)! Sorting through it all requires steadfast attention.
➡️ During RGB season, I run “how does our rent regulation system work?” events. Anyone is welcome, and we focus purely on what the system is, and what the law is. Whether you want to freeze the rent, abolish rent control, or something in between, you’re welcome. And if you have a group and you’d like one of these presentations, drop me a line (these don’t cost anything, but I do hope you have snacks).
If you want a good perspective on the RGB, I recommend following Alex Armlovich on Twitter/X. He’s a current member of the RGB, and he regularly posts about it in a truthful fashion I agree with. If you’ve ever thought “I wish people in government would just say what they think, contemplate the nature of their role publicly, and respond to people,” then here you go! Otherwise, for those who are inclined to build their own understanding, I recommend just reading An Introduction to the New York City Rent Guidelines Board and the Rent Stabilization System.
And: if you want a good example of someone exploring a new area of government, who understands there must be a lot to learn, and who holds truth as their standard, read this piece on New York’s criminal procedure by my friend Fred.
What happens if one elevates partisan motivation, or cowardice in the face of social consensus, above the Truth?
Honestly—probably a lot of nice things, at least at first! You’ll be accepted by the people you’re seeking acceptance from. You might gain followers. You might get applause from an audience!
The question then is whether you’re seeking acceptance from the right people, on the right terms, and whether the applause you’re getting is from a worthy crowd.
And you might not notice that, despite winning accolades from your team, you are actually causing it damage too. By saying easily disprovable things and refusing to correct them, you are being an inadequate advocate:
You do not want inadequate advocates on your team, because the only thing worse for a cause than a powerful enemy is an inadequate advocate. You don’t need to knock a building down if it collapses of its own free will.
However, it’s not always obvious who is an inadequate advocate. For example: one person’s IA is another person’s fierce rhetorical attack dog who wins at all costs. “Doing more harm than good” to a cause is also sometimes a subjective call—which audiences did you alienate with your behavior, and which did you win? What is the balance of effects between these shifting crowds? It all depends on what your cause is, what it values, and who it values.
But, regardless, reality is the ultimate arbiter, even if people refuse to acknowledge it. To return to Feynman:
We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work.
How to evaluate the Mamdani administration even though you’re busy: find intellectual proxies
It doesn’t matter how much you know about New York City’s government and law, it’s a massive, complicated system. We all need to rely on other minds that we trust for conclusions we don’t have the time to distill on our own. So our task is to find good intellectual proxies who “bend over backwards” to get at the truth.
The good news: there’s a massive list of publications and people who have a good track record of evaluating things well. None of them has a 100% record, because that’s impossible. But their methods are good, their character is good, and they’re reality oriented.
Here are a few publications/groups that I like, and most of them have social media accounts that are active:
City Journal (City Journal on Substack) and The Bigger Apple
Statecraft (not about NYC, but it demonstrates the best way to dive into the complexity of government)
Sachi Takahashi-Rial also wrote a great overview of local news outlets that you can find here. We have a decent amount of overlap!
And if you want more specific recommendations, like “can I have a liberal, a conservative, a non-partisan, etc,” or “someone good on policing, education, transportation, etc” just ask in the comments, and I’ll answer.
Finally: if you want to host an event where everyone puts together their own custom list of people and publications to follow for New York City/State politics, let me know. It’s a good time.
Happy New Year, everyone!
Excelsior.
“How I’m Voting for Mayor in NYC’s Democratic Primary,” Maximum New York, June 2025.
I think you are over reading this. He just needs to hire a more experienced speechwriter. His current speechwriter, Julian Garson, is 28 yrs old with no reference points.
Zohran Mamdani is the talk of NYC right now, but almost nobody knows what actually shaped his worldview.
Everyone's debating his policies—almost nobody is examining the deep-state style ideological ecosystem that formed him.
I've mapped that machinery out in a new post for readers who want to see what's hiding in plain sight and be EARLY, not late, to this conversation.
Don't be the last person to understand what's really happening. 👇
https://substack.com/@geopoliticsinplainsight/p-183385879