Mamdani top of mind as New York governor’s race ramps up
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is joined by New York Governor Kathy Hochul at an event in Brooklyn to support more housing construction in New York City on February 10, 2026 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(GARDEN CITY, N.Y.) — Just over three months after he won New York City’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani is already at the center of another election — even though he’s not on the ballot.
With the New York governor’s race on the horizon, some voters and Republican officials who attended New York State’s Republican convention on Long Island on Monday mentioned Mamdani’s name immediately as they spoke about Gov. Kathy Hochul.
“Kathy Hochul is scrounging for votes and she latched onto Mamdani,” convention attendee Phil Orenstein, from Queens Village, told ABC News. “She endorsed him. He endorsed her in the governor’s race and you can see where that’s going. It’s going so far off the cliff.”
The most prominent Republican New York native, President Donald Trump, criticized Mamdani heavily prior to last November’s election.
Yet after the democratic socialist and former state assemblyman defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa in November, Trump appeared to change his perspective on Mamdani.
When Mamdani visited the White House after his victory, President Donald Trump congratulated the then-mayor-elect and said that he thought Mamdani “could do some things that are going to be really great.”
Trump’s praise of Mamdani has raised questions over how Republicans seeking to defeat Hochul this November will incorporate the new mayor into their messaging.
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, who became the likely Republican gubernatorial nominee after Rep. Elise Stefanik dropped out of the race in December, did not mention Mamdani by name in his opening remarks at the Republican convention in suburban Garden City on Monday.
However, Blakeman’s campaign previously issued a statement criticizing the “Hochul-Mamdani agenda” and posted on social media shortly before the convention began that “Zohran Mamdani and Kathy Hochul are pushing New York in the wrong direction.”
Hochul, who had been facing a primary challenge from Lieutenant Gov. Antonio Delgado until Delgado suspended his campaign on Tuesday, touted Mamdani’s endorsement last week.
“Mayor Mamdani understands that we need to build a New York that everyone can afford — I’m grateful for his partnership in finally bringing universal child care to New York, and I know that he’ll stand strong alongside me as we fight against Donald Trump’s attacks on this state,” the governor said in a statement.
Mamdani’s proposals have ranged from free fares on the country’s largest bus system to free child care for 2-year-olds in the city.
“His policies are completely backwards and we are not a socialist country. We are not a socialist state,” Broome County Republican Committee Chair Benji Federman told ABC News at the convention on Monday. “The vast majority of voters disagree with the policies that he has put forward across New York.”
Just under 45% of New York State’s population lives in New York City.
“You have so many people who are in the Senate and the Assembly from New York City [that] if something happens locally down here, they’re going to try to bring it statewide,” Mike Sigler, an upstate Republican county legislator who lives outside Ithaca, told ABC News.
Mamdani and Hochul have each expressed disagreements with each other on a number of issues, particularly regarding taxes.
“Those of us entrusted with the sacred oath of service must heed that call and work together to honor it. That requires not the absence of disagreement but the presence of trust,” Mamdani wrote in his endorsement of Hochul that was published by The Nation. “We must be able to disagree honestly while still delivering for the people we serve.”
On Tuesday, New York leaders gathered for a press conference in the city about housing and infrastructure. Hochul and Mamdani were standing side by side at the podium.
U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly speaks on the failed grand jury indictment against him during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on February 11, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In a biting opinion that chastised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Republican-appointed judge on Thursday blocked the Defense Department from trying to punish Sen. Mark Kelly over a video he and other Democrats made urging service members not to follow illegal orders, accusing Hegseth of “trampling” on the Arizona senator’s First Amendment rights and suggesting Hegseth should be more “grateful” for the wisdom of retired service members.
“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Washington D.C. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in his opinion.
Leon sharply questioned Trump administration lawyers on whether there was legal precedent for the Defense Department’s attempt to demote and reduce retirement benefits for Kelly, who has been sharply critical of the White House.
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.”
The Justice Department could appeal the decision, although it’s not clear if it would. The Pentagon and Hegseth on Thursday did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case has drawn considerable attention as a major test of the First Amendment rights of military veterans and the government’s separation of powers. Kelly was suing the Pentagon for threatening to demote him in rank and reduce his military retirement benefits because of a video he made with other Democrats that urged troops not to comply with illegal orders, which they did not specify.
Hegseth accused Kelly of violating a federal law that prohibits undermining good order and discipline within the military and accused him of hiding behind his position as a U.S. senator to do so.
In a video posted online to social media on Thursday, Kelly said he is grateful for the judge’s opinion.
“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case and the clarity of his ruling, but I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong,” he said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ICE agents leave a residence after knocking on the door on January 28, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues its immigration enforcement operations after two high-profile killings by federal agents in recent weeks. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term
Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.
Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.
And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.
Americans on deportations and ICE
Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.
The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.
Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.
Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.
Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”
Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.
A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.
Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations.
By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.
By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.
An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.
How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts
Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.
Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset.
And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.
There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.
Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).
Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border
By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.
Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.
By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
In this Aug. 8, 2020, file photo, an offshore petroleum drilling rig is shown in the Gulf of Mexico. (UIG via Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal committee, comprised of senior Trump administration officials, voted unanimously to grant an exemption under the Endangered Species Act for oil and gas operations in the Gulf, citing national security concerns.
Environmental groups criticized the decision, warning that it could significantly jeopardize the conservation of dozens of threatened and endangered species in the region, including whales, sea turtles, whooping cranes and manatees.
The Endangered Species Committee convened Tuesday after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a national security finding that triggered the exemption process.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Endangered Species Committee can grant rare exemptions when a federal action is of national or regional significance and the benefits of proceeding clearly outweigh the benefits of alternatives that would conserve the species. Economic, security and other public-interest factors can be considered alongside conservation mandates, though exemptions are rarely used.
“At the request of the Department of War, the Endangered Species Committee convened today to consider a national security exemption under the Endangered Species Act with respect to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a statement to ABC News.
“The Committee voted in favor of the national security exemption, acknowledging the critical risks involved in restricting oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America, and also recognizing that the action encompassed protective measures for endangered species.”
Officials emphasized that sustained oil and gas production in the region is essential to U.S. national security and economic stability, and cautioned that critical energy operations should not be jeopardized by the threat of disruptive litigation.
The committee, created in 1978, is very rarely convened due to the strict, narrow standards for its implementation. It has not met in more than 30 years, and this is the first time a national security justification has been used to convene the committee.
The Endangered Species Committee, composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was fully present and voted unanimously in favor of granting the exemption.
“This meeting made clear that energy streams in the Gulf of America must not be disrupted or held hostage by ongoing litigation,” said Secretary Burgum. “Energy production in the Gulf of America is indispensable to our nation’s strength, safeguarding our energy independence and preventing reliance on foreign adversaries. Robust development in the Gulf keeps our economy resilient, stabilizes costs for American families and secures the U.S. as a global leader for decades to come.”
On March 13, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notified Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, chair of the Endangered Species Committee, that a national security exemption under Section 7(j) of the Endangered Species Act, was necessary, prompting Secretary Burgum to publish a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register.
The meeting began with the defense secretary addressing the committee, stressing the importance of a steady, affordable domestic energy supply, which is currently under threat. He thanked the committee members for convening to discuss what he called “a matter of urgent national security.”
“This is not just about gas prices. It’s about our ability to power our military and protect our nation. That vital energy supply right now is under threat,” Hegseth said. “In January, well before Operation Epic Fury, the Department of the Interior notified the Department of War about ongoing Endangered Species Act litigation that threatened to halt oil and gas production in the Gulf of America.”
According to Hegseth, the litigation seeks to stop Gulf oil and gas activities rather than allow them to proceed alongside responsible endangered species protections.
“These legal battles waste critical government resources and make it impossible for energy companies to plan and invest in new projects. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department,” Hegseth added. “The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s busiest oil route and recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative.”
However, environmental groups argue this is not what the authors of this landmark law intended.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued Secretary Burgum on March 18, attempting to block the committee meeting, saying the government missed legal requirements, including filing deadlines, providing ample public notice, and having an administrative law judge preside. Following the committee’s decision, the group announced it will amend its existing lawsuit to challenge the defense secretary’s national security determination and the exemption.
“Americans overwhelmingly oppose sacrificing endangered whales and other marine life so the fossil fuel industry can get richer. This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Trump and his lackeys kowtowing to Big Oil,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the Rice’s whale, which, according to NOAA, is one of the rarest and most endangered whales in the world and is found only in the Gulf.
NOAA Fisheries, which manages protections for marine species under the Endangered Species Act, listed the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale as endangered in 2019 and, in 2021, updated its name to Rice’s whale to reflect the newly accepted scientific taxonomy and nomenclature of the species.
According to the Marine Mammal Commission, the most recent population estimates show there are only 51 Rice’s whales remaining.
The Rice’s whale’s small population, limited range and low genetic diversity make it highly vulnerable to threats such as vessel strikes and oil spills. NOAA says the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill exposed about 48 percent of its habitat in the eastern Gulf, likely causing a population decline of up to 22 percent and leaving lasting impacts on reproduction and growth.
The committee’s decision will not have any immediate effect, and lawsuits challenging the action could delay its implementation further. It could be several years before any future additional oil production tied to the decision is realized.
“The action could make it easier for applications to be granted for further oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf; but it takes several years between the filing of an application and the production of the first barrel of oil,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. ”No court has ordered oil and gas production to be shut down in the Gulf, and such an order seems very unlikely.”
