Just hours before New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani arrived in Washington for his first meeting with President Donald Trump, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution condemning what it called the “horrors of socialism.” The resolution was introduced nearly a month ago, but Republicans brought it to the floor for a vote on Friday, CBS News reported.
“A yes vote on this resolution should be a relatively straightforward, easy decision,” Republican Arkansas Rep. French Hill said.
“It simply states that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.”
The measure passed in a bipartisan vote of 285-98.
Among the 86 Democrats who backed it were 14 members from New York and New Jersey, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who endorsed Mamdani only in the final moments of the mayoral race.
Other New Yorkers who supported the resolution included Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres, Queens Reps. Greg Meeks and Grace Meng, and Long Island Reps. Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi.
Suozzi made a point of distancing himself from Mamdani throughout the campaign.
The resolution also received support from Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of Staten Island, whose mother fled Cuba in 1959 to escape what she described as “the very things that our new socialist mayor in New York City says he wants.”
Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters was among those who voted against the measure.
“I wish we were here on the House floor this morning debating solutions that would reduce grocery bills, lower housing costs, end Trump’s tariffs strangling American small businesses and manufacturers, solve the Republican health care crisis, or any legislation that allows Americans to afford live through the catastrophic economic policies of Trump and the Republicans,” she said.
Standing beside Trump in the Oval Office after their meeting, Mamdani dismissed a question about the resolution.
“I have to be honest with you, I focused very little on resolutions,” he said. “Frankly, I’ve been focusing… on the work at hand. I can tell you, I am someone who is a democratic socialist. I’ve been very open about that.”
“And I know there might be differences about ideology, but the place of agreement is the work that needs to be done to make New York City affordable,” he added. “That’s what I look forward to.”
Trump said Saturday he is pressing pause on deploying the National Guard to New York City, arguing other American cities “need it more” at the moment. The president’s comments came one day after he hosted Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who will become New York City’s next mayor, at the White House.
Trump had previously listed New York among the Democrat-run cities where he was prepared to deploy the National Guard, saying in August he would “help” fight crime in the city after completing operations in Chicago, Mediaite reported.
MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner asked Trump if he still planned to send the Guard to New York while he took questions before departing for Joint Base Andrews.
“If they need it. Right now, other places need it more, but if they need it,” Trump said.
“We had a very good meeting yesterday. We talked about that, but if they need it, I would do it.”
Trump made a similar comment during his Oval Office meeting with Mamdani on Friday and said he would feel “very comfortable” living in New York City, especially after speaking with the incoming mayor.
The tone of the meeting was warmer than many expected, given Trump had previously referred to Mamdani as “my little communist” and mocked his socialist ideas, saying they have never worked.
Mamdani had called Trump a “fascist” in the past, a comment the president laughed off when speaking to reporters on Friday.
The pair appeared unusually friendly during the summit, and Trump later said it was a “great honor” to host Mamdani.
Caroline Leavitt’s Courtroom Stand Sparks Nationwide Legal Debate
In a striking display of legal assertiveness, Caroline Leavitt, former press secretary under President Donald Trump, challenged a $50,000 fine imposed for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Act during a federal hearing in Washington, D.C. The case, which initially came before Chief Justice John Roberts, took an unexpected and closely watched turn when Leavitt demanded the right to personally present her defense, raising questions about procedural fairness and the limits of governmental authority.
Roberts initially dismissed her request, describing the matter as “straightforward” and suggesting that formal deliberation was unnecessary. Leavitt, however, persisted, invoking her right to due process and arguing that the potential precedent set by an unchallenged ruling could have far-reaching consequences for citizens facing government scrutiny. Her insistence led to a recess and the appointment of Judge Samuel Coleman, a jurist recognized for his impartiality and adherence to procedural integrity.
Under Judge Coleman’s oversight, Leavitt delivered a methodical and meticulously documented defense. She referenced several landmark Supreme Court decisions to underscore the constitutional protections afforded to individuals and highlighted glaring deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of any substantive evidence linking her to the alleged violations. At one point, an investigator for the prosecution conceded that they had no documentation to substantiate the claims—a revelation that further strengthened Leavitt’s argument.
Leavitt framed her defense not merely as a personal matter but as a broader statement on the dangers of unchecked governmental power. She argued that fines and penalties imposed without clear evidence undermine public trust in federal agencies and erode the protections enshrined by the Constitution. Her remarks resonated beyond the courtroom, sparking discussions among legal scholars, civil liberties advocates, and the broader public about the delicate balance between enforcement and individual rights.
Ultimately, Judge Coleman dismissed the charges against Leavitt, citing insufficient evidence to support the fine. The ruling has been hailed by supporters as a victory for due process and judicial transparency, while also prompting renewed debates about the responsibilities of federal regulators when enforcing complex statutory frameworks.
Legal analysts note that the case underscores the critical role of the Department of Justice in maintaining fairness and accountability within the U.S. judicial system. For aspiring lawyers and policymakers, the case also serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous legal education. Experts suggest that obtaining a Master’s degree in law or related fields in the United States can provide the knowledge and analytical skills necessary to navigate complex legal disputes and influence pivotal policy debates.
Leavitt’s courtroom stand has ignited a national conversation about individual rights, government oversight, and the mechanisms available to challenge official action. Her case is now frequently cited in legal forums and academic discussions as an example of how tenacity, preparation, and a thorough understanding of constitutional principles can alter the trajectory of legal proceedings.
As debates continue, the broader implications of the case remain evident. Questions about the boundaries of federal authority, the safeguards for individuals facing regulatory scrutiny, and the enduring significance of due process are being revisited in light of Leavitt’s successful defense. For legal professionals, scholars, and citizens alike, the case serves as a powerful illustration of the principle that in the United States, no individual should be penalized without evidence and the opportunity for a fair and transparent hearing.