Hold onto your grocery carts, folks—Senate Republicans just slammed the brakes on a Democratic bid to fund food assistance amid a government shutdown.
Over the weekend, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports 42 million Americans, ran dry due to the ongoing federal stalemate, and this week, a Democratic effort to replenish it with $8 billion was shot down by GOP senators who insist the real fix lies in reopening the government, The Hill reported.
As the shutdown dragged on, SNAP funds evaporated, leaving millions of families in a lurch while political gridlock tightened its grip.
On Monday, Senate Republicans stood firm against a Democratic attempt to restore full funding for SNAP benefits.
By Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., stepped up with a resolution via unanimous consent, aiming to secure $8 billion for the Department of Agriculture to cover SNAP for November.
But Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., wasn’t having it, objecting to the measure and effectively blocking it during the session.
Barrasso argued that the only sensible path forward is to end the shutdown entirely, rather than patching programs like SNAP with temporary fixes.
“If Democrats really wanted to help struggling families, they’d stop blocking a clean continuing resolution,” Barrasso said. That’s a sharp jab at the left, and it’s hard not to wonder if endless partisan posturing is the real hunger problem here.
Merkley, meanwhile, made his plea with a dramatic flair, holding up a placard reading “Trump is weaponizing food for the sake of MAHA”—a play on “Make America Hungry Again.”
“Let’s all together say ‘fund SNAP’ not weeks or months from now, but right now so America’s families … will benefit,” Merkley urged. Noble words, sure, but when resolutions need unanimous consent, one objection is all it takes to spoil the pot.
Barrasso didn’t mince words either, calling the Democratic move a hollow gesture meant for headlines, not results.
The Trump administration, for its part, has stepped in with a partial solution, scraping together $5 billion from existing Agriculture Department funds to cover some SNAP benefits—but it’s far short of the full need.
That $5 billion Band-Aid won’t feed all 42 million recipients for long, and it sidesteps the bigger question of why Congress can’t get its act together.
Conservatives might argue that reopening the government is the cleanest way to restore stability, not just for SNAP but for every stalled federal program. Piecemeal resolutions, while well-intentioned, risk becoming political theater instead of policy wins.
Yet, there’s no denying the human cost of this standoff—families counting on SNAP are caught in the crossfire of a Washington power struggle, and that’s a bitter pill no matter your politics.
President Trump will tap emergency funds to continue paying some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, also known as food stamps, for the month of November after two federal judges ordered him to keep the welfare program running.
The administration said Monday that it would use up a $4.65 billion contingency fund to disburse partial payments, but officials say full benefits cannot be guaranteed until Democrats agree to end the government shutdown, which was set to become the longest in U.S. history on Wednesday. The contingency plan only covers half of the $8 billion that SNAP consumes each month.
SNAP benefits lapsed over the weekend for the first time ever, making the shutdown very real for 42 million Americans who rely on benefits to buy food.
A pair of judges, Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island and Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, ordered the White House last week to keep SNAP benefits flowing and to present a plan by Monday.
Lawyers for the administration told McConnell on Monday that the entire contingency fund would be used to make partial payments for November, but it would not be appropriate to tap additional funding sources like the school lunch program.
"Section 32 Child Nutrition Program funds are not a contingency fund for SNAP,” Patrick Penn, who oversees the SNAP program at Department of Agriculture, wrote Monday.
“Using billions of dollars from Child Nutrition for SNAP would leave an unprecedented gap in Child Nutrition funding that Congress has never had to fill with annual appropriations, and USDA cannot predict what Congress will do under these circumstances,” he continued.
Democrats voted a fourteenth time to keep the government closed on Tuesday, sending the shutdown into a record 36th day on Wednesday. Led by Chuck Schumer (D-Ny.), Democrats have refused to fund the government without Republicans making extraneous concessions on healthcare.
The Trump administration has said disbursing partial SNAP payments is more complicated than giving out full benefits, and that Democrats are to blame for any delays that SNAP recipients experience in the coming days and weeks.
The White House clarified Tuesday that the partial payments will continue after Trump suggested SNAP funding might be withheld as leverage to force Democrats to end the shutdown.
"SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly ‘handed’ to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” Trump wrote in the post.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that “the administration is fully complying with the court order" concerning SNAP.
“The recipients of these SNAP benefits need to understand it’s going to take some time to receive this money, because the Democrats have forced the administration into a very untenable position," she said.
Speculation that ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi will retire is mounting, with Democrats saying they believe she will make an announcement after Election Day, NBC reports.
Rumors of retirement have dogged the 85-year-old Pelosi for years, but the leftist politician has kept a tenacious hold on power, defying her critics.
Insiders told NBC that Pelosi will likely leave on a high note after the expected passage of Proposition 50, Democrats' partisan redistricting proposal in California.
“I wish she would stay for 10 more years,” one House Democrat from California told NBC. “I think she’s out. She’s going to go out with Prop 50 overwhelmingly passing, and what a crowning achievement for her to do that.”
A fixture on Capitol Hill for years, Pelosi ranks as one of the most influential and wealthiest politicians in the country. Her finances have come under close scrutiny in recent years, fueling calls to ban stock trading by lawmakers.
A House Democrat leadership aide said, “I think she’s preparing to exit the stage," adding, "We will not fully appreciate the time we have spent with her."
Meanwhile, a Democratic official in Pelosi's San Francisco fiefdom said, “Most people think it is highly unlikely that she will run for another term."
Primary challengers have already started to line up for Pelosi's seat, including California state senator Scott Wiener, a notorious radical.
During a Monday appearance on CNN, Pelosi demurred when asked about her plans.
“I have said I won’t do anything until Preposition 50, so tomorrow night will be very fraught with meaning for all of us. I want to win big, I think we can win big, and I don‘t want to be spending time on whatever I might be doing. I want to spend my time on what we‘re doing, working together to get out the vote,” Pelosi said on CNN.
Pelosi's retirement, when it comes, will be a pivotal moment in American politics.
The first female Speaker of the House, Pelosi was the Democrats' ruthless leader in the chamber for nearly two decades, including the entirety of President Trump's first term. She served two separate stints as Speaker before resigning from leadership after the 2022 midterms elections.
She has played a more muted role in Trump's second term, which has been a difficult time for Democrats as they have drifted without a sense of direction.
Her handpicked successor in the House, minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, has struggled to lead Democrats with the same discipline that Pelosi had.
A last-minute attempt by President Trump to stop socialist Zohran Mamdani's widely predicted victory in New York's mayoral election was unsuccessful, as voters rejected tarnished ex-governor Andrew Cuomo despite Trump's appeal to choose him as the lesser of two evils.
In an election eve post, Trump had warned that Republican Curtis Sliwa had no chance of winning, leaving voters with "no choice" but to support Cuomo, a Democrat who ran as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the primary.
Trump, a Queens native, had taken a close interest in the election for months, blasting Mamdani as a radical threat to Trump's beloved hometown.
“If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home, because of the fact that, as a Communist, this once great City has ZERO chance of success, or even survival!" Trump wrote Monday.
“It can only get worse with a Communist at the helm, and I don’t want to send, as President, good money after bad. It is my obligation to run the Nation, and it is my strong conviction that New York City will be a Complete and Total Economic and Social Disaster should Mamdani win,” he added.
Trump had cast a large shadow over the campaign, with Cuomo and Mamdani both presenting themselves as defenders of the liberal city against Trump and his agenda. The Mamdani campaign pounced on Trump's 11th hour, cross-party endorsement to paint Cuomo as a puppet of Trump, while Cuomo dismissed Trump's show of support, saying, “He’s not endorsing me, he’s opposing Mamdani."
Cuomo had to perform a difficult balancing act. While he was reluctant to be tied to Trump in a city dominated by Democrats, Cuomo desperately needed Republican backing to overcome Mamdani.
Indeed, Cuomo appeared on Fox News Tuesday morning to make a final pitch for GOP support, and the governor even issued a rare apology for his scandalous role in nursing home deaths during the COVID pandemic.
Despite Cuomo's baggage, Trump wanted Republicans to support the former governor over Sliwa, whom Trump warned would be a spoiler candidate for Mamdani.
"A vote for Curtis Sliwa (who looks much better without the beret!) is a vote for Mamdani. Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!" Trump wrote.
Sliwa had resisted pressure to end his campaign to help Cuomo, with Sliwa blaming the disgraced ex-governor and his party for failing to stop Mamdani sooner.
While some Republicans are blaming Sliwa for the outcome, Cuomo would have lost even without Sliwa splitting the anti-Mamdani vote. Mamdani received just over 50%, while Cuomo grabbed around 42% and Sliwa got 7%. If Cuomo got every one of Sliwa's votes, it still wouldn't have been enough - and it is safe to say that many Sliwa voters were never going to back Cuomo anyway.
Trump's endorsement may have motivated some Republicans to hold their noses and support Cuomo, but ultimately, it wasn't enough to salvage a lousy candidate.
Former President Barack Obama has inserted himself in New Jersey's gubernatorial race in an effort to bolster Rep. Mikie Sherrill's chances of victory in a surprisingly close contest, Fox News reported. However, New Jersey Republicans called out Obama for what they're saying is a "Hail Mary" pass as the clock runs out in order to drum up "fake excitement" for the candidate.
There was a time when Obama was a superstar of the Democratic Party and absolutely untouchable. Now, people see him for the political hack that he is, especially those who were formerly his base of voters, and are on to their tricks.
During a Turning Point Action rally on Monday in Medford, New Jersey, attendee and New Jersey voter Shawn Crump laid out the problem with Democrats placing their hopes in Obama. "I'll say this as an African-American, we're done hearing Barack Obama try to tell us how we're supposed to vote," Crump said
"Because, full disclosure, I was a Democrat," Crump confessed. "I worked on his campaign in 2008, and he just let us down. He let this country down, but he especially let down a lot of African-Americans. So we really don't want to hear him tell us how we were supposed to go," Crump added.
On Saturday night, Obama attended a rally for Sherrill in Newark, New Jersey, to urge the Garden State to vote for the Democrat once again. "New Jersey, I remember just a year ago, just a year ago, I remember talking to folks who would tell me, this election doesn’t matter," Obama claimed, referring to President Donald Trump's glorious 2024 victory.
"These are simple, educated, bright people. They say, 'Whoever the next president ends up being, it’s not going to affect me.' That’s what they would say," the former president went on. "If nothing else, the last nine months should have cured us of that idea, because the stakes are now clear," Obama went on.
"We don’t need to speculate about the dangers to our democracy. They’re here. We don’t need to wonder if harm is going to be done to vulnerable people, or whether the public conversation will become meaner and coarser. We’re witnessing it. Elections matter, and they matter to you, and they matter to your family. We are being tested, and what is remarkable about America is that it gives us the power, as citizens, to change this country," he said.
"We all have more power than we sometimes imagine. We’ve just got to use it. So, if you believe in that better story of America, you cannot sit this one out," Obama implored the audience. He shared a clip of his remarks in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.
If nothing else, the last nine months should have made it clear that elections matter. But what’s remarkable about America is that we have the power, as citizens, to change this country by voting. Go to https://t.co/NKXRGNgbZX. pic.twitter.com/pg2KD4qsg2
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 4, 2025
Far from the optimism of his hope and change campaign, Obama's words smacked of desperation. "Let's face it, our country and our politics are in a pretty dark place right now," Obama said earlier in his speech, stirring up the anti-Trump hysteria.
"It's hard to know where to start, because every day this White House offers up a fresh batch of lawlessness and carelessness and mean-spiritedness. And just plain old craziness," Obama added. Although New Jersey is typically a reliably Democratic state, it also voted in former GOP Gov. Chris Christie in 2013 and went for George H.W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election against Democrat Michael Dukakis.
Trump nearly succeeded in flipping the state in 2024, losing by only six points but securing five counties for Republicans, which could explain why the Democratic Party appears to be in a state of panic. Burlington County Young Republicans' Joe Sereday told Fox News Digital that voters are coming out in droves for Ciattarelli, as Democrats seem to be throwing everything they can at this race.
"I think it's kind of old news now. Usually, when the Democrats roll in these big names — Obama, who else was here, Andy Kim, Cory Booker — usually that means they're in trouble," Sereday pointed out.
The dynamics of this election and the Democrats' response seem to indicate a severe lack of confidence. However, the true measure of their worries won't be known until Election Day results roll in, and it's anybody's game until then.
Senate Republicans blocked Democrats' attempt to ram through funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits that have run out due to the government shutdown, The Hill reported. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced a non-binding resolution forcing the Department of Agriculture to fund it, but Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) blocked the move and instead asked for the government to reopen.
Democrats have repeatedly refused to continue to fund the government as a shutdown drags on for more than a month. Meanwhile, SNAP benefits for hungry Americans ran out on Monday, causing panic on both sides.
The Democrats requested funding for the 42 million people who will go without benefits without the $8 billion required to keep the program afloat for the month of November. However, they believe that the overall shutdown is to their advantage and therefore have refused to address the core issue.
"This isn’t lawmaking. It’s a political stunt by the Democrats. The resolution they’re offering is empty," Barrasso charged. "It is meaningless. Democrats knew their actions threatened food assistance. They were fully aware of it,” he added, noting multiple times that Democrats have voted against the spending bill 13 times. “If Democrats really wanted to help struggling families, they’d stop blocking a clean continuing resolution."
As the Democrats wring their hands over SNAP, they simultaneously have shot down every attempt to resolve the shutdown. In fact, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has voted down a continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the year, 14 separate times, Fox News reported.
This shutdown has been going on for so long that it's approaching the record of 35 days, which was set in 2019 during Trump's first administration. Meanwhile, Democrats have been holding out for entitlements, including increased healthcare spending for illegal immigrants.
Republicans refuse to sign on to this, and Democrats think this makes them look good in the eyes of the voting pubic. Schumer has indicated this by repeatedly blaming President Donald Trump and Republicans as healthcare costs increased for all Americans.
"The only plan Republicans have for healthcare seems to be to eliminate it, and then to tell working people to go figure it out on their own. That's not a healthcare plan. That's cruel," Schumer said.
Still, it seems Democrats might be ready to buckle sooner rather than later. As of Monday, several Senate Democrats convened a closed-door meeting to craft an exit strategy. This comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) noted that Republicans offered Democrats a range of choices, including voting on their healthcare spending bills after the government reopens.
The issue is coming to a head, not only for the people who have gone without their government-funded groceries, but also for other industries and facets of American life. Because the Democrats are unwilling to budge, there's a chance that America's airways could be shut down and commercial travel grounded, the New York Post reported.
The problem is that the government shutdown has deprived 13,000 air traffic controllers of their pay, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, causing staffing shortages in half of their facilities. It's even worse in New York, where 80% of air traffic controllers have called in sick due to understaffing, which has caused burnout.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy addressed these concerns last week during a news conference with Vice President JD Vance. They warned of problems that could arise if the shutdown drags into the busy Thanksgiving holiday travel season, which is only weeks away.
"The House of Representatives has voted affirmatively to reopen the United States government. Fifty-two Republicans and three Democrats consistently vote to reopen the United States government. But we need 60 votes. We need to end the craziness," Vance said.
Democrats continue to play political games while real lives are impacted. The Republicans are concerned about getting the government reopened, but they won't give in to the Democrats' demands to do it, and that is admirable.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that even a Supreme Court loss of the tariff case before it doesn't mean the end of tariffs for President Donald Trump.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday, and the case has been fast-tracked because of the urgency surrounding the situation.
Bessent said he was confident Trump will prevail in the case, which challenges his authority to impose tariffs without an act of Congress.
But even if Trump loses, Bessent said, there are still lots of options for using other authorities to get the job done.
“There are lots of other authorities that can be used, but IEEPA is by far the cleanest, and it gives the U.S. and the president the most negotiating authority,” he said. “The others are more cumbersome, but they can be effective.”
Bessent went on to detail some of the options.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 uses national security to justify tariffs, while Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 regulates unfair trading practices.
Both of these options would only allow the president to impose tariffs during a state of emergency, however. While Trump has declared a state of emergency over the border and crime in some cities, I don't see how these would translate to the tariff situation.
Trump is somehow convinced that income from tariffs is going to pay off our national debt and make us solvent again, but I really don't see this happening either. He called the case "life or death" for the U.S. on Tuesday just ahead of the arguments in the case.
Bessent believes that the Supreme Court will be reluctant to "interfere" with tariffs when they are told the policy is a "signature" one for the president.
“This is very important tomorrow, and SCOTUS is going to hear this,” Bessent said. “This is a signature policy for the president, and traditionally, SCOTUS has been loath to interfere with these signature policies.”
This could be true, but if the law states it isn't under Trump's purview to impose tariffs, it probably won't matter whether it's a "signature" policy or not.
Trump has used tariffs and the threat of tariffs to get more favorable terms with U.S. trading partners after years of the U.S. letting other nations take advantage of its relative wealth and status.
But that wealth and status are more in doubt than ever with $38 trillion in debt hanging over our heads. If Trump can somehow turn that around, he will be one of the greatest presidents in history.
Buckingham Palace has dropped a bombshell, stripping Prince Andrew—now just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor—of his royal titles and honors over his troubling ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious financier and convicted pedophile.
The saga, steeped in scandal, centers on Andrew's loss of his prince title, military ranks, and even his home at Royal Lodge, following intense scrutiny over allegations of sexual abuse and a damning new memoir by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, the Daily Mail reported.
Let’s rewind to the start of this royal reckoning. Andrew’s association with Epstein, a man whose crimes shocked the world, has haunted the monarchy for years, with accusations from Giuffre claiming abuse when she was just 17. Despite his denials, the stain refused to wash out.
Fast forward to last week, when the palace announced Andrew would no longer carry the title of prince and must vacate Royal Lodge, a cushy residence he’s held at a bargain rent for two decades. The official statement on Thursday night cemented his new identity as plain Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Talk about a fall from grace.
Then came the gut punch from King Charles and his advisers, who made it clear this was non-negotiable. Sources say the King was fed up with Andrew’s refusal to fully sever ties with Epstein, despite public claims otherwise. No government meddling here—just a monarch cleaning house.
Adding insult to injury, Andrew’s last military honor, the honorary rank of vice-admiral awarded in 2015, was yanked on Sunday, as confirmed by Defence Secretary John Healey. Healey noted the Ministry of Defence would bow to the King’s rulings, leaving open whether Andrew might cling to his Falklands War medals or active-service rank of commander. A naval career spanning back to 1979, now reduced to a question mark.
The heat turned up last month with the posthumous release of Giuffre’s memoir, "Nobody's Girl," published after her tragic passing at 41. In excerpts shared by The Guardian, she paints Andrew as “entitled,” alleging he viewed intimacy as his “birthright” and even thanked her in a “clipped British accent” after an alleged encounter. That’s a chilling image no amount of royal polish can scrub away.
Andrew, predictably, denies every word, though he settled out of court with Giuffre in 2022 for millions of pounds. If silence is golden, that payout was a treasure chest—but it hasn’t quieted the storm. Now, anti-monarchy groups like Republic are pushing for private prosecution over allegations of assault and misconduct.
Pressure is also mounting across the pond, with calls for Andrew to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee about Epstein’s network. At 65, he’s described as unrepentant, a stance that reportedly pushed King Charles to his limit. Stubbornness might be a family trait, but it’s not winning any crowns here.
Enter Donald Trump, who on Sunday, aboard Air Force One, offered a rare moment of compassion for the royals. “It's a terrible thing that's happened to the (royal) family,” Trump said, adding, “I feel badly for the family.” While Trump’s own past links to Epstein have been spotlighted by activists, his words here carry a tone of genuine regret for a dynasty under siege.
Let’s unpack that quote—Trump’s sympathy isn’t blind loyalty to royalty but a nod to the mess of public scandal. In a world obsessed with tearing down tradition, even a conservative can see the human cost of such a downfall. The royals aren’t just figureheads; they’re a family caught in a very modern crucible.
Meanwhile, Andrew’s personal life is in upheaval as he prepares to relocate to a Sandringham estate property, details still murky. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, is also charting her own path away from Windsor Castle grounds. It’s a stark reminder that titles don’t shield you from consequences.
The Royal Lodge exit wasn’t even contested—Andrew, as leaseholder, served notice himself, a sign he knew the jig was up. Reports suggest Charles had warned of harsher measures if any titles were clung to after the Epstein deception. No room for negotiation when trust is this broken.
Giuffre’s family, meanwhile, isn’t letting her fight fade, with her brother Skye and sister-in-law Amanda declaring, “Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.” That’s a powerful epitaph, one that underscores why this story won’t vanish quietly. It’s a rallying cry for accountability, even if it grates against those who’d rather protect old institutions.
So where does this leave the monarchy? Caught between preserving heritage and confronting ugly truths, the royal family faces a reckoning that no progressive agenda could script. Andrew’s fall is a cautionary tale—privilege isn’t a free pass, and in today’s world, justice, or at least its pursuit, can topple even a prince.
A federal judge has temporarily extended an order blocking President Trump from deploying the National Guard to Portland, dealing a blow to his efforts to militarize Democrat-run cities.
In her 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, said she needs time to consider the evidence from a three-day trial that was held last week, according to Oregon Public Radio.
While the ruling is preliminary, the judge made it clear she is skeptical of Trump officials' claim that Portland is in a state of rebellion.
"Although there were sporadic instances of unlawful behavior, federal law enforcement, along with local law enforcement, were able to
manage the situation and arrest and prosecute those responsible for criminal conduct," the judge wrote.
Portland is just one of several Democratic cities where Trump has sought to use the military to quell unrest and violence against federal immigration officials.
In her ruling, Judge Immergut acknowledged some violent disruptions to federal immigration enforcement have occurred in Portland, where rioters have blocked traffic and even forced the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building to close down for three weeks due to property damage.
Still, the judge concluded that these events were not serious enough to constitute the type of "rebellion" that calls for a federal response.
"Although the evidence so far showed that protesters frequently blocked the driveway of the ICE building, the evidence also showed that federal law enforcement officers were able to clear the driveway," she wrote.
The judge also said the chaos has eased since a period of more serious unrest in June, thereby removing the justification for Trump's move in late September to send in the troops.
The judge said the violence in Portland doesn't compare to historic rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, which both involved organized groups of armed insurgents seizing federal institutions.
By contrast, the chaos in Portland amounted to "sporadic isolated instances of violent behavior toward federal officers and property damage to a single building.”
The judge also found that Trump's move to deploy troops from California and Texas likely violates the state sovereignty of Oregon.
The upshot of the ruling is that Trump continues to be blocked from deploying National Guard troops until Friday at least, but likely longer.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the fight isn't over and the administration expects to be “vindicated by a higher court."
“President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets," Jackson wrote.
Barack Obama called New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on the phone this weekend to offer support and be a "sounding board" for Mamdani's political ambitions into the future.
The spiritual leader of the Democratic party told Mamdani that his campaign has been "impressive to watch," New York Times reported.
Obama's quiet support comes even as many Democrats have kept their distance from Mamdani, a self-avowed socialist.
Mamdani's rise has been a political problem for Democrats, who have split on whether to endorse him. Democrats are aware that Republicans plan to tie Mamdani to Democratic candidates in the 2026 midterms, and attacks have already started in Tuesday's off-year elections.
The top Democrat in the Senate, New York's Chuck Schumer, has declined to back Mamdani, and the top Democrat in the House, New York's Hakeem Jeffries, hesitated before finally endorsing Mamdani in late October.
On the other hand, Long Island Democratic congressman Tom Suozzi has forcefully rejected Mamdani and his socialist politics.
While many Democrats have danced around Mamdani's campaign, he is likely to stick around, with polls showing him the clear favorite in a three-way race with ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Obama is not endorsing Mamdani, at least not publicly, but the former president appears to see the 34-year-old as a kindred spirit. The Times reports that Obama and Mamdani made plans to meet in Washington D.C., where Obama has continued to reside since leaving the White House.
"Mr. Obama said that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election on Tuesday," the New York Times reports.
Obama was in Newark, New Jersey this weekend to campaign for Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic candidate in New Jersey's close race for governor.
Despite being a short drive from New York City, Obama didn't make any time for Mamdani.
While Mamdani is widely expected to win the mayoral election, that is likely not the only reason Obama isn't getting involved.
The former president is certainly aware that his socialist protege's politics are too radical for most of the country outside liberal cities like New York, and so, Obama wants to downplay Mamdani's role on the left, at least for now.
This caginess from Obama is not new. His own rise to political stardom in the 2000s masked a radical agenda that ended up dividing the country, despite his promises to bring America together.