• AI Scribe Adoption: Around 30% of U.S. physician practices have adopted AI scribes to transcribe and summarize doctor visits.
• Purpose of AI Scribes: These tools are praised by doctors for reducing after-hours paperwork often called "pajama time" and allowing more patient attention.
• Data Transmission Risk: A major concern is that visit recordings are usually sent to a third party, often cloud-based, for audio-to-text conversion.
• Consent Varies by State: Rules regarding obtaining patient consent before recording a doctor visit differ based on state laws, though many health systems ask for explicit consent.
• Scope of Recording: Patients should assume everything said while the recorder is on may be included in the medical record, potentially viewable by insurers.
• Data Processing and Storage: Visit recordings typically go to third-party vendors, and patients should inquire about data access, retention, security, and HIPAA Business Associate Agreements.
• Accuracy and Bias Concerns: Despite low raw error rates (1% to 3%), AI can introduce errors like hallucinations, omission of details, and documented poorer accuracy when transcribing strong regional accents or Black patients' speech.
• Information Usage Rights: Separate patient consent is generally required if data is used by the clinic or vendor to develop a commercial product or service, unless the data is fully anonymized.

---

By

Saeed Akhlaghpour

1

---

Jon Krause

A mother recently wrote to me with concerns about her 14-month-old daughter. The child’s hospital had begun using AI to record visits—and her husband had unknowingly consented. The woman feared that her child’s sensitive information might live online forever or leak.

That fear captures what many families feel as artificial intelligence moves quietly into exam rooms, in the form of AI scribes. These digital tools transcribe and summarize your doctor visit into notes—sometimes recording and storing the audio in the process. After the doctor reviews the notes, they go into your medical record so you and the doctor can refer to them in the future.

Some doctors recorded patient visits and used computer dictation and transcription before AI, but adding the new technology to the mix has made the practice much more popular. Around 30% of U.S. physician practices have adopted AI scribes, and doctors praise them for reducing after-hours paperwork (often referred to as “pajama time”) and allowing more attention for patients.

Yet these systems also raise hard questions about privacy, accuracy and consent. Perhaps the biggest issue: With AI scribes, your words are usually sent to a third party, often cloud-based, that converts audio to text. It is often not clear where the recordings are stored, for how long and who has access to them.

Here are questions every patient or parent should ask their providers before agreeing to let an AI scribe into the consultation room.

1. Can the doctor record without my consent?

It varies. States have different rules about getting patient consent before recording a doctor visit. In some cases, the providers must ask you first; in others, they don’t. That said, most health systems still obtain explicit patient consent as a matter of policy—but once again, policies vary, and some practices may not let you opt out of an AI scribe for a nonurgent visit.

So, be sure to check your state’s rules and ask about the provider’s policy right off the bat. Let them know your preference explicitly. You can also ask providers to have a human handle the transcription, not an AI, but in most cases they have no legal obligation to comply.

2. What is being recorded?

Assume everything is. And that means anything you say while the recorder is on may be reflected in your medical record, where your insurer may be able to see it. So you should have the doctor pause the recording during any discussion of sensitive topics such as sexual or mental health, or substance use. As always, your rights vary from state to state and clinic to clinic—but, generally, if doctors are required to get your consent to record in the first place, they must also pause a recording when you ask them to.

3. Who is processing my data, and where is it stored?

The visit recordings usually end up in the hands of third-party vendors—ranging from big names like Microsoft to medical-technology startups—usually in the cloud. As you would expect, their privacy practices differ.

Ask the doctor’s office which vendor processes your visit and ask for specifics. Some critical points to check on: Who can access the data? How long it is kept, what security controls apply and who contacts you if there is a breach? Also be sure to find out if your healthcare provider has a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement with the vendor. This imposes requirements for things like permitted uses and safeguards of your data, and makes vendors directly liable for security under HIPAA.

4. Who checks the notes for accuracy?

The transcription process, meanwhile, poses risks of its own. Modern AI tools often deliver lower overall error rates (around 1% to 3%) than older speech-recognition systems (7% to 11%). Even so, small percentages matter in medicine, and AI can introduce new kinds of errors, like invented details known as hallucinations. It may omit relevant information while summarizing, mix up who is speaking and misinterpret context—such as missing nonverbal cues.

Bias is a risk, too. Recent studies found that AI scribes showed substantially poorer accuracy in transcribing strong regional accents, as well as Black patients’ speech. Problems also arise when patients have limited English proficiency.

Legally, clinicians are entirely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the medical record, meaning they must review and sign off on the notes the scribe creates. Providers aren’t required by law to have patients review or sign notes. But you have the right to access your “designated record set”—which generally includes visit notes—and request amendments to fix inaccuracies. So be sure to request your after-visit summary to confirm the information.

5. Will my information be shared, or used to train AI?

Reputable clinics should be able to say no—both about their own policies and their vendor’s. Under HIPAA, a healthcare provider may use a patient’s information for treatment, payment and routine operations. But if the data is used by the clinic or third-party vendor to develop a product, service or other commercial application, separate patient consent is generally required. (Note that this rule doesn’t apply if the data is stripped of identifying details before it is used, although contracts or state law may still impose some limits.)

The bottom line: If you don’t want your information used for these purposes, tell your provider to record the preference in your chart. That way, any other provider in the network will know what you want.

6. Can I say no to a scribe and get the same care?

Once again, it varies. Even in states that require your consent to record, providers may technically refuse to see you if you say no, provided the visit isn’t an emergency. Most clinics, though, will respect your wishes.

Saeed Akhlaghpour is an associate professor of information systems at the University of Queensland Business School. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Cybersecurity

Read the full report

The Hidden Emotional Toll on Victims of Data Breaches

The Latest Tools for Making Sure Your Cellphone Is Secure

Cybercriminals Use AI to Create Fake Websites That Look Just Like the Real Thing

What Are Passkeys—and What Do You Need to Know About Using Them?

Do You Need a Personal Cybersecurity Concierge?

How Effective Is Corporate Cybersecurity Training? Not Very, It Seems

How to Make Sure Information on Your Old Computer Is Really, Truly Deleted

Think Twice Before You Click ‘Unsubscribe’

Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Next in Journal Reports

[

Journal Reports

When It Pays to Invest in Commodities

By Derek Horstmeyer

December 5, 2025 at 3:00 PM ET

Stock-and-bond portfolios suffer when inflation spikes, but a commodities stake would cut risk and boost returns. And the cost would be minimal when inflation is low.

](https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/commodities-inflation-investment-portfolios-8ee0d842)

More Journal Reports Articles

[

Journal Reports

In Retirement, a Complicated Mix of Mourning and Celebrating

By Stephen Kreider Yoder , and Karen Kreider Yoder

December 4, 2025 at 6:00 PM ET

](https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/relationships/retirement-aging-grief-gratitude-0c9e2a31)

[

Journal Reports

Three Year-End Strategies That Can Cut Your 2025 Tax Bill

By Robyn A. Friedman

December 3, 2025 at 5:00 PM ET

](https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/taxes/tax-bill-lower-end-of-year-strategies-2d8846b2)

[

Journal Reports

The Top 10 Reasons New Businesses Fail

By Andrew Blackman

December 3, 2025 at 3:00 PM ET

](https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/business-failure-reasons-top-10-0762e18b)

---

Videos

• Recognition Debate in 1923: The question of U.S. recognition of the Soviet Union was a significant topic in America in 1923.
• Borah's Stance: Senator William Borah advocated for recognition, suggesting it could aid in securing repayment of Russian war debts owed to America.
• Coolidge's Refusal: President Calvin Coolidge rejected entering into relations with the Soviet regime because it refused to honor international obligations and he would not "barter away for the privilege of trade any of the cherished rights of humanity."
• Mathews Memorandum Source: The refusal was supported by a 1923 memorandum from Major Philip Mathews of the American Relief Administration, detailing conditions in Russia based on two years of direct observation.
• Totalitarian Nature: Mathews reported that the Soviet government operated as a dictatorship, suppressing criticism under penalty of exile or death, and laws were issued as decrees rather than through representative enactment.
• Secret Police Activity: The secret police, the G.P.U., exercised arbitrary power, including arrest and detention without due process, impacting even the American Relief Administration's Russian employees.
• Economic Hardship: The Soviet system reportedly did not improve peasant conditions, maintaining high taxes and keeping land nationalized, while professional unions controlled employment access and state stores operated inefficiently.
• Systemic Weaknesses: Mathews observed that the government lacked popular support, industry was declining, finances were unstable, and the military was mediocre.

---

By the Editors

U.S. recognition of the Soviet Union was a live issue in America in 1923.

After all, Russia owed America money. If the U.S. government recognized Lenin’s regime, America might have more luck extracting payments for war debts. Or so argued a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Borah of Idaho.

Before a crowd of 5,000 at Madison Square Garden in March 1923, Borah told his audience, “I would not hesitate a moment to take the responsibility of securing a settlement of the Russian debt.”

Less credible sources also pressed the recognition case, including a publication produced by the Friends of Soviet Russia. That November, Soviet Russia Pictorial claimed, “No one will deny that the question of recognizing Soviet Russia is daily assuming greater importance in American political life.”

But a full decade would pass before the United States, under President Franklin Roosevelt, established formal diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

In fact, on December 6, 1923, not long after that issue of Soviet Russia Pictorial appeared, President Calvin Coolidge addressed the matter in his first annual message to Congress. Coolidge said of Russia, “Our Government does not propose…to enter into relations with another regime which refuses to recognize the sanctity of international obligations.” The president also addressed Borah’s idea of recognition for revenue: “I do not propose to barter away for the privilege of trade any of the cherished rights of humanity.”

Why did Coolidge refuse to recognize the Soviet Union? He had strong evidence for his position, as a once-confidential memorandum reveals.

The Mathews Memorandum

Coolidge acceded to the presidency on August 3, 1923, after Warren Harding died. Only two weeks later, Secretary of State Charles Evan Hughes sent the new president a memo of “exceptional interest,” detailing “conditions in Russia.” Hughes passed along a twenty-five-page report from Major Philip Mathews of the American Relief Administration.

Under future president Herbert Hoover’s leadership, the American Relief Administration helped feed the Russian people when a devastating famine hit the country in 1921. Major Mathews spent two years in Russia, “having charge of all the transportation of relief supplies,” Hughes noted. The secretary of state informed Coolidge that Mathews had “exceptional facilities for ascertaining actual conditions.”

The Library of Congress now houses Mathews’s report in the Calvin Coolidge Papers. Major Mathews’s on-the-ground observations of Soviet Russia touch on a few themes that would recur throughout the USSR’s nearly seventy-year history.

The Soviets Ran a Totalitarian Regime from the Start

The Mathews memo detailed how the Soviet regime trampled on the kind of cherished rights Coolidge described.

For example, Mathews reported:

“Russian citizens do not dare criticize their government…under pain of arrest with probable exile or death as the penalty.”

“This Government…is exactly what the leaders of the government in Russia claim it to be, a dictatorship. There is no universal suffrage, there is no creation of law by the representatives even of the Communist party…. The laws are issued in the form of decrees by the Central Executive Committee.”

“The Cheka [secret police] is still in existence, the name having been changed to the G.P.U. It still exercises without due process of law the right of search and arrest and the American Relief Administration has had hundreds of its Russian employes summarily arrested…and kept in jail without trial for many months.”

“The claim that the Soviet Government has established a just legal, civil and judicial code is false…. There are courts in Russia but the Judge of every court is authorized to exercise what is known as his ‘revolutionary conscience’…[which] annuls all law and decree which exists in Russia.”

“The public press in Russia being under control of the Russian government prints only the news that the government desires disseminated.”

“The Soviet Government does not keep its promises and…it has not carried out the obligations it assumed in relation to foreign governments. The Riga agreement entered into between the Soviet Government and the American Relief Administration, I, of my own personal knowledge, know was violated in many instances.”

“The government is slowly but surely closing all the churches.”

“The American Relief Administration had its branches throughout Russia but that did not prevent the arrest and exile of thousands of people many of whom were personally known to the Americans nor did it prevent the Soviet Government from arresting and throwing into prison our own Russian employes.”

The Soviet System Hurt the People It Purported to Help

Lenin denounced capitalists as oppressors of the people. But the Soviet system, Major Mathews reported, did little to help its people, and often made their situations worse. In the memo President Coolidge read, Mathews wrote:

“The Soviet government has not bettered the condition of the peasant and the peasant has constantly complained of the tremendous taxes that he must pay.”

“The Soviet Government does not recognize ownership of land in fee simple…. The Government itself was making no attempt to repair and keep up property and as result the buildings were rapidly deteriorating and the Government realized that it was only by individual effort that anything could be done. Because of the poverty of the former owners, the lack of material available for repairs and the high taxes demanded by the Government, but few of the property owners availed themselves of this opportunity to take back their property for a term of years. The Soviets did not annul their own ownership of the property; it was still nationalised. The peasants do not own the land. They are simply permitted to till such land as is assigned to them by the Government.”

“Workmen are not authorized to organize trade unions. There are professional unions in Russia, and none other is permitted. If you do not belong to a professional union you cannot belong to any. No person is permitted to register for employment at any of the government agencies unless he is a member of a professional union.”

“The Soviet Cooperatives are stores in which people belonging to the professional unions may deal. They are restricted to the use of certain classes and their management is most inefficient. There was a Cooperative store which I passed every morning for over a year and the line would form outside that store early in the morning and would be there all day long regardless of the weather or temperature. The sales in the store were made at a very slow rate and there was no choice of selection.”

“Leo Tolstoi’s daughter, who has continued her father’s work with and for the peasants, told me that the peasants were opposed to the Soviet government but were afraid of it. Miss Tolstoi is still in Russia and would undoubtedly be punished if the above statement should in any way get back. She has already been threatened with exile for attempting to publish her father’s books in Berlin.”

“Graft and bribery are very common in Russia today…. The Government itself endeavored to graft on the relief supplies [delivered by the American Relief Administration]. Whenever supplies were received at a port or at a trans-shipping point it was necessary for us to search all the workmen after the day’s labor in order to make them give up the foodstuffs intended for the starving that they had stolen.”

The Soviet Regime Had Many Weaknesses

Major Mathews picked up on glaring weaknesses in the Soviet system, giving President Coolidge a realistic sense of what was happening in Soviet Russia. Mathews reported:

“The government is not supported by the people…. Conversations with Russians in all walks of life reveal the fact that there are very few outside the members of the Communist party who are favorable to the Soviets.”

“Communism that is taught in the Red Army is not enduring and as soon as the young peasant boys return to the farm they forget their communistic training.”

“[The Soviet military] consists of a fair infantry force, a fair cavalry force, mediocre artillery and a very poor air force.”

“Russia is not recovering rapidly from an economic or any other standpoint. Its industry is rapidly disappearing, its finances are not stable.”

“In the city of Orenburg in the winter of 1921–22 there were many vacant houses in the city, due to the inhabitants having gone to the west of Russia in the hope of obtaining food…. It was almost a daily occurrence to find the nude body of a man or a woman in one of these two-story houses which were vacant. By investigation it was learned that these people came to their death through walking along the sidewalk and as they passed one of these houses a noose would be dropped over their head and the bandits would haul the victim up to the second story, where if he were not dead already through having his neck broken, they quickly despatched him, stripped his body and left him there.”

“Anyone who desires to trade with Russia is at perfect liberty to do so, and, so far as I can see, the only obstacle to trading with Russia is the lack of trustworthiness of the Russian Government. If it will not keep its contract with an organisation which is giving away supplies, without any hope of profit, and by which the Soviet Government alone is the winner, how then can it be expected that it will keep its contract with a concern which is not altruistic and which is endeavoring to make money?”

Cutting Through Soviet Propaganda

A reader today might not find much to be shocked by in Major Mathews’s 1923 memorandum. But in the 1920s and 1930s, such a clear-eyed report on life in the Soviet Union proved hard to come by.

The Soviets’ authoritarian regime and its aggressive propaganda arm hid the harsh realities of life in the USSR. The Soviets hosted Western politicians, intellectuals, and journalists, carefully orchestrating their visits to showcase the wonders of the “Soviet experiment.” In the 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times passed along Soviet propaganda to his readers—and won a Pulitzer Prize for it. For decades, many Americans missed, or downplayed, the USSR’s failures to provide for its people, its abuses of human rights, and its structural weaknesses.

Fortunately, President Coolidge had sources on the ground who cut through the propaganda.

• Mamdani's picket line appearance: Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani joined Bernie Sanders supporting striking Starbucks baristas in Brooklyn.
• Corporate tax reliance: NYC collects $10.9 billion annually in corporate taxes, 9% of budget, with growth over 50% from 2019-2024.
• State tax concentration: 75% of NY state corporation franchise tax borne by 736 companies, less than 0.25% of filers.
• Fair Workweek Law: NYC mandates regular schedules, advance notice, premiums for changes, and protections against unjust reductions in hours.
• Starbucks settlement: Company agreed to $38 million payout hours after picket for violating Fair Workweek provisions.
• Lina Khan's role: FTC Chair on Mamdani's transition team, eyed for DCWP commissioner, targeting stadium prices and algorithmic pricing.
• Business retreats: NYC private jobs up only 956 in first half of year vs. 66,000 prior; Starbucks closed dozens of locations; JPMorgan employs more in Texas.
• Retailer challenges: Walmart abandoned NYC entry; Target scaling back small stores; city-run groceries proposed despite bodega concerns.

---

[

](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!f_WE!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F707f48fd-4536-41c5-93bc-7967f6b0ffbd_5834x3889.jpeg)

Courtesy Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty.

On Monday, Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani joined Senator Bernie Sanders on a Brooklyn picket line to support unionized Starbucks baristas on strike. Putting aside the impropriety of a mayor-elect inserting himself into a private labor dispute, Mamdani’s decision to publicly oppose a major employer in such a performative fashion will undermine his broader agenda. That’s because his big spending plans by necessity depend on corporate taxpayers like Starbucks.

Like high-earning individuals, big business carries a disproportionate share of New York City and State’s tax burden. The city rakes in roughly $10.9 billion annually in corporate taxes—about 9 percent of its total $116 billion budget and 14 percent of taxes collected. In 2021, 75 percent of the state’s corporation franchise tax burden was borne by 736 companies, less than 0.25 percent of filers. A similar relationship likely holds in NYC.

Between fiscal years 2019 and 2024, city business-income tax revenues grew more than 50 percent—far outstripping the 17 percent growth in all other tax categories. The city’s fiscal resilience in recent years has therefore been driven disproportionately by the profits of the large firms Mamdani seems eager to antagonize.

The Starbucks employees are demanding a contract with better pay and benefits. Yet New York City already imposes some of the strictest labor standards in the country, reducing the need for worker protection via contract. The city’s 2021 Fair Workweek Law, for example, requires fast-food companies to give workers regular schedules that remain consistent week-to-week, finalize work schedules at least 14 days in advance, pay premiums for schedule changes, give the right to refuse additional shifts, offer existing employees the opportunity to work more regular hours before hiring new staff, avoid firing or reducing hours by more than 15 percent absent just cause, and reinstate laid-off workers by seniority when hours become available.

In fact, mere hours after Mamdani’s appearance on the picket line, Starbucks agreed to pay $38 million to settle an investigation by the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) on the grounds that it violated multiple provisions of the Fair Workweek Law. Workers hardly lack protection in New York.

Mamdani’s picket-line performance is part of a longer chain of choices, all signaling a hostility to businesses, particularly large ones. New York’s CEOs certainly aren’t heartened to see that Lina Khan—President Biden’s FTC Chair who aggressively pursued antitrust actions against Big Tech—is serving on Mamdani’s transition team. Khan is poised to fill a powerful consumer-protection role, such as DCWP commissioner. From a perch inside a city government the size and budget of which rival those of many states, Khan can cast herself as stepping into the same watchdog role at the local level.

That’s no idle threat. According to reporting by Semafor, Khan is already eyeing initiatives to force down hot-dog and beer prices at sports stadiums and to crack down on companies that use algorithmic pricing. Paying $25 for a beer and dog is, of course, annoying. But the proposed effort epitomizes how Mamdani and co.’s hostility to business ends up self-defeating.

As scholars Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys explain, teams routinely set ticket prices below what would be their profit-maximizing level if tickets were the only product they sold. That’s a win all around; an empty stadium makes for a sad game. To offset those lower ticket prices, teams charge more for food and drinks, which ends up being the optimal overall strategy. If regulators force concession prices down, owners will make up the difference elsewhere—most likely through higher ticket prices, resulting in smaller crowds and a poorer game-day atmosphere.

It’s not just hot dog vendors that are in the crosshairs. During her time at FTC, Khan revived long-dormant authorities and enforcement tools to expand the agency’s clout. For example, she sent thousands of “notices of penalty offense” warning letters, which had previously not been used since 1999. She’s now combing through the statute books looking to uncover what powers Mayor Mamdani can wield unilaterally.

Khan’s presence and tactics send the message that the forthcoming administration sees business as a problem, not a means of growth upon which the city budget and social services rest. After all, taxes and antitrust actions can be used to promote the general welfare, but they can also be used to punish businesses for their success. Mamdani has made clear which it will be.

Unsurprisingly, businesses have already pulled back on hiring. In the first half of the year, the city’s private sector added only 956 jobs, compared with 66,000 in the first half of 2024. Starbucks abruptly closed dozens of city locations in September. JPMorgan Chase has over 31,000 employees in Texas, more than New York’s 24,000 and three times the capacity of its gleaming new headquarters on Park Avenue.

The city’s union influence and labor rules have already scared off some firms, especially the big-box retailers that could bring much needed “affordability.” Walmart tried for years and gave up in 2013. Instead, it ships products to New Yorkers, Amazon-style.

Sure, a large-format retailer would put pressure on the city’s bodegas, something Mamdani would prefer to avoid after controversially securing their owners’ endorsement late in the campaign. But his own proposal for city-run grocery stores would likewise threaten the bodegas—precisely why their support was so delayed.

Target, unlike Walmart, has been willing to play by NYC’s rules. Yet after nearly a decade of experimenting with small-footprint urban stores, the company is now scaling back this format. They grapple with higher logistical complexity, limited product selection, fewer resources than full-size stores, and generally weaker profitability in an already low-margin sector. In many ways, Target’s small-format stores function less like traditional big-box outlets and more like a public amenity and marketing loss leader. Target and Starbucks also offer their employees comprehensive health insurance, reducing the insecurity that lower-paid workers often face.

If Mamdani wants to run free buses and childcare, the bill will be paid largely by companies like Starbucks. Demonizing them on the picket line may play well on Bluesky, but it makes for poor governance.

Share

Tal Fortgang, Jim Copland, and Rafael Mangual discuss the developing political relationship between Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and President Donald Trump, exploring how Mamdani’s anticipated approach to immigration enforcement and public safety could reshape the city’s political landscape. They consider the consequences when local policy collides with federal authority, and whether New York could be headed toward a new wave of protests or civil unrest.

Audio Transcript

---

Rafael Mangual: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the City Journal Podcast. I am your host, Rafael Mangual. So excited to be joined by two of my wonderful colleagues. We've got Tal Fortgang, Jim Copeland, Jim Copeland, who hired me when I joined Manhattan Institute back in 2015. So he is the one to blame for anything that I do or say that you don't like. Welcome to the show, gentlemen.

Jim Copland: Thank you.

Rafael Mangual: So we are living in interesting times here in New York City where we are all gathered on this dreary day. We're coming off a mayoral election in which Zohran Mamdani, probably one of the more radical candidates that we've seen run for that office has emerged victorious, and as New York City's incoming mayors do, Zohran Mamdani made his way to the White House recently to meet with President Trump, perhaps New York City's most famous now former resident, a man who made his life and career in arguably the greatest city in the world. I certainly would argue that. And it's interesting because Zohran Mamdani has positioned himself very much as an opponent of Donald Trump. He is sort of the antithesis of the MAGA movement, and Donald Trump certainly has not held back on his criticisms of Zohran Mamdani and his ilk. So I think a lot of people were expecting fireworks after that White House meeting.

And to everyone's surprise, and I think a lot of people chagrin when the two of them came out for their little media appearance, their joint media effort, they were very friendly. And I think it threw everyone for a loop. So what I want to talk about today is just what we make of that. I mean, I think a lot of people may suspect that Donald Trump just gets off on living in a way that's incongruous with the broader expectations. And if you look at some of the looks on Zohran Mamdani's face, I think those moments caught him by surprise too. What do you think was up with that?

Jim Copland: I mean, Donald Trump has spent decades dealing with left-wing politicians of all stripes, New York politicians of all stripes, people of all stripes. And so, yeah, it's not surprising to me that you'd have a pretty gracious reception there. And there's the old adage in politics, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. And I think that's sort of how Donald Trump views the world politically. I mean, did he want Mamdani to win? No, he made that no secret. But now that Mamdani's the mayor, he's going to meet with him, he's going to be president. It doesn't mean there's not going to be conflict. And we'll talk about some of those, I'm sure. But it wasn't surprising to me generally Donald Trump's style. I mean, we've seen different sorts of meetings, the head of state of Ukraine for, but it's all going to be contextual and all going to depend on that. If you watch the entire tape of that one, it was not that way necessarily originally either. So it didn't surprise me. I don't know what you think Tal.

Tal Fortgang: Trump's reaction didn't surprise me that much, both for the reasons that you just outlined Jim, and because he will smile back at anyone who smiles at him, right? That's kind of been his M.O.

Rafael Mangual: If there’s one thing Zohran Mamdani’s got, it's a smile.

Tal Fortgang: A smile. It's an ever-present smile. The President also seems to enjoy being disarming in unexpected ways, and I think he was just kind of rolling with it. I imagine that many of Mamdani’s supporters expected him to go in there with the activist energy, that kind of the megaphone on the streets of New York City that…

Rafael Mangual: That he was just speaking into outside of Starbucks.

Tal Fortgang: That's how he made his name. He was an activist. And I think many people in the DSA orbit expected him to go in there and tell the president what's what. And instead, we got this stalemate of smiles mirroring one back at the other. That disturbs me for reasons and perhaps surprises me for reasons other than those that the DSA is picking up on, which is, Mamdani is a relatively unknown entity. What is he really up to? Right? If he is not the person the DSA expected him to be, if he is not outwardly as he is inwardly, then well, what if we've really just gotten a complete unknown in this new situation right now? At least the DSA radical, we know what we're dealing with.

Jim Copland: Probably, in that, I mean, if you're dealing with someone on a certain edge of the spectrum might be better than the known edge, right? So I mean, listen…

Rafael Mangual: Anything unknown is going to be the right of where I think a lot of people think Zohran Mamdani is, which is a welcome development.

Jim Copland: Mamdani has gotten elected now, which means he's got to deliver something here. Now, I don't think he's going to fundamentally transform his worldview. I think he is who he says he is. But the federal government plays a big role in a lot of respects for New York City and…

Rafael Mangual: Namely funding a lot of what happens here.  

Jim Copland: A lot of stuff. And listen, could he win at the end of the day in legal battles with the feds on a lot of this? Sure. And if you're an attorney general, like my law school classmate, Rob Bonta in California, you can make a career out of that. I took on Trump and beat him in court. But if you're the mayor, people want the trash picked up. People have certain expectations for what's going to happen in the city. And so do I think he's going to pick fights with Donald Trump? Yes, but he's probably going to be, and if I were for someone who wants New York to do well, hopefully going to be at least somewhat strategic in those fights. And there's no reason to just be personally delicate.

Tal Fortgang: I guess what I was hoping for was that they would just lock horns immediately, and the story of the Mamdani mayoralty would be struggles with the federal government and maybe some other governments and other authorities stepping in. And instead, I'm now concerned, what if he has smiled his way to get Trump into his corner? And…

Rafael Mangual: I think the President is less gullible than that is my guess.

Jim Copland: I think the differences will surface and sooner rather than later.

Rafael Mangual: I think they're already starting to, and I think one of the things that we seen just recently over the weekend in New York City is a massive immigration enforcement effort that started actually the day that Zohran Mamdani made his way down to the White House. President Trump sent Tom Homan up to New York City and Tom Homan is leading an effort to really address illegal immigration, which has been a massive point of contention between Camp Mamdani and Camp Trump, and it's gotten pretty out of hand relatively quickly. So downtown Manhattan, there was a garage over the weekend where ICE had some vehicles. That garage was very quickly blocked by protestors who had planned to try and frustrate those efforts. A very large crowd gathered, things got out of hand, arrests were made, and I think it gave us a little preview into what we might expect, particularly on the immigration issue. And maybe we can just talk about that for a little bit because I think it's important to just outline for folks there are limits to what the federal government can do to coerce a local government to help it. Right? It's no secret that New York City's a sanctuary city, which means that it's not going to cooperate with federal efforts on immigration enforcement by and large.

And that's good. The Constitution offers through federalism a protection for state and local authorities to not be commandeered by federal authorities. But that doesn't mean that they can't undertake their own efforts here in New York City. And I think that's where we're going to see some clashes. So I mean, one question is, what do you think Mamdani's thinking in terms of he's made this promise to protect immigrants in New York, to offer them some blanket of security. Can he really? Is that a promise he can keep? What does that even look like? I mean, let's say, can he, for example, kick ICE out of the city? No. Right. I mean there's federal supremacy.

Jim Copland: No, right? I mean, yeah, the constitution's very clear that the federal law is supreme over the state law as long as the federal law is constitutional and there can be legal challengers and there could be legal challenges that ICE would lose. But yeah, the federal law Supreme, but the federal government is a government of limited powers, and the states would retain under the 10th Amendment residual authority, and the Supreme Court's been clear, you can't commandeer the states and the President can't force Mamdani to order the NYPD to do X, Y, or Z, but to actually remove federal troops, federal agents, or federal facilities, I mean, listen, we had this dispute before we had it in 1861. I mean, at the end of the day, the federal law Supreme and Mamdani’s is going to face that limit in what he can do.

Rafael Mangual: I mean, this is probably, at least in my version of things, why you didn't really see Donald Trump get flustered during that meeting. I think he knows ultimately that there's very little that Zohran Mamdani can do to stop him from executing on his priorities, particularly on immigration enforcement.

Tal Fortgang: Well, certainly it would take a lot of effort and resources to try, and that might be good enough. Trump does know I can make your life hell if you try to mess with the federal power in any way. I have even more resources than New York City does.

Rafael Mangual: Right. And it is interesting to think through what that would even look like. I mean, obviously we know that Mamdani can't ban federal agents from patrolling in New York City or making arrests in New York City, but as we saw this weekend with the protests at the ICE facility or at the garage targeting ICE, the NYPD does need to play a role. I mean, the rule can't be that, or maybe it can be, that the allies that Mamdani has in the kind of protests movements of New York City can just go follow ICE around and block traffic and block their facilities and just get away with that.

Jim Copland: I mean, listen, I think Mamdani can order NYPD to stand down.  

Rafael Mangual: Is that a good look for New York City?

Jim Copland: I don't think he should, but I think he can. Now, the question is though, for people who are worried about Trump calling in National Guard or sending in federal forces in some form, if he does that, that will be the federal response. You have to assume that, I mean, the federal government has to be able to protect its people, its facilities. We saw this in the protests in 2020, right? When you had up in Portland and these sorts of protests happening where federal buildings were under siege. Well, yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, the federal government's going to protect its facilities, can protect its people. So if the NYPD is not going to do it, the feds will do it.

Tal Fortgang: It's also the threat behind the scenes of the federal government no longer spending money on state and local government and law enforcement. Now, obviously that's a really blunt instrument to say that less or no federal money is going to flow to the New York Police Department. The people who suffer under such an escalation are New Yorkers, obviously. But that's a dramatic…

Rafael Mangual: Well, not under Zohran Mamdani’s theory of the world.

Tal Fortgang: I mean, this is four-dimensional chess. He's going to force Republicans to defund the police. That's another tool that's available. That's a pretty scary escalation.

Jim Copland: But it's clearly one this administration's taken vis-a-vis major research universities, for instance, and there's a reason why a lot of those research universities have backed down. And so I have to question whether that's the fight that the mayor would want to pick. I mean, unless he's trying to backdoor police defunding, which would be crazy, but it may be what he would want.

Rafael Mangual: It might be what he would want. And actually that's an interesting question to explore for a little bit because I'm sure that as Team Mamdani is thinking about what they can do to frustrate the efforts of ICE and CBP, the customs and border protection of the two agencies primarily doing immigration enforcement, the Trump administration is probably also thinking about, well, what can we do to limit the excesses of a Mamdani administration? Which I think is an interesting question to think about. Right? I mean, and policing is one of those areas that immediately comes to mind for me in part because that's my focus, right? But say Mamdani tries to significantly defund the NYPD or follow through on his promises to get rid of the gang database or get rid of significant units of the NYPD. I mean, couldn't the federal government step in there and send, say, a joint task force of federal law enforcement agents to come in and set up their own gang policing shop where they have concurrent jurisdiction?

Jim Copland: Absolutely. I mean, there are statutory limits and constitutional limits. The constitutional limits are relatively low based on what the Supreme Court's interpreted federal power under the Constitution, the statutory limits may be stricter. There may be things written in the statute that create limits, but the answer is that there's just quite a broad scope for federal law enforcement. We see the FBI, we see federal law enforcement in lots and lots of matters, and this is something from the prosecutorial angle and from the police enforcement angle where the feds could certainly step in if Mamdani’s not willing to act.

Tal Fortgang: Here's one other thing that obviously relates to many of the hobby horses that I've had that I've developed thinking about domestic extremist groups and sort of this activist nonprofit complex. The mechanism by which under this scenario we've sketched out the mechanism by which Mamdani makes life difficult for immigration enforcement is essentially letting these nonprofit activist organizations run wild, letting them have their way with ICE, beat them back, stand in their way, interfere and refuse to call in the police to make arrests and restore order. So we've sketched out the way that the feds can restore order. The feds can also attack the roots of the problem by investigating and otherwise undermining the actual foot soldiers and the organizations that organize them.

Rafael Mangual: What does that look like?

Tal Fortgang: Well, there's a lot that can be done there. We've seen some of these Antifa-aligned organizations…

Rafael Mangual: Which has been declared a domestic terrorist organization, right?

Tal Fortgang: To questionable legal offense for sure, but many other partner organizations have soft spots, weaknesses, ties to hostile foreign regimes, ties to foreign terrorist organizations, and a history of law breaking this kind of disorderly conduct that makes up the bread and butter of what they do, vandalism, trespassing, obstruction of justice in the case of getting in the way of ICE, all kinds of relatively small crimes when they are done in isolation, that can be hugely disruptive when they're done on mass or as part of a repeated pattern of conduct that really obstruct, it really gets in the way of the proper functioning of society. Any of those could be a basis for an investigation of these 501(c)(3) groups that fund and organize and otherwise deploy these foot soldiers. There's a lot of potentially a lot of money there. Not to mention those who grant money to those organizations possibly while knowing that that money is going to be used for unlawful purposes.

Rafael Mangual: That was going to be my next question. I mean, are they sort of opening themselves up now to some kind of legal exposure which could ultimately dissuade them from funding.

Jim Copland: I mean, there could certainly be a chilling effect. I mean, I think it'd be much harder to bring those sort of second-order cases, but there could be a chilling effect. I mean, people of large means aren't going to want to deal with the headaches of winning. I think in some of these cases, and the feds statutorily have, it's the anti-terrorist stuff. It's RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. There's lots of federal statutory frameworks where you could go after some of these organized entities if they're actually sowing discord. And I wouldn't at all put it past this administration, this justice department, from doing exactly that.

Tal Fortgang: It would be nice, by the way, if state governments that also have the authority to step in and either enact a punishment that fits this kind of conduct by just raising the penalties on the characteristic unlawful conduct that constitutes these protests, which is a complicated way of saying if it's just a misdemeanor to commit disorderly conduct, states can step in and say, if you commit disorderly conduct with 10 other people or in the course of a certain pattern of behavior, we're going to consider that a felony and we're going to prosecute it as a felony. If you raise the costs, you prevent more people from doing it. It's basic.

Rafael Mangual: Well, then the question becomes, at least in New York City, is can you convince someone like Alvin Bragg or Eric Gonzalez to actually prosecute the felony? But you certainly wouldn't have to work very hard, I think, to convince the local U.S. attorneys that people who are arrested for interfering with federal law enforcement by federal authorities are now open to federal prosecution where there's real teeth, right? They're not just going to be kicked out with a desk appearance ticket and have their case ultimately dismissed for some kind of court diversion program here. They might actually go to pretrial detention and face some real time.

Tal Fortgang: If I were a Trump administration that, suppose perhaps, had said that they wanted to go after major left-wing funders of disorder and occasional political violence, I would see this as a massive opening, huge exposure to get to the people who actually sow and encourage this disorder.

Rafael Mangual: Yeah, I mean, I think it's interesting. I mean, I think a lot of people who are worried about Zohran Mamdani, who, by the way, he won with a majority of the vote, but there was also about a million people who came out to vote against him and his agenda. So there's a very split electorate, and I suspect there is a lot of anxiety about what he's going to do. And just to refresh the memories of people watching like this is a man who has committed to abolishing the NYPD's gang database to dismantling the strategic response group within the NYPD, which is the group that responds to a lot of these protest gatherings, mass shootings, other large-scale events. He has now appointed a couple of police abolitionists to his transition team, which is very, very concerning. He was the only candidate who said he didn't want to increase the number of NYPD officers, which is currently on a downward trajectory due to attrition. So there are some concerning things just within the public safety space. Then you have all of the socialism stuff. So there's a lot there that I think people are worried about, but it seems to me that President Trump, his administration has a lot more leverage and a lot more on their menu to frustrate Mamdani than the other way around. Am I wrong about that?

Jim Copland: Sure. I mean, no, you're not wrong. You're right. Excuse me.

Rafael Mangual: You almost broke my heart.

Jim Copland: No, no. What you're saying is absolutely right. I mean, listen, at the end of the day, Trump cares about New York because it's the biggest city and he's from here. He's a New Yorker, he cares about it, but it's not like New York is the core of his political base. So the issue will be for Trump, does he want to expend that political capital? And it seems like in a lot of these cities, the answer has been yes, to try to maintain order. I mean, the public safety stuff, listen, I do think Mamdani is more of a true believer in this maybe than de Blasio was. I mean, certainly his public positions. I do think there's significant risk, and I think that's political risk for Mamdani too, whether he realizes it or not. And it's one thing to run a campaign with nice graphics and great social media and an attractive candidate who's friendly and focus on affordability, which is what people care about.

It's another thing if public safety deteriorates. And we saw this when his predecessor Eric Adams was elected. Part of the reason he was elected from sort of the right half of the democratic spectrum was people were worried about the breakdown in public order. Now, we've seen improvement on that over the last four years, which is one reason why I think Mamdani wasn't paying a big political price for that. But if it reverses course, if he does some of these extreme things and shootings are going up and just the quality-of-life things are going down, then he's going to pay a political price for it. But do I think he's going to do some of it? Sure. And the question will be what exactly will Trump do? But he's got a lot of degrees of freedom to do things.

Rafael Mangual: Yeah, I mean, one thing that I don't think that the sort of Mamdani-ites have fully considered is the scope of political unpopularity of things like mass scale protests. I mean, you mentioned Eric Adams who was elected, yes, in the wake of a crime increase and because he was promising to crack down on that, but there was also a massive increase in the number of public protests and riots in New York City in 2020. I mean, the summer of 2020. The “summer of love” as it's affectionately known. I mean, I came into Midtown Manhattan on June 1st, 2020 and Madison Avenue looked like a war zone, broken glass emptied storefronts, not because the storefronts had shut down, but because they were looted the night before I went into, I walked past I think two or three different coffee shops trying to get a cup of coffee, finally found a Starbucks that was open, but you couldn't tell because they had boarded up the windows that had been smashed out and inside was insane. That was really, really unpopular. And if we start to see more of what we're already starting to see, even before Zorhan Mamdani takes office, I suspect that he's looking at a one term mayoral, but I may be overstepping.

Tal Fortgang: I think even more than the striking image of a looted storefront or a demonstration featuring masked protest or just chanting unhinged things. Even more than that is the sense of disorder, the sense of chaos, the sense of not knowing what tomorrow will bring. Will the Brooklyn Bridge be blocked by protesters that the mayor just allows to run free? Will it suddenly be open season on CEOs in New York City with the groundswell of popular support? Those things do not actually have to take shape for people to say, you know what? I've had enough and take the well-trod Trump path down to Florida, and that could be enough to precipitate a massive political change.

Jim Copland: Public safety, the tax base, the fiscal situation, education. We haven't talked about that, but…

Rafael Mangual: Neither has he, by the way. That was just something that the campaign didn’t talk about at all.

Jim Copland: Yeah, and it's interesting because his electorate, based on the data, MI polling and others, have shown is his electorate skews young, and clearly as a young person of color in the in vogue thing, or a South Asian person, or a Muslim person, he captured a zeitgeist from a certain type of young person in particular and a certain demographic. But if he starts messing with the schools, and we saw this some with de Blasio, you're going to see blowback from populations too that are on the short end of this sort of racial balancing test that he won't be able to go full bore on it without legal fights either. But messing up schools and messing up opportunities for high achieving parents who want the best for their young people is another way for him to really undercut his support, which is more about feels really, I think, and the affordability thing, but I don't know that it's a little bit of a underpants gnomes thing for Old South Park fans where collect underpants, profit. Affordability, he wants to make it affordable, but his actual policies aren't going to do that. Right.

Tal Fortgang: Ralph, I'm hung up on the line you drew between the Luigi Mangione phenomenon and the rise of Zohran Mamdani. I think you're right to do that. There is a distinct kind of morality at play. Jim invoked South Park, I'll invoke Louis C.K. His, like “of course, but maybe?” right. Of course, it's wrong to murder a CEO in cold blood, but maybe..? Right? And similarly Mamdani’s statement after this disgraceful demonstration outside Park East Synagogue i course under the law and everything we believe is good and true, people should not be harassed or obstructed going in and out of a house of worship, but maybe they deserved it because there were some nebulous violations of international law being…” Right? It's a total shift of our moral intuitions to take things that were completely black and white, unacceptable. We don't murder people on the street. We do not obstruct people going into a synagogue and just questioning it, just toying with the idea that maybe our clear, our things that were properly dogma to us, things that we did not question because they were hard fought and hard won lessons of Western civilization. Just undermining it just a little bit…

Rafael Mangual: No, I think that's right. And I do think that that is, it's at the root of his rise. There is this kind of counter-cultural thing that's actually moving more and more mainstream in a way, but it is a rejection of what Western civilization has kind of stood for. I mean, there are people in his camp who are openly questioning core institutions whether we need police and prisons, whether America is a force for good, whether this land is something we have any right to whatsoever, whether you have a moral obligation or duty to physically impede enforcement efforts that you don't agree with, no matter how legal or illegal they are. It just seems like this kind of questioning of things even on gender ideology, right? I mean, he says he's going to be a sanctuary city for people, even minors who want to transition their gender expression. So yeah, I mean, there are a lot of things that we are questioning now that we didn't use to that strike me as kind of at the core of this broader movement. I think the question for us is like, does it stop with Mamdani? Do people end up realizing that it's crazy or…

Jim Copland: Well, for the non-New Yorkers in the audience, I would suggest this is the good side of this. I do not think that there is a broad national consensus behind some of these ideas. I mean, New York has always been different, and it's very different now than when I first visited the city 35 years ago, and first moved to the city 25 years ago. The demographics are different. The way the city operates is different, and the shifts in and out of the city, it's just a very, very different place. And so I think with that, you're going to have a different sort of cohort. I do not think the Mamdani message is one that would be nationally successful. And if the national Democrats run with it, they'll do so at their peril. I think it would be very hard to win. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other blue states that will have analogs, and then you already do see in some places sort of analogs or other cities. So it's not going to be unique to New York. But I don't think that there's a national Mamdani movement. I do think within the Democratic party politics, there's a strong bubbling up, and we've seen it before, but we've seen it with AOC. We've seen it with… who a lot of people think is maybe going to challenge Chuck Schumer, right? The old guard of old guards in terms of New York politics.

Rafael Mangual: I think she'll run for president before she does that. I mean, how does…

Jim Copland: It would make more sense to me.

Tal Fortgang: I mean, how are you going to abolish the Senate when you're in it?

Rafael Mangual: Right? That's certainly one thing. But the other thing is I just don't see why running for Senate changes her profile at all in a meaningful way, whereas she already has a massive following. She has name recognition, the Senate, serving in the Senate doesn't really change that unless she just wants to make that a career.

Jim Copland: She gets lots of attention now, raises money, isn't going to lose in her district.

Rafael Mangual: Yeah, I think she stays in the house until she's ready to run for president, which I suspect is going to be soon. What do you think?

Tal Fortgang: Is AOC going to run for President?

Rafael Mangual: No. No. I mean more broadly on this?

Tal Fortgang: More broadly? Here's what I keep thinking about.

Rafael Mangual: You look pensive. That's why I asked.

Tal Fortgang: Well, I have resting pensive face, but for New Yorkers, the good news about this, the Mangione, Mamdani, I don't mean to connect them too closely. Obviously Mamdani is not responsible. I don't want to, let me be clear that when I say that there's a connection between the two. I mean only in this radical upending of basic norms of Western civilization, the good news is that this competing set of norms and expectations and a competing morality really is not fit for human consumption. It will fail the same way that all of these other utopian projects to reshape human nature and the way humans can live amongst one another. They flame out terrifically, which means that they are finite, that they will end. The bad news is that they're not fit for human consumption. They're toxic, and a lot of people are going to suffer. And that breaks my heart that I, and we at this table, if we needed to, we could move. We have the means to move. A lot of people are…

Jim Copland: I moved a while back.

Tal Fortgang: We could stop coming in to record our podcasts here in Manhattan. We could record them somewhere from our bunker in North Carolina if we needed to. And a lot of people do not have that luxury. And I am not raising alarms about this really perverse morality because it affects me all that much. It really doesn't. Not on a personal level in terms of my own safety, but there are millions of people who are going to suffer around through this, and I don't know what else I can do.

Rafael Mangual: I think that's exactly right. And I think you just made the case for why Trump and his administration should do what they can to keep the excesses of the Mamdani administration at bay in the wake, especially of Mamdani’s victory. I have heard so many people on X and in my life and just making these snide comments about, well, New York's over, you brought this on yourself. I don't care. And it's like, you know what? Actually one, New York's not over. It's never over. It's never been over. It's never going to be over. Get over yourself. But also, I mean, there are real people who didn't vote for Mamdani who voted for the other guy, whether it was Cuomo or Curtis Sliwa or whoever, even Aaron Judge got 11 votes actually as a write-in candidate. But there are people who didn't vote for him.

There are people who couldn't vote, but are still legal residents who have to live with this. Whether they didn't vote because they are not citizens, or they didn't vote because they're under 18, those people are no less deserving of good outcomes and good government. The idea that we should just shrug them off and say, ha ha, you deserved it. This is what you, I mean, it's gross to me. It's never really sat well, but it's also wrong. And so I think, like I said, you just made the case in my book for why Trump should step it.

Jim Copland: I mean, who quipped it, was it Mencken? Democracy’s the theory where the voters get what they want, good and hard. So I think some of these quips are tongue in cheek. I hope a little bit. The reality is, is that foot voting, capital mobility, freedom in our sort of federal system, it means that with a city, yeah, people will move, people will get out and the pendulums will swing, and politics will shift, and things will eventually turn around in a positive way. Just like the market is ruthlessly efficient and driving things in a certain direction. That's going to be true I think in the longer term to some degree with New York politics. But in the shorter term, there could be a lot of damage. And so I hope and pray for New York that that damage will be somewhat mitigated because we all love this city. We all love the city. Manhattan Institutes based in this city. And what's not to love?

Rafael Mangual: I mean, you and I are going to go grab steaks at Sparks.

Jim Copland: I fell in love in the city. Got married in the city.

Rafael Mangual: Come on now, don't blaspheme.  

Jim Copland: Aaron Judge can play ball. And if I'd been in New York, I probably wouldn't have put in Aaron Judge, but I understand the temptation given who else was on the ballot.

Rafael Mangual: Alright, well, we'll end it with some good news there and some good feels. Thank you so much for watching. Please do not forget to like, comment, subscribe, ring the bell, ask us a question, shoot us an email. Tell us if you liked the episode, tell us if you didn't. We may not listen to the latter. Until next time you've been watching the City Journal Podcast.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Both the dissident online right and left-leaning corporate media have spent the past few weeks convincing themselves that the future of the MAGA movement is the weirdest kids in the room. These strange bedfellows, both eager to see the American Right move past its politically successful 2024 incarnation, believe that the key drivers of post-Trump conservatism are not union workers from Macomb County, churchgoing moms in rural Georgia, or even contractors in the Rio Grande Valley. Instead, it is the twentysomething male Zoomer, still living at home and spending inordinate amounts of time online, and steadily dosing video games, pot, and porn. These budding young edgelords, we’re told, are the inevitable inheritors of control over the GOP.

New data show that this scenario is far less likely than Nick Fuentes—who opposed Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign—and his ilk want you to believe. In a new Manhattan Institute survey of nearly 3,000 voters, we sought to understand what today’s Republican coalition really looks like: who’s in it, what they believe, and which parts are politically stable. Rather than a tidy split between Reaganites and Buchananites, or “normie cons” and “post-liberals,” we found two much messier blocs.

Roughly two-thirds of the coalition are what we call “Core Republicans”: longstanding GOP voters who have pulled the Republican lever for years. They are consistently conservative on economics, foreign policy, and social issues. They still prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, still see China as a threat, still support Israel, and remain firmly opposed to DEI and gender ideology.

The other major bloc—just under 30 percent of today’s GOP—is what we call “New Entrant Republicans,” voters who joined the coalition in the Trump era. They are younger, more racially diverse, and more likely to have voted for Democratic candidates in the recent past. They are the ostensible audience for much of the eccentricity that now preoccupies conservative politics.

Ideologically, they are less conservative than Core Republicans on almost every major policy question we tested: taxes and spending, foreign policy, immigration, DEI, and transgender issues. Asked whether to close deficits through spending cuts or higher taxes on middle- and upper-income households, Core Republicans choose spending cuts by almost three to one. New Entrants slightly prefer higher taxes.

On paper, then, these new additions look a lot like the disaffected Democrats they were until recently. But many of them have also absorbed the ugliest content sloshing around online. One-third of New Entrant Republicans believe in all or most of the six conspiracy theories we tested—including about vaccines, 9/11, and the moon landing—compared with just 11 percent of Core Republicans. Sixty-three percent of that highest-conspiracy group previously voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden.

The same pattern appears on political violence: 54 percent of New Entrants say that violence is sometimes justified, versus only 20 percent of Core Republicans. Among those in the coalition who justify violence, six in ten previously voted for a Democrat; just one-third have never voted Democratic.

Looking at the smaller segment that either self-identifies as racist or anti-Semitic, or tolerates racists and anti-Semites in the coalition, reveals something counterintuitive: they are usually more liberal than non-tolerators on issues like DEI, taxes, and transgender policies. Seventy-eight percent of New Entrant “tolerators” take a liberal position on at least one of those questions.

In other words, the GOP’s new voters are not ideologically consistent paleoconservative populists. They’re disgruntled Obama-to-Trump or Biden-to-Trump voters whose politics are all over the map. Many have imported conspiratorial and bigoted worldviews into the GOP without simultaneously adopting a coherent conservative program. The racist in your X mentions who thinks the moon landing was faked and that George Bush arranged 9/11 is just as likely to want higher taxes and abortion-on-demand as he is to support eradicating DEI bureaucracies or doing anything to rein in the welfare state.

This runs directly against the way Washington prefers to talk about the Right. It is more comfortable to imagine a neatly organized struggle between “national conservatives” and “classical liberals” than to admit that a big chunk of Trump’s 2024 coalition simply doesn’t think about politics in those terms. There is a strong temptation to take the most online, most chaotic part of the coalition and treat it as the future of conservatism.

Democrats have dealt with a version of this problem for a decade. Their professional class—the Hill staffers and nonprofit operatives along the Acela corridor—sits well to the left of the median Democratic voter. Republicans may now be developing a mirror-image problem. The rising staffer class on the right is probably more radical than the voters it presumably serves. Many young GOP professionals engage in what Richard Hanania has called the “Based Ritual”: one-upmanship contests in which ambitious young conservatives signal their authenticity by being more explicit, more transgressive, and more hostile to liberal norms than the next guy.

Russell Greene has made an important complementary observation: Capitol Hill jobs filter for this type of person. Junior staffers are underpaid, living in an expensive and increasingly dysfunctional capital, watching Congress forfeit its authority to the executive branch and K Street. The people willing to accept those trade-offs tend to be unusually ideological, unusually online, and often buffered by family wealth. The result is a staffer pool that is angrier and stranger than the country it nominally represents.

Layer on top of that the incentives of the new media economy. As Corey Walker has argued, creators who depend on monetized views quickly find themselves owned by the audience, nudged by algorithms and engagement metrics toward their most obsessive viewers. These tend to be younger and more conspiratorial than the coalition as a whole. Coleman Hughes has described how Nick Fuentes has ridden this wave with a two-face strategy. He’s just a bookish, patriotic Catholic for mainstream podcasts; then there’s the Holocaust denial, rape fantasies, yearnings for Catholic Taliban rule, and demonizing America for the hardcore fans over on Rumble.

But politicians don’t share influencers’ incentives. Their task is not to maximize watch-time but to assemble durable coalitions that can win elections and then govern. That’s why it is so dangerous when elected Republicans take their cues from anonymous right-coded X accounts rather than from voters who reliably show up in elections.

So what should Republicans do with the fact that their larger coalition now contains a sizable contingent of people more progressive on policy, more conspiratorial, and more bigoted than the old base?

First, remember that online is not real life. The loudest voices in the right-wing attention economy speak to, and for, a particular segment: younger men, often nonreligious, often alienated from institutions, steeped in Internet-fueled irony and grievance. Our survey suggests that they are numerous enough to matter.

But they are not the median Republican voter. The coalition’s beating heart remains the normie Republican Washington keeps forgetting: older, more churchgoing, more hawkish, more pro-Israel, and uninterested in burning the country down.

Second, draw clearer lines about who sets the agenda. The party should not pretend that everything is fine. Genuinely dangerous ideas are circulating on the right. But the answer is not to reorient Republican politics around the preferences of conspiratorial schizophrenics. It is to make those voters choose. If they want a politics of order, prosperity, and national strength, they are welcome. They don’t get to drag the rest of the coalition into Holocaust denial, street violence, and ethno-fetishism.

Finally, future Republican leaders need to think about coalition-building the way successful presidents do. Most presidents who reshape politics do so by changing the map, not by preserving their predecessor’s coalition molecule-for-molecule. Ronald Reagan did not simply inherit Gerald Ford’s voters; he created Reagan Democrats. Donald Trump did something similar, twice, by pulling in working-class and minority voters from places Republicans had long written off.

The next Republican standard-bearer will almost certainly not be able to replicate Trump’s unique blend of celebrity, humor, and pragmatic policy shifts. Rather than treating the Fuentes-adjacent as the irreplaceable heart of the party, they should think creatively about whom they can bring in anew—and, if necessary, which parts of the Trump coalition might have to be let go.

Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images

• Age-related hearing loss: Involves loss of ability to focus on important sounds, beyond mere volume increase.
• De Jonge's view: Emphasizes preserving the "magic" of selective sound focus.
• Cocktail Party Problem: Difficulty in noisy social settings like restaurants with cross-conversations.
• Normal hearing: Struggles in such environments, but hearing loss exacerbates the issue.
• Hearing aids limitation: Costly devices fail to resolve the problem effectively.
• De Jonge's outcome: Reluctantly accepted no solution for the hearing challenge.
• Career shift: Left Bridgewater to join Butterfly IQ startup for AI-powered ultrasound sensor.
• Professional achievement: Rose to VP of product; shares liquidated post-2021 IPO; image shows Fortell founders including de Jonge.

---

The problem was harder than it seemed. “It’s not about making sounds louder,” says de Jonge. “People with age-related hearing loss have lost some of the magic of focusing on the sounds that are important to them.” The worst situations occur in restaurants and social gatherings with lots of cross conversations. That’s known in the trade as the Cocktail Party Problem. While even people with normal hearing can struggle in those settings, those with hearing loss are lost in crescendos of conversational clatter, and costly hearing aids don’t help much. De Jonge reluctantly concluded that he had no answer for it.

The exercise did motivate de Jonge to explore how technology could help solve other medical issues. He left Bridgewater and joined a startup making an AI-powered sensor called Butterfly IQ that provided “ultrasound on a chip.” He worked his way up to VP of product, and his shares in Butterfly became liquid when it went public in 2021.

Fortell founders Matt de Jonge, Igor Lovchinsky, Andrew Casper, and Cole Morris.

Courtesy of Fortell