The Moving American Money Distant from Anti-National Interests Act (the MAMDANI Act) would restrict federal funding to New York City during any period Zohran Mamdani serves as mayor. Specifically, Section 2 directs the rescission of unobligated federal funds available to NYC and forbids any federal funds from being obligated or expended for any purpose in the city during Mamdani's mayoralty.
The bill uses funding as a political lever tied to a specific mayor, creating a highly targeted constraint on city operations.
If enacted, the measure would have broad implications for NYC programs that rely on federal dollars, from public safety and housing to transit and social services. The policy raises practical questions about emergencies, existing contracts, and the mechanics of rescinding funds, while also inviting scrutiny over constitutional and administrative feasibility.
The bill is in its introductory stage, and its fate would hinge on committee action, but its concept is to link national budgeting decisions directly to the tenure of a single city leader.
At a Glance
What It Does
During Mamdani’s mayoralty, the act rescinds unobligated federal funds for New York City and prohibits any federal funds from being obligated or expended to the city for any purpose.
Who It Affects
The City of New York and its agencies, federal funding programs operating in NYC, and contractors/vendors that rely on federal dollars.
Why It Matters
It redefines how, and under what conditions, federal dollars can flow to a major urban center, using mayoral tenure as the trigger for funding restrictions and potentially altering urban policy implementation and emergency responsiveness.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The MAMDANI Act is a targeted funding restriction tied to a specific individual’s tenure as mayor. It designates a short title for the bill and then imposes two concrete limitations on federal funding to New York City: (1) all unobligated federal funds available to NYC are rescinded during the mayoral period, and (2) no federal funds may be obligated or expended to NYC in that period.
The text does not specify any exemptions, waivers, or procedures to restore funding if the mayoral term ends earlier or later, leaving the city and federal agencies to navigate a broad, automatic funding blackout during Mamdani’s tenure. Practically, this could disrupt programs and services funded by federal dollars and complicate ongoing contracts with NYC partners.
The proposal is straightforward in its mechanism but raises questions about enforcement, emergency funding, and the balance of congressional control with municipal governance. The bill's analysis thus centers on how this funding lever would operate in real-world administration and what it would mean for residents and federal program administrators in New York City.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies only during Zohran Mamdani's mayoralty.
It rescinds unobligated federal funds available to NYC.
It prohibits any federal funds from being obligated or expended to NYC during the period.
It provides no specified exemptions or waivers.
Introduced on November 7, 2025, by Rep. Carter and referred to Oversight and Government Reform and Appropriations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section designates the act's formal citation as the Moving American Money Distant from Anti-National Interests Act, also known as the MAMDANI Act. It establishes the official short title for reference, policy discussions, and citation in congressional and legal materials.
Limitation on federal funds for NYC during Mamdani's mayoralty
Notwithstanding any other law, during any period in which Zohran Mamdani is mayor of New York, New York, two actions apply: (1) any unobligated federal funds available for New York City are rescinded; and (2) no federal funds may be obligated or expended for any purpose to New York City. This provision sweeps across all federal funding channels and programs, tying funding eligibility directly to the mayoral term and eliminating discretion to continue funding under existing arrangements during that period.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The sponsor’s political base and supporters who want to publicly demonstrate opposition to Mamdani’s administration and seek leverage over city governance.
- Federal appropriations policymakers and some members of Congress who favor using funding controls as governance tools.
- Advocates aligned with the sponsor’s policy goals who view federal funding as a strategic instrument to influence urban policy.
Who Bears the Cost
- NYC residents who rely on federal services or benefits could experience service reductions or interruptions during the mayoral period.
- City agencies and programs that depend on federal funding would face abrupt funding gaps and contract disruptions.
- NYC contractors and vendors with federal-funded agreements could lose revenue or face termination of projects.
- Federal program administrators and staff responsible for NYC portfolios would need to enforce new funding restrictions and manage transitional issues.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether Congress should wield funding as a political instrument targeted at a single city mayor, balancing that leverage against the risk of disrupting essential city services and raising constitutional or administrative questions about the use of federal dollars as a tool of political accountability.
This proposal uses funding as a punitive instrument tied to a specific mayor, which raises questions about the appropriate use of appropriations as policy leverage. Implementing a blanket rescission of unobligated funds and a prohibition on obligation or expenditure could disrupt essential public services, emergency response capabilities, and long-standing intergovernmental programs funded with federal dollars.
The bill offers no carve-outs for emergencies, disaster relief, or legally binding contracts, creating significant practical risks for city operations and for federal program commitments in New York City. Courts or policymakers could also scrutinize whether Congress may condition funding in this manner without broader statutory framework.
If the policy were adopted, implementation would require coordination across federal agencies to identify unobligated balances and to halt new obligations to NYC, while resolving how to treat ongoing obligations and post-term restoration of funds. The absence of process, timing rules, or sunset mechanics could lead to disputes and administrative bottlenecks at the city and federal levels.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.