The first major debate in New York City’s 2025 mayoral race felt less like a local political event and more like a national moment. On stage were three figures representing vastly different versions of the city: Zohran Mamdani, the progressive state assemblyman who has captured the imagination of younger, left-leaning voters; Andrew Cuomo, the embattled former governor hoping for a political comeback; and Curtis Sliwa, the conservative firebrand and founder of the Guardian Angels.
Over ninety brisk minutes, the candidates sparred on nearly everything — public safety, housing, foreign policy, and the lingering shadow of Donald Trump — offering viewers not just policy contrasts but a sense of what kind of leader each might be. The debate, held at CUNY’s Graduate Center and broadcast across major local stations, may not have delivered knockout blows, but it gave voters a clearer look at where the candidates stand — and where they stumble.
Here are five key takeaways from the night that could shape the rest of the campaign.
1. Trump Still Haunts New York Politics
It’s been years since Donald Trump lived in Trump Tower full-time, but his influence still loomed over the debate stage. Each candidate was asked whether they would resist federal interference if a second Trump administration tried to send troops into New York, as some reports have hinted.
Mamdani, who has built his campaign on defiance of federal overreach and advocacy for civil rights, didn’t hesitate. “If Donald Trump tries to dictate how New York is run, he’ll find out quickly that this city doesn’t bow to bullies,” he said, earning the loudest applause of the night.
Cuomo, ever the political tactician, framed the issue more pragmatically. “Defiance is easy to promise,” he said. “Leadership is harder. The question isn’t whether you’ll shout at Trump — it’s whether you’ll actually protect this city when he retaliates.”
Sliwa, meanwhile, distanced himself from both sides, accusing Mamdani and Cuomo of “using Trump as a boogeyman instead of fixing what’s broken.”
The exchange underscored a simple truth: even in a deeply Democratic city, Trump remains an unavoidable reference point — a convenient foil for progressives, a cautionary tale for moderates, and a talking point for conservatives seeking relevance.
2. The Debate Was Really About Experience vs. Integrity
Perhaps the most memorable clash of the evening came not over policy, but over values. Cuomo, with his trademark prosecutorial tone, accused Mamdani of being “naïve” and “inexperienced” in the art of governance.
“Running a city of eight million is not a college debate club,” Cuomo jabbed. “It’s not about slogans. It’s about execution.”
Mamdani smiled, waited a beat, and delivered what many viewers called the quote of the night:
“What I don’t have in experience, I make up for in integrity. And what you don’t have in integrity, you could never make up for in experience.”
The audience gasped, then cheered.
It was a generational moment — an older, establishment figure clashing with a younger progressive determined to redefine what leadership means. For Cuomo, experience is everything: his years running the state, managing budgets, and navigating crises. For Mamdani, experience can also mean complicity — a history of deals and decisions that, in his view, helped create the problems New Yorkers face today.
That tension — between “knowing how the system works” and “knowing why the system’s broken” — defined much of the debate.
3. The Gaza Question Sparked the Night’s Most Intense Exchange
Foreign policy rarely dominates a city election, but this is New York — a global city with deep cultural and political ties to the world. So when the moderator raised the Israel–Gaza conflict, the room grew tense.
Cuomo went on the offensive, pressing Mamdani — who has supported a ceasefire — to clearly denounce Hamas. “It’s a simple question,” Cuomo said, looking directly at him. “Do you condemn them?”
“I condemn all acts of violence against civilians,” Mamdani replied, before reiterating his support for a permanent ceasefire. He accused Cuomo of “weaponizing grief for political gain.”
The exchange highlighted the fragile coalition politics of New York City. The city’s large Jewish, Muslim, and Arab communities have long influenced local elections, and how a candidate speaks about global conflicts can ripple through neighborhoods from Brooklyn to Queens.
While Cuomo’s allies likely saw his line of questioning as a show of strength, progressives interpreted Mamdani’s calm under fire as proof of authenticity. In the spin room afterward, both campaigns declared victory — a sign that the issue will likely resurface before Election Day.
4. Public Safety and Policing Split the Field
When the debate turned to crime — an issue that consistently ranks among the top concerns for voters — the candidates revealed just how different their visions of safety are.
Cuomo and Sliwa, though divided politically, agreed on one thing: the NYPD should be larger and more empowered. Cuomo proposed adding 2,000 new officers to the force, arguing that “nothing restores faith in government faster than safe streets.” Sliwa, leaning on his Guardian Angels background, pushed for “zero tolerance for repeat offenders.”
Mamdani, on the other hand, sought to strike a balance. He acknowledged calling the NYPD “racist” in the past — a comment that had drawn heavy criticism — but said he had reflected on the language and wanted to build a “partnership rooted in accountability.”
“We can’t talk about safety without talking about why people feel unsafe — poverty, mental health, housing,” he said. “Police alone can’t fix what decades of neglect created.”
His approach — pragmatic but still rooted in progressive ideals — drew mixed reactions. Some saw it as maturity; others, as backpedaling. But it was clear that he understood the stakes: in New York, crime is not just a statistic. It’s an emotional pulse point, and how a candidate addresses it can make or break their campaign.
5. Curtis Sliwa Played the Outsider — and Knew It
While most of the headlines focused on the Mamdani–Cuomo face-off, Curtis Sliwa carved out his own niche. He wasn’t there to win over progressives or moderates — he was there to shake the room.
Wearing his signature red beret, Sliwa accused both rivals of “living in fantasyland.” He argued that ordinary New Yorkers are tired of being caught between “corrupt insiders” and “socialist dreamers.”
Sliwa’s most pointed line of the night came during a discussion on homelessness:
“You can’t fix a crisis from a luxury apartment. Try sleeping in the subway for one night — then tell me you understand New York.”
It was classic Sliwa — fiery, populist, and deliberately provocative. While he’s unlikely to win the election, his presence injects a dose of unpredictability into the race, forcing his opponents to respond to working-class frustrations that often go unheard in high-profile debates.
Beyond the Soundbites: What This Debate Revealed
The night’s exchanges did more than just clarify positions; they revealed the emotional and political undercurrents shaping New York’s identity in 2025.
For Mamdani, it was a test of endurance. He entered as the frontrunner, under heavy scrutiny, and managed to hold his ground without major missteps. His ability to stay composed, even when pressed on controversial topics, strengthened his image as thoughtful and principled — though some still question whether he has the administrative chops to lead the city.
For Cuomo, the debate was a comeback audition. His experience is undeniable, and he occasionally reminded voters why he once dominated New York politics. But the ghosts of his past scandals still hover, and moments of defensiveness hinted that he knows it. His challenge is convincing voters he represents renewal, not nostalgia.
For Sliwa, the goal was relevance. His blunt, street-level style plays well with certain parts of the city, especially those feeling left behind. But his limited policy depth makes it hard for him to break into mainstream consideration. Still, as an entertainer-turned-activist, he knows how to shape a narrative — and that alone keeps him in the conversation.
The Broader Themes: Division, Identity, and Leadership
If there was one throughline connecting all the exchanges, it was this: New York is at a crossroads.
The city is still recovering from the pandemic’s economic hangover. Rents remain sky-high, the migrant crisis continues to strain resources, and climate-related disasters have become routine. At the same time, deep ideological divisions — between progressives and moderates, between communities, and even between generations — have made consensus almost impossible.
Each candidate offers a different antidote to that fragmentation.
Mamdani argues for solidarity — building a city that redistributes wealth and power toward those left out.
Cuomo insists on stability — an experienced hand who can govern pragmatically.
Sliwa promises rebellion — a return to “common-sense” order and toughness.
It’s less a policy debate than a moral referendum on what kind of city New York wants to be in the next decade.
What Comes Next
With less than three weeks until Election Day, the race is tightening. Polls still show Mamdani ahead, but Cuomo’s strong debate performance could give him momentum among undecided voters and older Democrats wary of the left’s growing influence.
The next debate, scheduled for October 22, will likely be even more confrontational. Cuomo will try to paint Mamdani as unready for the job. Mamdani will double down on authenticity and community. And Sliwa will, as always, try to steal the moment.
The stakes are enormous. The winner won’t just lead New York — they’ll shape how the city navigates the turbulent intersection of local governance and national politics in the Trump era.
For all its sharp words and tense exchanges, the debate also revealed something hopeful: New Yorkers are still deeply engaged. The crowd wasn’t passive; they laughed, jeered, applauded, and groaned. Politics in this city remains alive — messy, loud, passionate, and imperfectly democratic.
As Mamdani said near the end of the night, “This city has never been easy to govern, but it’s always been worth fighting for.”
And fight they will — right up to Election Day.
