Mamdani Says Federal Government Has Abdicated on AI, Urges Push Back
New York's mayor urges residents to demand AI rules, citing school restrictions, listing disclosure and a military strike he says reflects overreliance on the technology
By AXY AI Desk ·
Key points
- Mayor Zohran Mamdani urged New Yorkers on Monday night to resist the idea that an AI takeover is inevitable and to demand public protections.
- He spoke at Webster Hall in Manhattan with Ilana Glazer and at The People’s AI Assembly hosted by the AI Now Institute.
- Mamdani ordered a ban last month on AI use in elementary and middle schools and introduced a summer policy requiring disclosure of AI-made property listing images.
- He cited a February U.S. military strike on a school in Iran, which he said killed more than 150 people, and linked it to overreliance on AI.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said on Monday night that New Yorkers must resist the idea that an AI takeover is inevitable and demand regulations that protect the public and return control to residents, according to a report by TechCrunch. He spoke at Webster Hall in Manhattan alongside activist and “Broad City” star Ilana Glazer, who posed questions to the mayor about the future of artificial intelligence in society.
Mamdani encouraged New Yorkers to resist the sense that AI is coming for their jobs, their children’s minds and their dignity, and to take back control instead. His remarks came as the federal government has been doing little to regulate AI, leaving cities to act on their own, the TechCrunch report said. He made the case at The People’s AI Assembly, an event hosted by the AI Now Institute, a think tank that studies the social implications of AI. He argued that the technology’s rapid rollout is not inevitable and that public officials should hold AI companies accountable.
Why the federal gap puts pressure on cities
The central claim in Mamdani’s remarks is that the national government has abdicated responsibility for overseeing a technology that is now being built into everyday services, workplaces and schools. In plain terms, abdication here means that officials responsible for public protection have stepped back and left others to decide how the technology is used. The source material describes federal action on AI as limited, although it does not list specific federal measures, so readers should treat his characterization as his own assessment.
When national rules are thin, cities and states often become the first place where people see the effects of new technology. Local governments control many of the things residents experience directly, including public school classrooms, the listings that renters and home buyers see, and the terms under which city agencies buy and use software. That gives mayors practical tools even when they cannot write national law. It also means the rules can vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, which is one reason advocates of federal standards argue for national consistency and other advocates argue that local governments should keep the power to act.
The event’s host, the AI Now Institute, is a research and policy organization that focuses on how AI affects labor, civil rights, power and public accountability. Its involvement signals that the speech was aimed at a policy audience as much as a general one. Analysts who study technology policy often describe this type of local action as a test case: if cities can set clear limits, other cities may copy them, and companies may have to comply with a patchwork of rules instead of a single national standard.
Schools: a ban and a parent’s unease
One of the most concrete actions Mamdani has taken is an order he issued last month banning AI use in elementary and middle schools. The source material does not describe the scope of the ban, how it will be enforced or which tools it covers, so the details of how it works in practice remain unclear from the reporting.
Glazer, who is a parent, said the technology’s arrival in classrooms unsettles her. “It just makes me nervous,” she said. “It feels so non-consensual, as though…this has to be in schools. It wasn’t two years ago. Why does it have to be in schools?” Her comment captures a broader concern among parents that educational technology can be introduced quickly, often before families have had a clear chance to weigh in. The word “non-consensual” in her remarks refers to the feeling that a choice has been made for families rather than with them.
Mamdani’s school order and Glazer’s comments both challenge the assumption that schools must simply accept AI as it arrives. Education officials across the country have debated how far to allow AI tools for students, weighing possible learning benefits against concerns about privacy, data collection and the reliability of automated outputs. A ban on younger students is one of the most restrictive positions a city can take, and it places the city in direct contrast with the view that schools should adopt new tools early.
Housing: disclosure rules for AI-altered listings
Over the summer, Mamdani introduced a policy that would require landlords, brokers and real estate platforms to clearly disclose when a property’s listing photos or videos were made with AI. The stated goal is to protect New Yorkers from being “house-phished,” a term the source describes as being tricked by misleading listings. In everyday language, house-phishing refers to fake or misrepresented property ads designed to lure people into paying deposits, sharing personal information or making decisions based on images that do not reflect the real property.
The risk is easy to understand. Generative tools can produce realistic images of rooms, views and finishes, and those images can make an apartment look better than it is or can even depict a unit that does not exist. Disclosure requirements are a common approach to synthetic media because they do not ban the technology outright but instead require people to tell buyers and renters when an image has been artificially created or altered. The source material does not say how the policy would be enforced or what penalties would apply, so those questions remain open.
As with the school order, the housing policy shows a pattern in Mamdani’s approach. He is not calling for a halt to AI across the economy. He is calling for clear labels, limits in specific settings and the right for residents to know when they are dealing with machine-generated material.
Military use and the call for a reckoning
Mamdani also cited what he described as a “reckless adoption of technology without any kind of a reckoning with the limitations of that technology.” As evidence, he pointed to the U.S. military’s February strike on a school in Iran, which he said killed more than 150 people, including at least 123 children. The source material attributes that account to Mamdani’s remarks. It also reports that officials involved in the Pentagon’s internal investigation told Bloomberg that overreliance on AI in targeting was one factor in the attack. AXY News has not independently verified the casualty figures or the investigation’s findings, and readers should look to official investigation releases and major news reporting for updates.
For readers less familiar with the topic, targeting in military operations involves identifying and selecting objects or locations to attack. AI-assisted systems can process large volumes of sensor data and intelligence far faster than people can, but their outputs depend on the quality of the data and on how well human operators check and question those outputs. Critics of military AI argue that speed and scale can make errors harder to catch. Supporters argue that the tools can improve precision when used properly. The debate is ongoing, and the source material does not settle it.
Mamdani’s use of this case shows how he links local policy to a much larger question about accountability. If a technology can contribute to a deadly mistake in war, he argues, its use in schools, housing and public services should be subject to tougher scrutiny.
The accountability argument and the IPO question
Mamdani criticized the way AI is discussed in public. “There is this desire to speak about [AI] as if it is infallible, as if it cannot be questioned, as if the only people who can regulate it are the ones who are currently developing it,” he said. He noted that Facebook made similar arguments back in 2008, a reference to the early years of social media when platform companies often argued that they should be trusted to set their own rules. The comparison suggests that he sees a familiar pattern in which fast-growing technology firms resist outside oversight until public harms become difficult to ignore.
He went further, arguing that the stress on AI’s inevitability serves to “escape any kind of accountability at any level, without also jeopardizing the potential valuation from an IPO.” An initial public offering, or IPO, is the first sale of a company’s shares to the public. Mamdani’s point is that strict regulation could affect how investors value AI companies that are preparing to go public or that already have high valuations. That is a political argument, not a finding, and the source material does not include a response from any AI company.
The tension he describes is central to current debates about AI policy. Technology firms often say that clear rules could slow innovation and cost jobs, while public officials and advocacy groups say that waiting for proof of harm can leave people exposed. Analysts expect this argument to continue as more cities and states consider their own rules and as the national debate remains unsettled.
What to watch next
Several developments will show whether Mamdani’s call translates into lasting policy. The first is how the school ban is put into practice, including what it covers and how compliance is checked. The second is whether the listing disclosure policy moves forward and how it would be enforced against landlords, brokers and platforms. The third is whether other city leaders adopt similar measures, which would strengthen the argument that local governments can set meaningful limits even without comprehensive national rules.
The military case may also draw attention. The findings of the Pentagon investigation, as reported by Bloomberg, will matter for how officials weigh the role of AI in targeting decisions. Any official statement or formal report would be a key source for understanding what happened and what changes, if any, are being made.
For New Yorkers, the immediate questions are practical. Parents will want to know how school rules apply to their children. Renters and buyers will want to know how listing disclosures will appear in practice. More broadly, residents will be watching whether the call to demand accountability leads to public hearings, new rules or pressure on federal lawmakers. Mamdani’s speech made clear that he sees this as a fight over who gets to decide how AI is used, and the coming months will show whether that fight moves from the stage at Webster Hall into formal policy.
Questions and answers
What did Mayor Zohran Mamdani say about AI?
Mamdani said on Monday night that New Yorkers must resist the narrative that an AI takeover is inevitable and demand regulations that protect the public. He argued that the federal government has done little to regulate AI and that public officials should hold AI companies accountable.
What has New York City done about AI in schools?
Mamdani ordered a ban last month on AI use in elementary and middle schools. Ilana Glazer, a parent, said the technology’s arrival in classrooms makes her nervous and feels non-consensual.
What is the New York policy on AI-generated property listings?
Over the summer, Mamdani introduced a policy that would require landlords, brokers and real estate platforms to clearly disclose when listing photos or videos are made with AI. It is aimed at protecting New Yorkers from being tricked by misleading listings, known as house-phishing.
Why did Mamdani mention the Iran school strike?
Mamdani cited the U.S. military’s February strike on a school in Iran, which he said killed more than 150 people, as an example of reckless adoption of technology. Officials involved in the Pentagon’s internal investigation told Bloomberg that overreliance on AI in targeting was one factor in the attack.
Topics: Zohran Mamdani, New York City, Artificial intelligence regulation, AI Now Institute, Ilana Glazer, AI in schools, AI-generated listings
Sources: TechCrunch AI