Zohran Mamdani pledged a break with old-guard New York City politics, but within a day he named a transition team filled with figures tied to the administrations of Bill de Blasio, Eric Adams, Michael Bloomberg and the Biden White House, sparking instant pushback from Republican critics and questions about who will actually shape his mayoralty.
On election night Mamdani spoke about changing the game’s rules and rejected the old order, raising expectations among voters who wanted something new and different. He told supporters, “Let tonight be the final time I utter [Andrew Cuomo’s] name, as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few,” a line that echoed his campaign promise to upend the status quo. That rhetoric set a clear contrast between promise and the choices he made the next morning.
The transition team he announced was all-female and publicized as a fresh start, but the roster reads like a reunion of city and national insiders. Maria Torres-Springer, Melanie Hartzog and Grace Bonilla all have histories in de Blasio or Bloomberg circles, while Lina Khan brings a direct connection to the Biden administration through her role at the Federal Trade Commission. Elana Leopold, tapped as executive director of the transition, is another familiar face from the de Blasio era.
Those personnel moves matter because names tell a story about direction and influence. For Republican critics, these appointments suggest a return to the same power networks Mamdani promised to defeat, not an overhaul of how New York City is governed. The optics of reusing familiar senior aides make it easy to argue that the supposed page turn may just be a bookmark.
Lina Khan’s presence on the team in particular raised eyebrows among business leaders and conservative commentators. Khan “has been accused of sidelining career staff in favor of fresh blood from a cadre of dark money nonprofits, which coincided with a forceful antitrust strategy that mirrored the organizations’ goals,” a line that has circulated in critiques of her time at the FTC. That portrayal feeds into broader concerns about outside influence shaping policy through axes that voters never approved at the ballot box.
Republican strategist Colin Reed didn’t hold back in his assessment of the appointments. “The polls have barely closed and already the incoming mayor is breaking one of his core promises to shake up the status quo and usher in a new day. New York City started a downward spiral under the de Blasio Administration, and now some of its main players are returning to the halls of power,” he said, pinning the change of tune to familiar political dynamics. Reed’s comments capture the skepticism on the right that Mamdani’s language and actions are already diverging.
Mamdani campaigned hard against corporate influence and painted himself as the champion of ordinary New Yorkers, promising to push back against officials who prioritize their own enrichment. In his victory remarks he also told the crowd, “We refuse to let them dictate the rules of the game anymore. They can play by the same rules as the rest of us.” Those lines resonated with voters angry about inequality and insider deals, and now they are being held up against his personnel choices.
Outside money and elite donors are another flashpoint in the reaction to Mamdani’s win. Alex Soros publicly cheered the result, aligning the campaign with philanthropy networks that have long backed progressive causes, and the Open Society Foundations reportedly donated significant sums across the last decade to groups that promoted Mamdani’s rise. For conservatives, the involvement of large foundations confirms fears that local politics can be steered by national money and agendas.
The debate over who influences policy goes beyond personalities to real governance questions like budget priorities, public safety strategy and regulation. Each of the named transition leaders carries policy preferences and relationships that will inform staffing and early directives. That reality makes the initial composition of a transition team a practical preview of the incoming administration’s priorities.
Critics on the right worry that the return of familiar faces means a recycling of the same failed ideas that contributed to the city’s recent struggles. They argue that rhetoric about change must be matched by fresh leadership and different institutional incentives, not simply new labels on old players. For those who voted for disruption, the early appointments are a test of whether Mamdani intends to truly deliver on his promises.
Supporters will point out that experience matters when running a massive city, and that some continuity can ease a chaotic handoff between administrations. Still, the speed of these announcements and the depth of the ties to prior mayors and national figures have sharpened scrutiny. The conversation now turns to which staff and policy moves follow those initial choices.
As transition work begins in earnest, the tension between campaign messaging and governing reality is only going to grow. Republican observers and conservative commentators are primed to watch how quickly campaign vows about breaking with the past hold up against appointments and early policy signals. For many New Yorkers, the question is simple: will this administration deliver practical change or just another version of what came before?
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.