Dan Goldman on Zohran Mamdani, Donald Trump, and His Case for Reelection

The New York Editorial Board's interview with Congressman Dan Goldman.

The New York Editorial Board spoke with Congressman Dan Goldman, a Democrat who represents New York’s 10th Congressional District (Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn) on the morning of February 19, 2026. Goldman, first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022, is seeking reelection this year for a third term and is facing a June Democratic primary challenge from former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander. (photo by Liena Žagare)

Participating journalists: Nicole Gelinas, Josh Greenman, Christina Greer, Alyssa Katz, Ben Max, Myles Miller, Harry Siegel, Ben Smith, Liena Žagare.

Full Transcript

Ben Smith
Thanks so much for joining us. I always say at the top, but it is true, we’re in this moment when officials don’t have to talk to journalists at all, and some choose not to. So, you know, we’re pleased that people come in. These things exist, institutions such as this exist — depend on political figures feeling like it’s important to answer hard questions. So thank you for coming by…

Christina Greer
Thanks for being here. Brad Lander has been very clear and confident that he can win this race due to his long-standing ties in the community, and your relatively recent presence in the district. What is your case to voters as to why they should stick with you as opposed to voting for a known quantity that’s Brad Lander?

Dan Goldman
Well, I think a couple of reasons. First, I have a record, and it is a proven track record of being effective, both in terms of standing up for our democracy and the rule of law, but actually getting a lot of stuff done in the district and for the district. And I’m proud to run on my record. Congress is a completely different animal than city government. It has been a steep learning curve for me, and I went down there already having worked there and having led the first [Trump] impeachment investigation.

And I think that I am the exact right person that we need in this moment, because when we take over the House majority in November, which I believe we will, I will be in a position, because of my seniority and because of the credibility I bring, to be leading a lot of the investigations into the Trump administration to bring transparency and accountability to what is the most lawless administration in history. So when you look at what the requirements are for the job, and you’re looking at whether people have the skills and experience to do this particular job, I think I’m very clearly the best candidate.

Josh Greenman
Impeach again?

Dan Goldman
My view of it is, the more important thing is the investigations. I do not think throwing articles of impeachment on the House floor, voting for them or against them, is especially constructive, in large part because if Donald Trump was not going to be convicted by the Senate after Jan. 6, it’s almost impossible to imagine that the Senate will convict.

But that does not mean that it is not an important and worthwhile endeavor. What we did with the Ukraine impeachment is we brought the public along. We proved our case. Republican senators who voted against us said we proved the case that Donald Trump abused the power of his office. And the American public had that to consider, and not just the conclusion, but they had the evidence.

Josh Greenman
On the merits, though, do you think there is a stronger case now, a weaker case now, about the same?

Dan Goldman
I think there are far more impeachable offenses that appear to have been conducted. I think there’s no question, in many respects, the Ukraine impeachment seems kind of quaint compared to what Donald Trump is doing right now in taking an absolute hatchet to the Constitution, and our basic fundamental democratic values across the board. You know, whether it’s militarizing ICE, whether it’s politicizing and weaponizing the Department of Justice, whether it’s unilaterally declaring that birthright citizenship is not birthright citizenship, the list goes on and on. And these are all, in my view, more egregious conduct than the Ukraine impeachment.

But for me, what I truly believe, and it’s the exact opposite of what the Republicans did with the Biden impeachment, where they reached their conclusion, they made the allegations to reach their conclusion, and then they tried to backfill the facts and the evidence, and they failed. Catastrophically, they failed, and I think there was a lot of blowback on them because of that.

So I think it’s very important for us to do the investigations first, and find the evidence. And it’s not gonna be easy, because we’re gonna have unprecedented obstruction. We had a tremendous amount of obstruction in impeachment, and I used my ten years as a prosecutor and my experience investigating difficult cases to figure out ways around the obstruction from the administration, which is sort of the conventional congressional method of investigating, and we’re gonna have to be even more creative to build the case — to build these cases — this time around.

Nicole Gelinas
But hasn’t this strategy been failing for ten years now? I mean, it’s safe to say the public knows a lot about Trump’s irregularities, but still, they chose Trump over the Democrats. And how does more investigation change that, except for that Trump has run out the clock? He’s done.

Dan Goldman
Well, I continue to believe that the transparency that we brought to the Ukraine abuse of power had an influence on the 2020 election, which Donald Trump lost. What has happened since then unquestionably has raised questions about efficacy of investigations, but I think a lot of it comes down to the quality of the investigation. And when you look, actually, at Jack Smith’s investigations, they were very thorough. He ended up suffering from spillover prejudice from the New York investigations, which had, I think, some more political question marks. But if you do a solid investigation, and you do it right,and you follow the facts and the evidence, then that is, I think, still a very important role for Congress to play, and it’s a role that impeachment is still important for, as well as to set historical precedent as to how to interpret the Constitution.

Ben Smith
Did you tell [New York Attorney General] Tish James and [Manhattan District Attorney] Alvin Bragg at the time that you thought they were screwing it up?

Dan Goldman
I didn’t. I didn’t make any recommendation to them.

Ben Smith
Do you regret that?

Dan Goldman
No, it’s not my job. I don’t know the evidence. I don’t know the facts. I don’t know what went into their decisions. And I don’t, I’m not sure they’re wrong. I’m not sure either one is wrong, but I think Trump did a very good job of flipping them on their head to make them look wrong.

I’m on record as having called into question some of Attorney General James’s campaign tactics of specifically declaring that she will go after Donald Trump. I think she actually executed a very thorough and good investigation stemming from Michael Cohen’s testimony. But there was some degree of taint because she had declared before she got into office that she was going after him. Alvin Bragg did not do that, and I thought that was important. But I think there are lots of considerations when you are a prosecutor or you are an attorney general as to the equities of discretion that you use, and I wasn’t in that seat, so I can’t make that decision.

Ben Max
One of the things in all of this seems to be that, in the court of public opinion, in just the public relations aspect of it, even when there are strong cases the people investigating them, prosecuting them, and then the Democrats who support them are not out there really making the case. So whether it’s Jack Smith or Tish James or Alvin Bragg or others, it doesn’t seem like there’s anywhere near the same type of effort to talk about the merits that you have from Donald Trump and Republicans trying to discredit the merits. Have you seen that as a big imbalance? Is that on Democratic leadership in some way? How do you account for that? Is it a media ecosystem thing? How do you think about that?

Dan Goldman
I can’t speak for others. I can only speak for myself, and I talk about it all the time. I bang the drum as much as I possibly can. I try to be a leader in setting a message because I understand those particular issues very well, and a lot of my colleagues don’t have that experience and so they’re understandably a little wary about how far and aggressive they can be. So I try to get out there and set a message that they can follow, knowing that I have credibility on those issues. I certainly focus on this a lot because I am incredibly concerned about the future of our democracy and the future of our rule of law.

And it absolutely drives me up the wall that people believe there’s some degree of equivalency between what the Biden Justice Department did and what the Trump Justice Department is doing now. It is completely night and day. When you have a president’s Justice Department that has criminally charged his son, it is absurd to say that the Justice Department is weaponized, no matter what you think about the pardon. But on the other hand, you have Donald Trump directing his attorney general to prosecute his political enemies regardless of the evidence, which we know, both because the U.S. attorney resigned and because the grand jury rejected it, is insufficient even to get an indictment, and it’s just night and day.

And I think one of the things that I try to aggressively point out is, this is gaslighting by them. This is completely outrageous behavior that is destroying the Department of Justice, which has a real trickle-down impact on the rule of law in our society in general. It’s not just those cases. It then calls into credibility every case that they do, and if you see the government not adhering to the law, that’s gonna spill over into any contract.

Donald Trump is just deciding unilaterally to end collective bargaining agreements. What’s to say that another employer, why can’t they just say, Well, the president’s doing this. I’m just gonna do this ‘cause I don’t like this contract? And imagine our economy and our society if, all of a sudden, basic contracts are up for question as to whether they’re legitimate or not. That will be catastrophic.

Ben Smith
Can I sort-of try to bring it back to New York, and this congressional race — Liena?

Liena Žagare
Why do you think your district went so heavily for Mamdani in the Democratic primary?

Dan Goldman
I thought Mamdani was, and is, an incredibly charismatic and good candidate. I thought he ran a terrific campaign, which really focused on the issues that New Yorkers are worried about, and I thought Andrew Cuomo was a very bad candidate. And so I think part of it was the combination of those two things and a yearning by many in this city for something different.

Because wealth inequality has so dramatically increased over the last two decades that I think there are many young people who look around, and part of the reason why we struggle to push back on the democracy a little bit, why it sometimes doesn’t get as much traction, is they look around, and they say, Well, if this is democracy, it’s not that great. You know, I don’t have those opportunities that my parents had. And it’s pretty frustrating and debilitating for kids to come out of high school or college or whatever and to look at what’s in front of them and feel like they’re not going to be able to match or exceed their parents. And the wealth inequality is something that we absolutely have to tackle because it’s corrosive for society. It will lead to really, really bad outcomes, including threats to our democracy.

Josh Greenman
What was your personal posture in — refresh my memory — during the mayoral campaign, the primary phase, and then the second part of it, the general?

Dan Goldman
In the primary, I endorsed Zellnor Myrie, and then in the general, I stayed out of it.

Josh Greenman
So you endorsed in the primary. You’re saying some quite positive things about the kind of campaign that Mamdani ran and what he stood for, but you didn’t see fit to support him in the general. So what was that about, and how does that affect how you see him now?

Dan Goldman
That was unrelated to his agenda, which by and large, I agree with. I worked with him on a pilot program for the free bus fares when he was in the Assembly. I was a co-founder of the Congressional Dads Caucus, and our number one pillar is universal childcare, which I’ve been a strong advocate for. I think the idea of the Department of Community Safety is a terrific idea, and much needed.

And mental health is something that I’ve focused on a lot. I have two bills that would dramatically expand mental health treatment for those on Medicaid, because it has become an equity issue: If you are wealthy enough to afford mental health, you can get it, but if you aren’t, you can’t get it. And so a lot of his affordability agenda, I agreed with.

I had many constituents, Jewish constituents — I have a very large Jewish constituency — who were, I think, very understandably concerned about the dramatic rise in antisemitism and some of the mayor’s past comments on it. And I had spoken to him, and I had really hoped that he would address it in a way that understood the distinction between a mayor who is responsible for the safety and security of all New Yorkers and an Assembly member or a member of Congress like me, who’s not, and I never felt like he fully got there so I stayed out of it.

But I’ve spoken to him a number of times since he won the election, and I’m eager to work with him to improve the lives of New Yorkers and our shared constituents, and I’m already doing that.

Harry Siegel
I just want to go back to something. You just posited that income inequality is a profound threat to democracy, and I wanted to ask about you then, as the representative for the district in a competitive primary, as heir to a fortune, why you’re the right person to be the representative, given the Democrats in a lot of instances are going to do the same thing.

Dan Goldman
Sorry, what do you mean do the same thing? You said Democrats are gonna do the same thing?

Harry Siegel
In a primary challenge, on many issues, you know, the party functions as a unit, and so why it makes sense, if income inequality is a profound threat to democracy, to have somebody from a very wealthy background and family money as the representative for this district in this part of Brooklyn?

Ben Smith
And maybe address the [campaign] self-funding in there.

Dan Goldman
I think as you build coalitions to get results, it is very helpful to have people from all sorts of different backgrounds. And as somebody who will be paying more taxes under my own tax proposals, it brings a different element of credibility to the broader movement to address this. I have introduced a bill called the Robin Hood Act, which I think is the right way to tackle the massive wealth inequality.

It’s not income inequality, it is wealth inequality, because what has happened is if you own assets, your wealth has generally increased. If you are a wage earner, on a relative basis, your wealth has decreased. The middle class is shrinking, and that’s because the haves and have-nots. So when you have Elon Musk, who pays a 3 percent effective tax rate, and you have Jeff Bezos, who pays a 1 percent effective tax rate, because they don’t sell their Amazon or Tesla and pay capital gains, they just borrow against it, and they don’t pay taxes. So my bill would tax those loans at a similar price to the capital gains so you can’t avoid paying tax. So billionaires like Musk and Jeff Bezos will pay their fair share, and by some estimates, it could generate as much as $30 billion a year of revenue, which can pay for universal childcare and have some left over. And so I think that I bring a different perspective to the same goal that ultimately, as we are trying to, as a party, unify together to tackle this, is beneficial more broadly to the party.

Ben Smith
Do you think Mamdani and his people are too hard on the rich? Like they sort-of lack sympathy for New York’s upper class?

Dan Goldman
We need all Americans, need to combat the outrageous cruelty and negativity that Donald Trump has brought to our discourse. And the way to do that is not necessarily to fight within ourselves, but it is, try to build as large a tent as possible, where as many people who believe in the same objectives should be welcomed. And there are many, many people who are very wealthy, who are very grateful for the opportunities that they received in this country, and who want to give back, want to help other people, and we should be welcoming anyone, no matter what their background is, into that coalition.

Josh Greenman
Speaking of, you mentioned Jews, so I wanted to point it back to Alyssa. [Laughter]

Dan Goldman
To the Jew? [Laughter]

Alyssa Katz
There are a few of us at the table. So actually, two questions on antisemitism, and the first, picking up from the Mamdani conversation: What do you make of his actions on the front of fighting antisemitism?

Ben Smith
I just want to state for the transcript that Alyssa is the editor of the Jewish Forward, and that explains the humorous exchange. Anyway, go ahead.

Alyssa Katz
The new editor, and so I get a little razzing, too. So, yeah, what do you make of Mamdani’s actions generally as related to antisemitism? And is it possible for him to be an effective fighter against antisemitism, given his positions in strong opposition to Israel?

Dan Goldman
I think it’s too early to tell. I am hopeful that him keeping the Office to Combat Antisemitism demonstrates a meaningful commitment, in combination with the [City Council] speaker’s plan to address antisemitism, that he will be an advocate and a partner in fighting antisemitism. Put it like this, I was a prosecutor for ten years. When I walked in that door, I put my personal beliefs to the side and I focused on what my job was, and my job had different obligations than my personal views.

As mayor, it doesn’t necessarily matter what his personal views are. What matters is what his actions are, what his statements are, what his message is. So I don’t really care what his personal views are. What I care about is how what we’re seeing in actions and deeds and words — and I think he still has, you know, a good opportunity to address it. I think addressing it requires proactive work, not reactive, not solely reactive statements.

Alyssa Katz
But just to clarify, this actually pivots directly into my next question.

Dan Goldman
I knew I was gonna do that.

Alyssa Katz
So his position, strongly against Israel, you do not think that in and of itself, enables and emboldens people who are attacking New Yorkers because they are Israelis or Jews who support Israel?

Dan Goldman
I think what his personal beliefs are don’t necessarily matter. If his personal beliefs become public and become part of his governing of the city, then I do think it matters. And I think what is very important, as we have seen the dramatic rise of antisemitism — where Jews make up 10 percent of the city but 57 percent of hate crimes in the last year were antisemitic crimes — that it is very important to recognize that we need to take proactive action so that there isn’t a permission structure for people to be on the streets chanting pro-Hamas chants. Actual terrorist group. And that–

Ben Smith
Wait, isn’t the permission structure for that the First Amendment?

Dan Goldman
No. The First Amendment is the legal structure for it, and they absolutely have a right to say that. But what we need to do as a society is condemn and inform and engage so that they do not say it, even though they have the right to say it.

Josh Greenman
What about a pro-settler, a strongly pro-settler demonstration, a strongly pro-Netanyahu demonstration, a strongly, strongly pro-war in Gaza on the Israeli side demonstration? Would that raise any concerns in your mind?

Dan Goldman
I fundamentally disagree with all of those three examples. I’ve been a leader in opposing the settlements and the expansion of the settlements in the West Bank. I’ve been very outspoken about my opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extremist government, dating back well before Oct. 7 and his judicial overhaul efforts. And I think the military action in Gaza has been way overboard, extremely and increasingly excessive and counterproductive and damaging. But just like people have the right to chant and support Hamas, they have the right to do that under the First Amendment. I don’t think they should, but –

Alyssa Katz
OK, I was gonna say, what they clearly don’t have a right to do is, you know, your district office got attacked multiple times in Brooklyn after the Gaza war had started and after Oct. 7. You got vandalized, and your office moved, right? And I think currently the district office is inside Industry City. It’s not facing the street anymore. It’s kind of in hiding a bit. And I’m wondering why you made that choice and what message that sends? Are we in a city now, and are you kind of participating in a life where people who are viewed as being too friendly to Israel have to go into hiding?

Dan Goldman
I wouldn’t say we’re in hiding. We moved our office to Sunset Park because over 90 percent of our casework was coming from Sunset Park. So we actually wanted to move closer to where the people who were reaching out to us are. My staff was definitely shaken up by the vandalism. I chose to be in this position where that kind of criticism is part of the job. I wouldn’t say vandalism, antisemitic vandalism, should be part of the job, but being in the public eye is something I chose. My staff did not. And so I was very concerned that they felt unsafe going to the office. But the reason we moved was to be closer to the constituents that we were helping the most.

Myles Miller
I want to get back to where we started with the race. Sort of out the gate, this reelection fight has been sort of very negative against Brad Lander, very beloved in the district. Obviously, ran a race for mayor that did not pan out the way he wanted to. With this redistricting fight likely to go the way of this district being changed and you basically running in the 11th, why so negative with Brad Lander when he’s decidedly not negative against you? ...You guys share Berlin Rosen — I mean, he was with Berlin Rosen, now you’re with Berlin Rosen.

Dan Goldman
So, I’m not— I don’t agree with you about the redistricting. I would peg it at much less than 50 percent that ultimately, through all the different hurdles and the timing, that this is resolved before the primary. And I don’t think I’m running a negative campaign. I don’t think I’ve said anything negative about Brad. And–

Myles Miller
Do you think your surrogates have? I mean, I see the stuff on Twitter and all that from campaign officials and, you know—

Dan Goldman
I think we’re running a campaign against someone who’s challenging me and whose record needs to be evaluated and who needs to make a coherent case for why I should be removed from office and why he should take this position. I am running to protect my seat so that I can continue to represent this district, so that I continue doing the work that I’ve done for more than three years.

I have already been endorsed by 80 percent of the NYCHA TA [Tenant Association] presidents of the 31 developments in my district. And I’ve been doing the work to help the people who need it, and I want to continue to do that, and I want to be there on the front lines, which is the primary reason I ran in 2022, to stand up to an increasingly authoritarian government. And if someone is gonna challenge me, they’re gonna have to weather scrutiny. And –

Nicole Gelinas
On the redistricting, that district [NY-11] has been a bellwether, sometimes electing a moderate Republican, but sometimes electing a moderate Democrat. The redistricting would make it essentially impossible for a Republican to win anywhere in New York City, and that means Democrats don’t have to engage with issues that the country is thinking about: more moderate stance on immigration, on transgender issues, are just entirely out of the conversation.

Is that healthy to have…an entirely Democratic city that isn’t thinking about things that the rest of the country is thinking about and voting on?

Dan Goldman
Well, I’m not sure that the new district would be so solidly Democrat. But I think that it’s very important that as the best and most significant and largest city in the country, that New York City set the tone not just locally but nationally, and be a case study for how to govern, what policies are effective.

We can do things in New York City that will have a dramatic impact on the country. And it’s part of the reason why I am so determined to win this race, because I think my vision of a positive, coalition-building Democratic Party that encourages growth and innovation while also making sure that we have a bold agenda to give people access to the American dream that is just not available to too many people, is the path that we should go. And so whether there’s this district or that district or what the constitution of it is matters less to me than what the elected officials’ policies are and goals are.

Nicole Gelinas
So the power that New York already has — Senator Schumer, Congressman Jeffries, are they using that effectively? Do you think they’re doing a good job? And particularly during the open border crisis, which helped get Trump reelected, did they use New York’s power adequately to try to turn that around?

Dan Goldman
It’s a good question. I’m not sure that I have the definitive answer on that. I think that there were a lot of conver– I know there were a lot of conversations. I had conversations with the administration to figure out how to maintain our welcoming immigration system and philosophy while also doing it in an orderly and moderated way.

I think what you are seeing right now, in the House especially, is Hakeem Jeffries really emerging as a strong leader. In many cases, we now really control much of the House floor from the minority, which is incredibly difficult. We have passed three discharge petitions, which is more than what has been passed in the last 30 years.

We last week were able to put on the floor, despite Mike Johnson’s best efforts to stop it, a vote on Trump’s tariffs, and we stopped his really damaging tariffs against Canada, and you will see more and more of that. And so I think as we are moving forward in this Congress in particular, you’re seeing that we’re not only fighting Donald Trump, but that we are figuring out how to be effective from the minority, which is very difficult.

Christina Greer
If the Democrats gain the majority in November, do you think that Hakeem Jeffries should sort-of be the heir apparent [House] speaker, or should it be a competitive process to see who the new speaker will be?

Dan Goldman
Well, I always welcome a competitive process if people feel like they could do a better job, but I strongly believe Hakeem Jeffries should be the speaker.

Ben Smith
We have a couple of immigration questions over here.

Josh Greenman
Assuming that the Democrats do take the House, it’s very clear where you and most Democrats stand on opposing Trump excesses. Can you sketch what the affirmative Democratic agenda ought to look like? Because I think a lot of voters don’t really understand what Democrats stand for. They understand what they stand against.

Dan Goldman
Well, I would start with what I believe is the most fundamental problem, which is the escalating wealth inequality, and it’s part of the reason why I think this Robin Hood bill is a really important start, because I’ve actually gotten some positive feedback from Republicans about it. And so when we’re in divided government, you’ve got to figure out a way to compromise to get anything done. And part of the reason why I’m encouraged about this is that it does tackle the problem of wealth inequality in a way that I think Republicans can potentially swallow.

And the way I approach this job stems from my prosecutorial background, where I couldn’t go into court and just continue to repeat my argument and expect to win. I had to address the opposing side’s arguments and convince a judge that my argument is actually better. And I think what we need to be doing is thinking more creatively about how we can get Republicans on board with our policy objectives, even if it’s for totally different reasons. And that’s the way I’ve approached renewable energy as one example, where renewable energy is as America First as anything you can come up with. When I talk now about renewable energy to Republicans, I don’t talk about climate because they don’t believe in that. I’m not going to convince them that we need renewable energy to fight climate change. But I am going to talk about American manufacturing, investment in America, American jobs, energy independence, lower energy prices, all of the things that they talk about and all of which renewable energy helps to accomplish.

I think in divided government, it’s really important to have creative thinking and real analytical arguments so that we can actually get stuff done and achieve our policy objectives. If the agenda were up to me, we would pass this Robin Hood Act. We would pass universal childcare. We would dramatically increase healthcare and focus much more on federally qualified health centers and community health centers, which are really the centers of preventative medicine for poor people. And the bang for your buck on preventative medicine is so much greater than waiting until someone gets really sick. We need to restore the money that they have cut from Medicaid, but I think that we ought to take this as an opportunity to make it better, not just return to the status quo.

Harry Siegel
You visited the ICE holding cells at the Metropolitan Detention Center in your district for the first time yesterday, Wednesday [February 18], after setting up an appointment with the Bureau of Prisons. Do you wanna just speak to what you saw there, or why you think maybe that diverged a bit from what detainees have described in some of their habeas petitions, and to whether you think you should need an appointment to visit any place where ICE is holding people?

Dan Goldman
Yeah, if it’s OK, I’ll take a quick step back, because I think what this administration is doing with their secret immigration dragnet is so fundamentally un-American and unacceptable that in many ways I think it is becoming the civil rights era of our time. And I very early on recognized the danger of these policies, dating back to last May, when I encountered secret, I mean, I encountered masked plainclothes officers arresting people coming out of court and asked them directly, because I know that I worked for ten years with criminal law enforcement agents who were actually going after murderers and rapists, unlike what this immigration dragnet is doing, why they were wearing masks. ‘Cause none of the agents I ever worked with wore masks. And when I got an answer that kind of mocked the question by saying that it was cold in the lobby of 290 Broadway, I knew we had a problem. And so I quickly introduced the first bill to require ICE to be unmasked, the No Secret Police Act.

And from that point forward, I have really dedicated a tremendous amount of my time to fighting what is an absolute travesty of a process, and that is degrading our entire social fabric, and that was through litigation. Getting back to immigration oversight, when I went to 26 Federal Plaza and was denied access — even though the statute very clearly says that unannounced visits are permissible, we were denied — and I thought it was a complete violation of the law. So even though the minority in Congress does not have enough votes to file a lawsuit on behalf of Congress, ‘cause it’s one entity, I realized that this related to individual members. And so I gathered 11 of my colleagues, and we filed a lawsuit, and we won to get access to oversight unannounced. And the importance of that unannounced oversight I have seen firsthand at 26 Federal Plaza.

They thought I was coming at 10 a.m., the very next day after this court order. I came at 8:45 a.m. There were four cleaning people there, and at first, I, you know, was a little–I don’t know, I was a little wondrous as to what was going on here before that required four cleaning people to hurriedly clean it up. But then I realized that that’s the point of oversight, and that’s the point of unannounced oversight, is they don’t know when we’re coming, and the transparency that we bring is a significant deterrent. And I have been back to 26 Federal Plaza at least once a week since then. We’ve had another moment, blip in the case, and we had to refile the lawsuit and won again.

But unannounced oversight is essential because they need not to be able to prepare for a visit with seven days’ notice. The MDC is a slightly different animal because the BOP, it is a BOP building and BOP’s policies and procedures have always required advance notice. I’ve been there a couple times to do oversight of the MDC, which is a notoriously bad prison, jail. But it was the first time we’d been in there, yesterday, and I thought it was worth it even though we had to make an appointment to see what was going on.

Myles Miller
Can we just go back to last week’s [Homeland Security] hearing, and very sort-of explosive testimony from the Democratic side against folks that you wanted to get in the seats directly after what happened in Minnesota to have that oversight hearing as soon as possible, and [House Homeland Security Chair Rep. Andrew] Garbarino called that hearing really, really quickly.

But I wonder about the language used there saying that Todd Lyons was acting like a fascist. How does that language get you to the point of working with ICE to get reforms? Do they respond well to that? Has it led to any changes that you want to see, with the language of calling the ICE director a fascist? How does that help your case?

Dan Goldman
I didn’t call Todd Lyons fascist himself. But we have tried in every different way to influence and change the draconian policies of DHS right now. And when it escalates to the point where agents are indiscriminately and completely unwarrantedly killing Americans who are not a threat to them, and then the FBI refuses to investigate and blocks the state from investigating, so then you have no accountability for the lawlessness, that is fascism. That is government violence without accountability from the government.

And that’s not what I did. That’s just what I have observed. And I take umbrage with the idea that somehow using inflammatory language is the problem here. That is not the problem.

The problem is what their actions are that meets the definitions of the inflammatory language. I’m calling it as I and many others are seeing it, and I will stand behind the language I use, because when you look at fascism and fascist regimes, they do stop citizens and demand their paperwork. And that is what happened in Nazi Germany, that is what happened in the Soviet Union, and that is what Todd Lyons admitted.

Now, are there other aspects of it? Is it exactly equivalent to Nazi Germany? Of course not. But that is one particular thing that is very similar, and it is as anti-democratic as you can imagine some actions. So the reason I questioned him on that is because the threats to our fundamental values are escalating. And so, you know, last summer, we tried to get ICE to change their tactics. They ignored us. I’ve written numerous letters as part of the Homeland Security Committee to Kristi Noem asking for answers, asking for transparency. I’ve got nothing in return. And so at some point, you know, we’re not gonna be Lucy to Charlie Brown, or –

Ben Smith
Do you see people, whether it’s Noem or whether it’s rank-and-file ICE agents facing criminal charges in a Democratic administration?

Dan Goldman
Well, there’s not gonna be a Democratic administration till 2029. I–

Ben Smith
Do you think there are crimes being committed that will wind up producing federal charges, specifically around immigration?

Dan Goldman
I think there definitely could be. I certainly think it should be investigated. I think frankly it should be investigated right now. I don’t think we need to, we shouldn’t wait. It shouldn’t be partisan. We should not be waiting until a Democratic administration comes in to hold officers accountable for acting way outside of their appropriate duties and responsibilities in shooting and killing Americans who did not pose a threat to their life. That should not be a partisan issue, and I would encourage the FBI right now to do a proper investigation of that and let the facts and the evidence lead that investigation.

Josh Greenman
Aside from those who are killing Americans, to what extent are ICE agents being given what you consider illegal orders, and should they defy illegal orders?

Dan Goldman
Yes. You know, I think that’s part of the transparency, and that’s part of what I will be demanding if we are in the majority next year, is exactly what are those orders? They have not disclosed a lot of their rules of engagement or their directions, but what we have seen is pretty clear that it is lawless. And just like my six colleagues who made the video reaffirming what the obligations are of anyone in the military to reject an illegal order, the domestic law enforcement agents also have to stand up for legality, and they are required to know what the law is. That is part of what their training is, and so they are not excused because they’re being told to do something lawless.

Nicole Gelinas
So we have an asylum and refugee system created for the purposes of after World War II, not created for an age of global migration. How many asylum seekers and refugees can the U.S. realistically absorb each year, not just economically but politically? And if someone came here in 2023, applied for asylum and is rejected for asylum, should that person be deported?

Dan Goldman
So when Secretary Mayorkas came to testify before the Homeland Security Committee last term, two times I specifically asked him: How many asylum applicants ultimately are granted asylum? And the answer is between 20 and 25 percent. So I actually don’t think the problem is how many people are being granted asylum. I think the problem is that the process cannot keep up with the numbers who are applying.

Nicole Gelinas
So should those people not have been admitted entry to the U.S.? What’s going to happen to the rest of those 75 percent of those people?

Dan Goldman
So what we need to do is reform our asylum system along the lines of what [Senators] Chris Murphy and James Lankford’s bipartisan bill would have done to – I actually think it went too far in restricting the timetable, but we have to make the asylum process much more efficient. There’s a huge pull for people to come to the United States to claim asylum to get a work permit, knowing that they’ll be here for seven years.

Nicole Gelinas
What should happen to them?

Dan Goldman
So we need to make the process happen much faster.

Nicole Gelinas
And ultimately, if you are not eligible for asylum—

Dan Goldman
Then you should be deported. Absolutely.

Nicole Gelinas
OK.

Ben Smith
Do you think the Democratic Party is on board with that, broadly?

Dan Goldman
I think the Democratic Party— that there isn’t unity in the way that the Democratic Party approaches immigration. And, you know, that’s part of being a big tent. And my view is that asylum is vital. It is absolutely critical that we are always a country that welcomes refugees and those who are escaping persecution or danger.

But we should not be an open country for anyone who just wants to come in here, and I think we should dramatically increase the number of visas that are for — the wide range of the spectrum, you know, whether it’s agricultural workers or whether it’s scientists and doctors and H-1B visas.

And we need wholesale reform of our immigration system that I fully support, that maintains our values, that maintains what makes this country so special, that maintains the reason -- Part of the reason I love this country so much is that my grandmother escaped antisemitism in Russia and came through Ellis Island, like so many others did, and that’s what makes this country special and unique. And that’s what makes it great, and we have to preserve that, but we have to make sure that it’s happening in an orderly fashion, and that people are not unduly taking advantage of our immigration system.

Ben Smith
Time for a couple more questions.

Liena Žagare
I had a question going back to the first half of Nicole’s question, whether there is a level of immigration that might be politically unsustainable?

Dan Goldman
Politically unsustainable or, you know – I mean, look, there’s the politics and there’s the policy, right? I think that we should have an orderly process, a more orderly process for people entering this country, whether they are entering legally or through asylum or other special-access visas. I do not think that our border should be entirely closed and that nobody should be able to come into our country. I think that’s contrary to our fundamental values. I also don’t think that people should just stream in across the borders and be given work visas and permission to be here.

Josh Greenman
Back to New York. What do you think is the biggest problem facing your district right now?

Dan Goldman
Well, the one thing that I am focused on the most right now and that I hear the most about from my constituents is this immigration dragnet, and I think the work I’ve done in this area is reflective of the way that I approach this job and the way I do this job. I mentioned some of the legislation that I’ve proposed, which also includes prohibiting ICE officers from arresting people coming to court or to check-ins.

I recently introduced a bill that would get rid of qualified immunity for ICE and CBP civil immigration officers, so that there is some accountability that is not being had. I talked about the litigation. I called on the NYPD to be prepared to arrest ICE officers who are acting outside of their duties and responsibilities, which changed the conversation from whether or not the NYPD is helping ICE to whether or not the NYPD is protecting New Yorkers and I think was a significant – it got all the way, you know, Trump was asked about it.

But what I’ve really spent most of my time with over the last several months is this rapid response triage center that we have created in our district office, where we now are working with court watchers, with advocacy groups like New York Immigration Coalition and Make the Road, to bring in and receive the families of anybody who’s been detained, so that they get necessary support that they need, we are able to then coordinate directly with ICE, and we’ve been able to bring medicine in to detainees. We’ve gotten property back that they were unable to get. We’ve helped them supplement their immigration cases.

And we’ve then dealt with Department of Homeless Services to make sure that they have shelter, and we have referred them to lawyers who are working out of our office, who are then able to interview them so that they can file habeas petitions the same day. And we’ve been able to help 17 people get released from immigration detention and reunited with their families.

Josh Greenman
And if ICE descends on New York the way that it has on other cities, what would your recommendation be to Mamdani, specifically, about what New York City’s governmental posture should be?

Dan Goldman
I think the most important thing will be for the NYPD to figure out de-escalatory measures to protect New Yorkers, and I’ve spoken to the NYPD about this directly. And there are ways of doing it that. Begin by a presence and barriers and separating the immigration officers from the civilians. I think there’s going to have to be a massive advocacy and organizational effort to oppose this lawless dragnet that is really intended to terrorize our communities.

And it’s actually even worse than that, because what I believe is that this is all part of a process to give Donald Trump a pretext to cancel the elections. Because he is sending in a militarized ICE agency that is inciting violence, that is inflaming tensions intentionally, so he can then invoke the Insurrection Act and send the military in. So then he can then say, “Well, since we have an invasion and an insurrection and we need the military in our cities, we can’t have an election.”

Josh Greenman
Just one real quick thing on this. You said the NYPD should figure out, like, I don’t know, you might have said the word barriers. Are you saying you want the NYPD to be much more active in preventing there being direct conflicts–

Dan Goldman
Yes.

Josh Greenman
–like filming conflicts that we saw in Minnesota between civilians and ICE? And if so, what role does that put the NYPD in vis-à-vis ICE?

Dan Goldman
Well, I think that the NYPD needs to remember that its number one responsibility is to protect New Yorkers. And if there are federal agents who are acting completely outside of the law to put New Yorkers in danger, I think the NYPD needs to figure out a way to protect New Yorkers within the sort of reasonable restrictions and considerations that exist.

So yes, I think the NYPD, I think there should be more of a presence on the streets if we see something like we saw in Minnesota. What you saw in Minnesota was outrageous, excessive use of force. When people are in cars trying to get away, or even if they’re blocking, that they’re breaking windows, yanking them out of their cars, injuring them, arresting them –

Ben Smith
So would you have a local police officer dive into that situation and tackle the ICE agent? I just want to paint a picture–

Dan Goldman
No. You’ve got to be realistic here, that we don’t want a situation where one law-enforcement agency is having a confrontation or even worse, with another law-enforcement agency. I think the presence there, and de-escalatory measures, can make a big difference. What ICE needs right now, what ICE officers need and agents need, in addition to proper training, proper instructions, legitimate qualifications, removing their masks, etc., is a deterrent. They need to know that they will be held accountable if they act outside of the law, because right now they believe they are acting with impunity, and that’s why accountability is so important.

That’s why I introduced the ICE Out Act to provide some measure of civil accountability. And if there’s a presence, law enforcement presence that is designed to de-escalate situations, I think there are ways of doing that without having a physical confrontation that can be effective.

Ben Max
Let me come back to the race here, we’re about four months from primary day, and it ties in with some of the issues we’ve been talking about, where electoral meets policy issues and your stances.

In this primary, assuming it goes forward as designed, you’ll likely do very well in the Manhattan portion of the district, and if you were to lose this primary it would be because there would be a huge groundswell in sort-of Brownstone Brooklyn in support of your opponent and against you, and likely very much spurred — tell me if you agree or disagree with this — by where you’ve stood on the Israel-Gaza conflict, and where you’ve spoken out or not spoken out. And of course, that ties in as well with your views on Mayor Mamdani and how he’s approached the issues as you talked about as your biggest concern about him. Do you agree with that assessment, that that would be, if you were going to lose this race, that would be how it would happen and why? Or do you have a different assessment of the political meets policy stance elements of this race?

Dan Goldman
I don’t believe it breaks down as cleanly, borough versus borough, as you’re saying. And I think that – well, first of all, when you look at my policy record, it is very much in line with the district. I’m one of the most progressive members of the House, based on my record.

Ben Max
Well, that’s why I’m bringing up this one—

Dan Goldman
So as it relates to Israel, I think it’s important for people to understand exactly what my view is. And my view is that what has happened in Gaza is an absolute travesty. It is horrific to see the destruction. It is horrific to see the death, and it has been awful to watch, and I think that the Israeli government has used excessive military action during this conflict. I strongly oppose this Israeli government and the actions and the approach that it has taken, and especially recently what’s going on in the West Bank.

I have always believed strongly in a two-state solution, because I believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and as a democracy, and the only way that can happen, in my view, is if there is also a state for Palestinians, and they deserve self-determination as much as Israelis do.

I strongly, though, do believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, the only Jewish state in the world, and my definition of Zionism that I grew up with is very simple, which is that Jews have a right to have a state of their own in their ancestral homeland, but not to the exclusion of anybody else, and there shouldn’t be the exclusion of anybody else.

And so I am optimistic that the ceasefire can hold, and it presents, actually, the best opportunity for Palestinian self-determination since 2000, and I’m going to continue to advocate strongly for this ceasefire, which really was constructed by the Biden administration.

Now, I was much less publicly vocal on these issues during the Biden administration because I had a direct line into the seniormost national security officials, and I was advocating in private where I thought I could be more effective. This is an issue that I view purely from a policy and non-political perspective ‘cause it’s so important to my core values and so many of my constituents.

But since Trump has come along, given Bibi much more of a free rein, I was – With the Biden administration, I was strongly advocating putting more demands on humanitarian aid, and I thought that Israel all along should be providing much more humanitarian aid. I’ve become much more vocal about that during the Trump administration, ‘cause I don’t have a line –

Josh Greenman
Or else what? Would there be U.S. consequences if not?

Dan Goldman
Yes, I think that, as with any diplomatic relationship, that there needs to be an understanding and a partnership. And I think frankly, even though he begrudgingly did it during the Biden administration, Prime Minister Netanyahu did significantly surge humanitarian aid when the president demanded it of him.

And I think that we also have to recognize the importance of Israel as our only democratic ally in a region where it’s not just Israel that neighbors want to eviscerate, it’s also the United States. It’s important for our national security. Iran calls Israel Little Satan and calls the United States Big Satan, and these are mostly Iranian proxies who surround Israel and want it to be eliminated.

And so I think Israel’s security is a much more complicated question than so-called offensive or defensive weapons, because I do not believe that Israel should be left to defend itself based on the Iron Dome itself, without the opportunity to have a deterrent effect of being able to either preemptively or reactively respond to attacks.

That being said, I do not think that this Israeli government should continue with its military operation, and the ceasefire prevents them from doing it. Now, there have been obvious, significant issues with the ceasefire, and I think Israel has overreacted and used far more force than is appropriate in response to what they deem to be Hamas violations. But we are now in a point where the crux of the military operation is over, and what we need to be doing, and what I would urge President Trump to do, is to widen the scope of investment in the rebuilding of Gaza, make sure that we are including our allies in Europe, in addition to the Arab states – that this does not become another avenue for him to grift.

Alyssa Katz
I was going to ask you about the Board of Peace. I mean, it’s meeting [today, February 19], right? You’re calling on Trump to take these actions. Is the Board of Peace a viable vehicle for this, or what do you make of it?

Dan Goldman
I think the Board of Peace, in theory, hypothetically, is a viable pathway. I think the way it is constructed right now is problematic, because we are going to need — there’s not going to be Palestinian self-determination based on the United States and Israel alone crafting an outcome or a deal.

What we need is the expansion of the Abraham Accords. We need Arab states to invest, both financially but also politically. But we also need support from the broader international community, so that everybody is invested in the same ultimate outcome.

And what I worry about is, as with everything, Donald Trump is looking at his own pocketbook and his own personal interests far more than he is looking at the best outcome for the Middle East.

And it is a grave mistake for him to exclude European allies from the Board of Peace, and I think the Board of Peace needs to – he needs to stop focusing on how much money the members of the Board of Peace are putting in and focus on putting together a strong coalition that can provide the political and governing and security support so that there can be a state in Gaza.

Christina Greer
This is an incredibly important issue for your district, but what would you identify as, say, three other really important issues for your district? And also, what’s your internal polling telling you about your primary race?

Dan Goldman
We don’t have any internal polling that is recent at all. And I think the issues— I actually, it’s interesting, if you look at an open-ended issue list, Israel and Gaza is not high on the list.

What is high is democracy, is, well now, ICE and the immigration dragnet, and issues of affordability, housing crisis, generally, you know, too many people literally not being able to survive much less succeed in our city. And so that’s certainly what I’m focused on, and because I think those are the issues that really matter.

And what’s important for everyone to understand is, the job in Congress is a complicated one because in city government, state government, you essentially have supermajorities of Democrats who are required to have a balanced budget and need to figure out how you’re chopping up that budget.

In Washington, it is a totally different animal, with Republicans very powerful, in this case in control, and no budget that you need to necessarily chop up. I mean, effectively, it works that way in some ways, but it’s a very different environment.

And I firmly believe that the way that I have approached this job, which is using my position in Congress effectively and aggressively, in collaboration with advocacy groups, with outside groups, which are really, really important to the overall goal that we have of preserving our democracy, of tackling wealth inequality, of lifting up all New Yorkers, has been an effective way of going about it. Because I was able, for example, to use my relationships with the Republicans to reopen Empire Wind 1, the offshore wind project in South Brooklyn, that was well on its way back in April or May when the Trump administration paused it the first time. I have been able, even in the minority, to get the largest infrastructure grant ever given to EDC [the New York City Economic Development Corporation] for the Brooklyn Marine Terminal. I’ve been able to help to make sure the IRS reimburses small businesses for tax credits that they were owed from COVID. The list goes on.

I’ve done a lot of work on the local level, advocating for my constituents in Chinatown and in NYCHA, in Sunset Park. We’ve created a lot of mobile office hours that go out into communities that are traditionally underserved. So we go where they are, so they understand what services we can provide, because too many of them don’t think government is a force for good, it’s just a force for bad, and we’re trying to change that.

And it’s part of the reason why I was very proud in my launch event to have, you know, more than 200 community members from more than 10 different NYCHA developments in Chinatown, and Lower East Side, and Sunset Park, who were there for my launch because that’s where I’ve really invested my time in those relationships. And it’s been a true honor and privilege to be able to really see a meaningful difference on the ground for the communities that really need it.

And that’s what I’m gonna continue to do, and I’m gonna use my position in Congress to bring in outside groups, as we have done with our triage center, and to coordinate.

But it would be a waste of my position in Congress if all I focused on was leading outside protests without also using the power that I have and the platform I have to bring real change, which I will continue to push for as long as I’m in office.

Ben Smith
Final slightly, maybe, oddball question. Your first cousin, friend, Dan Lurie, is probably the most successful, politically speaking, executive in the country right now. Mayor of San Francisco, doing remarkably well. Curious if there are lessons Mayor Mamdani, New York, can draw from him and his experience?

Dan Goldman
I think he’s one of a number of mayors around the country that are really using their opportunities to both address the problems, but do it in a really pragmatic and constructive way. And what Democrats around the country need to show is that we can govern when we’re given that opportunity.

And I think what you see, for example, from the housing crisis in New York City, is either an unwillingness or an inability to accept the realities of our limitations, and figure out a way to still move forward. I think that’s what he’s done. I think Mayor Mike Johnston in Denver has done a really good job with that. And I think it’s important that we have really pragmatic and practical leaders who are focused much more on results, even if it may be somewhat incremental, but are still determined to improve people’s lives rather than holding out for the most significant disruption that you can imagine.

Ben Smith
Would you ever run for mayor of New York?

Dan Goldman
I don’t know.

Ben Smith
All right. On that note, thank you.