[Video below.] NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani publicly aligned himself with striking nurses on Monday, stepping directly into a contentious labor fight by walking the picket line with thousands of private-hospital nurses across New York City, the NY Post reports.
By doing so, the mayor set himself against the leadership of Mount Sinai, NewYork-Presbyterian, and Montefiore Medical Center, criticizing hospital executives as among “the wealthiest in the entire city” and arguing that “these executives are not having difficulty making ends meet.”
“The hospital executives who run these hospitals, the ones where these hardworking nurses are asking for what they deserve, these executives are not having difficulty making ends meet,” Mamdani said while standing with striking workers outside NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in Washington Heights.
“But for too many of the 15,000 NYSNA nurses who are on strike, they are not able to make their ends meet,” he added. “They are not asking for a multimillion-dollar salary.”
Outside the Manhattan hospital, thousands of nurses dressed in red gathered in a noisy demonstration, blowing noisemakers and chanting as they waved signs reading “At least the blood on our hands washes off” and “Nurses are the beating heart of the medical system.”
The labor dispute between hospital administrators and the New York State Nurses Association has grown increasingly hostile, with both sides accusing the other of greed over pay, benefits, and staffing levels. The tensions boiled over Monday as roughly 15,000 nurses formally walked off the job.
“They bragged that they spent $100 million to hire out-of-town nurses to replace us while we strike,” said NYSNA president Nancy Hagans.
“They could have easily have put that money toward our health insurance,” she said. “Nurses are asking for safe staffing. We’re asking for work protection against workplace violence. We’re asking for the greedy CEOs not to take away our medical coverage.”
Mamdani’s decision to publicly back nurses employed by private hospitals drew criticism from opponents, who questioned why a mayor responsible for the city’s public hospital system would intervene in such a charged dispute. His move contrasted with Mayor Eric Adams’ decision to stay neutral during a nurses’ strike in 2023.
“Who does he think is going to help these patients during a strike? … Communist angels?” former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said. “People are gonna die because of it.
“A mayor shouldn’t go on a picket line for people on strike who are needed to deliver critical services,” Giuliani told The Post. “He should be pushing for arbitration to get a settlement.”
One hospital official, speaking anonymously, warned that the mayor’s support could eventually rebound against him.
“Ultimately, the Mayor will learn that his public hospitals are next in line to face NYSNA’s costly and unsustainable demands—leaving taxpayers to pick up an even bigger tab,” the source said.
The standoff between the three major hospital systems and the union began with sharp accusations, including claims from one hospital network that the union is trying to shield impaired workers from discipline.
Montefiore Medical Center alleged that NYSNA was striking in part to block stronger penalties for staff who report to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
“NYSNA leadership’s demand that a nurse not be terminated if found to be compromised by drugs or alcohol while on the job is another example of putting their own self-interest before patient safety,” Montefiore said in a statement to The Post on Monday.
The union forcefully rejected the charge, accusing the hospital of smearing its workforce.
“Montefiore’s desperate attempt to slander New York City’s nurse heroes shows just how low they are willing to go to avoid settling fair contracts that protect Bronx patients and nurses,” NYSNA said.
“Montefiore nurses are fighting for safe staffing and protections from workplace violence,” the statement continued. “Meanwhile, hospital executives show their disrespect for nurses by refusing to agree to our proposals to protect patient and nurse safety, and blatantly mischaracterizing one of our basic workplace proposals, which hospitals around the city and state have already adopted. If Montefiore wants to demonize and stigmatize substance use disorders, then they shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a healthcare facility.”
WATCH:
{Matzav.com}
President Trump announced a sweeping trade embargo against Iran on Monday, acting as lawmakers from both parties urged him to respond forcefully to the deadly crackdown on anti-government protesters across the country.
“Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“This Order is final and conclusive. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
The announcement comes as Trump weighs a range of possible responses to the unrest in Iran, including both diplomatic engagement and military action. According to a source familiar with internal discussions, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and senior National Security Council officials met Friday to assemble a “suite of options” for the president, with potential airstrikes among them.
“One thing President Trump is very good at is always keeping all of his options on the table and airstrikes would be one of the many, many options on the table for the commander in chief,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday.
Although Iran is already subject to extensive U.S. sanctions, the newly announced tariffs could significantly deepen its economic strain, particularly as unrest has intensified following the collapse of the local currency.
China remains Iran’s largest trading partner, accounting for more than a quarter of its total trade, according to World Bank data.
Other key commercial partners include Iraq, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and India.
Questions remain about how rigorously the new policy will be enforced.
Trump has previously moved to penalize countries purchasing Russian oil in an effort to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine, but that policy has been unevenly implemented.
At least 544 people have been killed during Iran’s protests, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency. Of those deaths, 496 were protesters and 48 were members of security forces.
At the same time, Trump is considering diplomatic overtures from Tehran, Leavitt said, as he decides whether to authorize military strikes.
Trump has repeatedly warned that he may step in to protect demonstrators. Speaking to reporters Sunday, he said that “Iran called to negotiate yesterday” and that “a meeting is being set up, but we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting.”
Leavitt said the outreach was directed to special envoy Steve Witkoff and described it as markedly different from Iran’s public posture.
“There was an official from the Iranian government… that reached out to a member of the president’s very close team, special envoy Witkoff, expressing a far different tone than what you’re seeing publicly,” she said.
Publicly, Iranian leaders have struck a confrontational tone. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said “we are completely prepared” for war, while parliament speaker Baqer Qalibaf warned that Iran would “discipline” Trump.
“Diplomacy is always the first option for the president… What you’re hearing publicly from the Iranian regime is quite different from the messages the administration is receiving privately. I think the president has an interest in exploring those messages,” Leavitt said.
She added that Trump “has shown he’s unafraid to use military options if and when he deems necessary and nobody knows that better than Iran,” pointing to the June 22 U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
“He certainly doesn’t want to see people being killed in the streets of Tehran. And unfortunately that’s something we are seeing right now,” Leavitt said.
Trump’s warnings of possible military intervention drew growing support on Capitol Hill Monday, even as an internet shutdown in Iran made it difficult to assess the latest developments on the ground.
“The reports coming out of Iran are horrific and absolutely unacceptable,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told The Post. “Yet many people don’t seem to care unless it involves Israel.
“I urge the Trump Administration to take immediate action to stop the killing of innocent civilians who are demanding freedom and liberty.”
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) voiced confidence in the administration’s approach, saying Trump “has made clear that America stands with the Iranian people and I trust him and Secretary Rubio to take the proper actions to support freedom.”
“After last year’s decisive strike and our recent actions in Venezuela, the Ayatollah should have learned Donald J. Trump doesn’t play games. Together, we will Make Persia Great Again.”
Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have cautioned against escalation, but support for intervention appears stronger than during last year’s crisis in Venezuela.
“If it continues to make more sense, absolutely,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) told CNN on Monday when asked whether Trump should intervene. “Iran is one of the world’s top terrorist underwriters. You now have that poisonous regime in a spiral, so why wouldn’t we want to support that and those brave protesters?”
One of the most vocal advocates for decisive action has been Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally, who argues the moment presents a rare chance to reshape the Middle East and back Iranians who have lived under repression for decades.
“It is not enough to say we stand with the people of Iran,” Graham wrote on X. “The only right answer here is that we act decisively to protect protestors in the street—and that we’re not Obama—proving to them we will not tolerate their slaughter without action.”
“President Trump has been the first president to openly side with the people against the regime. That will be seen in history as the ultimate game changer,” Graham continued. “This is the best chance since 1979 to change the course of the Middle East. It is about acting decisively on their behalf.”
{Matzav.com}
