Eric Adams Is Making His Last Stand

Hello it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️

It has been quite a week for embattled New York City Mayor Eric Adams. 

After a term full of indictments, defiant “earring-wearing swagger,” an extraordinary reversal from the Justice Department, and even potato chip bags filled with cash, Adams’ chances of re-election this year are looking grim. He’s polling fourth behind the progressive Democratic Party nominee, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, who is his whole own story.

The mayoral race has had plenty of twists and turns so far including Mamdani’s insurgent victory, Adams avoiding the Democratic primary by running as an independent, and Cuomo also mounting an independent bid after losing the nomination to Mamdani. And, this week, there was another dramatic subplot as reports emerged that President Donald Trump was considering offering both Adams and Sliwa jobs to abandon their longshot campaigns since many on the center and right are not pleased with the prospect of Mamdani in City Hall. The reasoning offered by advocates of the scheme was that polling indicates Cuomo has a better shot in a head-to-head general election race with Mamdani than in the current contest (or than the ex-governor had in the primary he previously lost).

It’s all pretty convoluted and was made even more complex by a series of legal technicalities related to the ballot. 

As Adams was reportedly set to be offered an ambassadorship to Saudi Arabia, TPM spent Friday talking to experts who noted that ballots have to be printed in about two weeks. The best shot for Adams to have his name removed have involved declaring that he was no longer going to be a resident of New York City on Election Day, which is Nov. 4. While Eric Adams’ residency has long been a bit of an open question, if he officially admitted not being a New Yorker, it would require immediately stepping down from the mayoralty. That would pave the way for the public advocate, Jumaane Williams, who is another progressive Democrat, to take over on an interim basis. It also would mean that the general election winner would take office the moment the results were certified rather than at the beginning of the year. And, at every turn, there was a high chance of court fights. 

As the plan made headlines and more details of supposed negotiations leaked out, Adams ramped up the speculation by announcing a sudden press conference on Friday afternoon. However, once he stepped out in front of Gracie Mansion, Adams made it clear he was not headed for Riyadh — and that he blamed Cuomo for the rumors swirling around his candidacy.

“There has been so much speculation, communications, announcements of what I am doing,” Adams began, adding, “I want to be clear with you, Andrew Cuomo is a snake and a liar. I am in this race and I am the only one that can beat Mamdani.” 

Adams pointed to a prop to underscore his point. 

“This polo shirt that I am wearing that says ‘Eric Adams, Mayor of the City of New York,’ I’m going to wear that for another four years,” Adams said.

Technically, the polo shirt actually bore Adams’ name and a seal that said “City of New York Office of the Mayor” on the front. Still, Adams made his intention to stick around and fight to keep his job clear, especially as he turned back into his residence and revealed massive all caps lettering on the back of his polo that said: “MAYOR.”

TPM texted Mamdani to ask if he would also wear the polo if he is elected in November. Mamdani did not immediately respond.

— Hunter Walker

Here’s what else TPM has on draft this weekend:

• A look at where things stand with the legal battle over the Trump administration’s efforts to take the power of the purse away from Congress.
• It appears as though Democrats have, at least for now, chosen to push for an extension of the Obamacare enhanced premium tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year in exchange for helping to keep the government open.
• With the recent attack on a boat off the coast of Venezuela this week, President Trump is making good on threats against that country that his advisers were able to contain during his first administration. Not so in Trump II.

Let’s dig in.

Trump’s Effort to Steal Congress’ Power Zips Through the Courts

The Trump administration awaits a decision from the D.C. Circuit on its attempt to unilaterally freeze spending Congress has already allocated, just two days after being swatted down by a district court. 

“In light of the exigencies, we request relief from this Court by 5 PM tomorrow,” the administration wrote in a Thursday filing. “Absent relief from this Court, the Solicitor General intends to seek relief from the Supreme Court as early as practicable on Monday.”

An existing case over impoundments violations has expanded to include the administration’s new attempt to use a “pocket rescission,” the brainchild Russ Vought claims lets the president cancel whatever appropriations he likes, so long as he does it right at the end of the fiscal year. Experts say that the legal arguments behind it are bogus. 

The D.C. Circuit panel — one Biden appointee, one Obama appointee and one Trump appointee — have requested a response to the Trump DOJ’s motion to freeze the unfriendly ruling from the district court by 5:00 p.m. Friday. 

This case will be before the Supreme Court soon, where the right-wing majority will have to decide whether it’s willing to greenlight an egregious violation of the separation of powers in service of beefing up the Trump presidency.

— Kate Riga

Trump Out-Hawked John Bolton on Venezuela

The Trump administration is trying very hard to draw attention to Venezuela. It blew up a boat off the country’s coast this week — under a dubious law enforcement justification — purportedly with 11 people on board (were they drug smugglers or migrants? Who knows). It’s moving warships, a nuclear submarine, and a squadron of fighter planes near the country. One Fox News reporter even suggested on Twitter that the military is preparing for war.

In light of this, I decided to look back at what ideas Trump and those around him had for Venezuela in his first term. That’s partly because of a pattern we’ve all noticed this time around: plans and impulses that Trump advisers contained during the first term are now being implemented. The White House still lacks focus, but there’s very little restraint.

So, how does that apply to Venezuela?

I took a look at news reports and two books written by Trump I national security officials, one by former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and the other by former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. What’s striking is that both portray Trump as wanting military action against Venezuela. It’s left to other officials to distract him or clean up the mess; even Bolton repeats his view that military force was a “non-starter” contra Trump.

To Esper, Trump viewed overthrowing Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, whose government the U.S. does not recognize, as a “bucket list item.” Some of this is familiar: “We should get the oil,” he quotes Trump as saying. At one point, Esper wrote, officials contemplated organizing “a naval show of force in the Caribbean” to intimidate the Venezuelan government.

Bolton spends much of the book mocking nearly everyone else in the administration as a bumbling moron or, worse, a closet liberal. Trump falls in the former category, but even Bolton’s desire for “consistent, all-out, unrelenting pressure” seems dovish compared to the president musing that Venezuela is “really part of the United States.”

“I explained why military force was not the answer,” Bolton wrote of his response.

As odd as it is to see Bolton in the role of peacemaker, it raises real questions about how far we might be headed here; and whether this is purely a show of force or something more.

— Josh Kovensky

Trump Power Grab Looms Over Gov’t Funding Negotiations

Congress is back and negotiations to fund the government for the next fiscal year and avoid a government shutdown before the end of the month are ongoing. A short-term continuing resolution is looking more and more like the most realistic option for Republicans. But the reality is, they will need a handful of Democratic votes to keep the government open no matter what path they choose.

Democrats are seemingly leaning into an ask that would protect health care for Americans in exchange for their votes to fund the government. Specifically, they are pushing to extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium tax credits that are set to expire at the end of 2025.

But amid that push, the Trump White House and Russ Vought’s Office of Management and Budget continue to lawlessly impound funds previously appropriated by Congress and engage in an illegal pocket rescission scheme. 

The Trump administration’s apathetic stomping on Congress’ power of the purse looms over government funding negotiations — even though many Democrats are not publicly elevating that narrative to force Republicans to do something about the power grab. So far Democrats haven’t publicly laid out a demand that might attempt to mandate an end to the administration’s lawless funding freezes, impoundments and pocket rescissions in exchange for helping Republicans avoid a shutdown.

A former Dem staffer told TPM they think the decision to focus on healthcare may be intentional as they let the judicial branch decide it is illegal and shut it down. A federal judge on Wednesday declared President Trump’s pocket rescission gambit to be illegal, which the Trump administration quickly appealed.

Internal negotiations will likely still involve conversations around how lawmakers can reach a bipartisan funding deal when the executive branch refuses to spend federal funds in the way that Congress allocates them.

When asked if the recent pocket rescissions request — and the fact that some Republicans are claiming that Vought’s maneuver is legal — will become a sticking point in the ongoing negotiations to fund the government, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told TPM: “I think it’s a point of friction, but I’m not prepared to articulate any red lines to you.”

— Emine Yücel