Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) just threw a curveball at the Democratic Party’s latest rising star, New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, by declaring he doesn’t speak for the party.
On a recent Sunday interview with "Fox News Sunday," Smith made it crystal clear that while the Democratic Party is a broad coalition, Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, isn’t the voice of their sprawling tent, the Hill reported.
Let’s rewind to July 1, 2025, when Mamdani clinched the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, a win that raised eyebrows among more moderate party members. Smith, ever the pragmatist, didn’t mince words about the optics of Mamdani’s progressive stance dominating the party’s image. It’s a fair concern when every soundbite risks being spun as gospel for an entire political movement.
“Look, the mayor of New York has never, ever been the leader of the Democratic Party,” Smith stated plainly. With all due respect to the Big Apple, that’s a sharp reminder that one city’s choice doesn’t dictate a national agenda, especially not when it veers hard left. It’s a polite but firm nudge to keep local politics just that: local.
“Mamdani isn’t speaking for our party, any more than I’m speaking for our party,” Smith added with a nod to the party’s diversity. Fair enough, but let’s be real—when a democratic socialist grabs headlines, it’s easy for the average voter to assume he’s the new face of the Democrats. That’s a branding problem Smith seems eager to tackle.
Smith didn’t stop at party identity; he pivoted to policy, urging Democrats to zero in on core issues rather than get sidetracked by individual voices. It’s a call for focus in a political landscape where distraction is the name of the game. Wise advice, considering how quickly narratives can spiral.
Shifting gears, Smith directly criticized President Trump’s immigration record, arguing that Trump is “underwater” on the issue with the public. Specifically, he emphasized that the administration added a staggering $170 billion in spending for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), tied to a major bill Trump signed on July 4, 2025. That’s a hefty price tag for border security, and Smith made clear he doesn’t believe it’s money well spent.
“He’s now spending $170 billion more on ICE,” Smith said, further linking the figure to broader fiscal concerns. For example, he noted that for conservatives who champion limited government, that number raises a red flag—spending like a sailor doesn’t exactly reflect fiscal restraint. Consequently, Smith’s critique could resonate even with Trump’s base if the outcomes fail to align with the administration’s rhetoric.
Moreover, Smith didn’t stop there. He accused Trump of using high-profile ICE raids to “terrorize communities” instead of addressing real problems. Admittedly, his language was deliberately forceful, but Smith underscored a valid concern about effectiveness—are these raids actually delivering security, or are they simply fueling fear and resentment? Ultimately, it’s a question conservatives should consider, even if they strongly support tougher immigration enforcement.
“He’s spending all this money now on going around and terrorizing communities with high-profile ICE raids, which are not effective,” Smith argued. Effectiveness matters, and if these operations are alienating more people than they’re protecting, that’s a strategic misstep—something any policy-minded conservative can critique without abandoning principle.
Smith claims these raids have soured public opinion on Trump’s immigration stance, a point that’s hard to ignore when trust is currency in politics. If the goal is border security, winning hearts and minds matters just as much as boots on the ground. Losing the PR battle is a loss, period.
Still, let’s not pretend Smith’s motives are purely analytical—he’s pushing a Democratic counter-narrative to shift focus. That’s politics 101, and while his critique of Trump’s approach has merit, it’s also a convenient way to dodge scrutiny of his own party’s border policies, or lack thereof.
“We, Democrats, have a message, and we have a message to deliver,” Smith insisted, doubling down on the need for party discipline. Admirable in theory, but when your tent is as big as he claims, crafting a unified message feels like herding cats, especially with voices like Mamdani’s pulling left.
Smith’s final jab was subtle but pointed: the mayor of New York, whoever it may be, won’t lead the Democratic Party. It’s a not-so-gentle reminder to Mamdani and his supporters that local wins don’t equate to national clout, a reality check that even conservatives can appreciate when progressive agendas overreach.
At the end of the day, Smith’s comments reflect a deeper tension within the Democratic Party—a struggle to balance its diverse voices without letting the far left steer the ship. For conservatives watching from the sidelines, it’s a popcorn-worthy drama, but also a cautionary tale about the perils of ideological sprawl. Let’s see if the Democrats can heed Smith’s call to focus, or if their big tent becomes a circus instead.
