Oscar-Winning Actor Jon Voight Urges Trump to Stop Muslim Mayor-Elect Mamdani, Calls Him a ‘Communist Fool’

President Trump can work in tandem with Congress to invoke the Communist Control Act (CCA) of 1954. According to right-wing proponents of such a move, the CCA grants the government broad powers to disempower individuals and organizations in order to protect the stability, cohesiveness, and civil well-being of the nation.

Under the plain text of the CCA, Congress and the President retain full authority to determine whether an organization constitutes a “Communist-action” or “Communist-front” entity whose objective is the overthrow or sabotage of constitutional government, and to extinguish “all rights, privileges, and immunities” of such entities and those who knowingly and willfully participate in them. Where intelligence findings establish that a candidate has been an active participant in, or materially assisted, an organization that meets the statutory criteria of a Communist-front group—whether through formal membership, operational support, or strategic coordination—Congress may issue the requisite designation and, with presidential concurrence, trigger the statutory disqualification. Because the Act explicitly denies such individuals any legal immunities or entitlements under federal or state law, and because holding public office is indisputably a legal entitlement created by statute and state constitution, Congress may lawfully determine that such a person is barred from assuming office. This is not a “bill of attainder,” as the CCA is already-existing, generally applicable legislation requiring factual findings of affiliation. Nor does it violate the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may proscribe association with groups dedicated to violent overthrow of the United States. Thus, upon a congressional finding and presidential certification that Mamdani knowingly supported or participated in the activities of a group meeting the statutory definition, his assumption of office may be lawfully precluded under federal supremacy, notwithstanding state electoral results.

The left-wing opponents of such an act by the president and Congress would likely read as follows: Any attempt to invoke the Communist Control Act to block a duly elected individual from taking office would be an unconstitutional nullification of democratic choice, a textbook bill of attainder, and an unlawful attempt to resurrect a statute that is functionally defunct. The CCA’s broad declarations have long been regarded as unenforceable, incompatible with modern First Amendment jurisprudence, void for vagueness, and in many applications already judicially invalidated. The Act’s denial of “rights and privileges” cannot be stretched into an implied power to remove an elected official—no such mechanism exists in the text, nor could one survive due process scrutiny. Removal from office is governed exclusively by state constitutional processes, federal constitutional disqualification clauses, and established judicial procedures—not by congressional label-making. To wield the CCA against an individual based on ideological alignment, association, or political speech would be an unconstitutional penalty on lawful political expression and an impermissible circumvention of the electorate’s will. Such an act would be struck down immediately, and its attempt alone would constitute one of the most radical assaults on representative government in modern American history.

Democracy has spoken, and the people made a stupid decision. All we can do now is learn from this mistake and support a viable Republican in the primaries next time around. (If nobody wants to run, we draw lots to see who has to do it.)