Can Mayor Mamdani Be Removed? Here’s What the Law Actually Says

NEW YORK (VINnews) – In the wake of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s sharp condemnation of President Trump’s historic military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program — strikes widely hailed as a decisive blow for freedom and global security — many New Yorkers are asking a pointed question: Can a mayor who appears more sympathetic to the totalitarian Iranian regime than to the cause of liberty and US security – be removed from office?

The answer, according to the New York City Charter, is yes — and the mechanisms are more straightforward than many realize.

The Governor’s Power: Section 9

Under Section 9 of the New York City Charter, the governor of New York State has the authority to remove the mayor from office “upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.” While the charges are being prepared and adjudicated, the governor may suspend the mayor for up to thirty days.

This provision exists for good reason. The framers of the City Charter understood that a mayor who fails to faithfully serve the interests of the city’s residents — or who uses his office to undermine national security and align himself with hostile foreign powers — must be held accountable by a higher authority.

Will the Governor Act? Not Yet — But the Pressure Is Building

Realistically, Governor Hochul is unlikely to invoke Section 9 tomorrow morning. She has publicly maintained that she wants a “productive relationship” with the mayor, telling NY1 that while they “may not agree on everything, or even many things sometimes,” she intends to keep working with City Hall.

But the governor may find that posture increasingly untenable — and she may have less reason to protect Mamdani than many assume. In recent weeks, the mayor has, to put it bluntly, stabbed the governor in the back.

Just days ago, Mamdani threatened to raise property taxes by 9.5% to close a $5.4 billion city budget gap — and then orchestrated a campaign to pin the blame squarely on the governor. His allies and grassroots supporters took to Albany and city streets pushing the message that any property tax hike would be “Hochul’s homeowner taxes.” One DSA operative publicly declared that it would be “Kathy Hochul’s choice” whether homeowners get soaked — despite the fact that the property tax proposal originated entirely from Mamdani’s own budget office.

The cynicism of this maneuver is breathtaking.

Only weeks earlier, Mamdani had endorsed Hochul for reelection — a move that torpedoed the primary challenge from Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado, who was running to her left. Having secured her flank for her by killing off her primary opponent, Mamdani then turned around and used the budget process to publicly humiliate her, issuing what amounted to an ultimatum: approve my tax-the-rich scheme, or I’ll make you own a crushing property tax hike on working families.

Political strategists from both parties noted that Mamdani’s gambit put Hochul “in an untenable position that, frankly, can cost her office.” As one publication noted, Mamdani “demonstrated his skill in slipping a stiletto into the back of a political ally.”

And the property tax proposal itself has generated fury across the five boroughs. Queens homeowners protested in the streets, with one Cambria Heights resident declaring, “You ran on affordability. This is not affordability. This is actually suicide for us right here in southeast Queens.” The Comptroller called it “a pretty extreme option.” The Queens Borough President called it “absolutely a non-starter.” A homeowner in Addisleigh Park put it more colorfully: “I can’t imagine that this man would really want to do this, but if he does, he would be a one-term mayor.”

The business community is equally appalled. Real estate leaders warned that even the discussion of a 9.5% hike is enough to rattle buyer behavior and chill investment. The Wall Street Journal’s editor-at-large, Gerry Baker, warned on national television that the plan would be “catastrophic” and predicted an accelerated exodus of taxpayers from the city.

This is the pressure that could ultimately move the governor. Hochul faces reelection, and her base includes homeowners across the five boroughs and the suburbs who are watching with alarm. If the business community, the real estate industry, homeowner groups, and ordinary New Yorkers enraged by the property tax threat unite in demanding accountability — not just for the tax proposal, but for the mayor’s appalling response to the Iran strikes — the governor may find that her “productive relationship” with Mamdani is a luxury she can no longer afford.

In fact, acting on this right will virtually guarantee her re-election, as every home-owner in New York City would vote for her.

The Inability Committee: A Path From Within

The Charter also establishes an internal mechanism. Section 10 creates a Committee on Mayoral Inability, composed of the Corporation Counsel, the Comptroller, the Speaker of the City Council, a deputy mayor designated by the mayor, and the borough president with the longest consecutive service. If four of these five members sign a written declaration that the mayor is unable to discharge his duties, the process of removal — temporary or permanent — can begin.

For a permanent inability finding, the matter then goes to the Panel on Mayoral Inability, which consists of all members of the City Council. A two-thirds vote of the full Council is required to declare the mayor permanently unable to serve, at which point the office is deemed vacant.

Notably, several of these officials have already publicly broken with the mayor. Comptroller Mark Levine has called the budget proposal extreme. City Council Speaker Julie Menin declared that property tax increases “should not be on the table whatsoever.” The fissures within Mamdani’s own government are already visible.

What Happens Next: The Line of Succession

Should the mayor be removed, suspended, or declared permanently unable to serve, the powers and duties of the office devolve first upon the Public Advocate, then upon the Comptroller. If the vacancy occurs during the first three years of the term, a special election must be held to fill the seat for the remainder of the unexpired term. All nominations for such special elections are made by independent nominating petition — not through the usual party primary process.

A person elected in such a special election takes office immediately upon qualification.

Why This Matters Now

Mayor Mamdani’s response to the Iran strikes was not merely a policy disagreement. While President Trump acted to neutralize a regime that has terrorized its own Muslim citizens for forty-six years, sponsored global terrorism, and pursued nuclear weapons with which it has openly promised to annihilate Israel, the mayor of America’s largest city chose to stand at a microphone and call the operation “a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression.”

He was joined by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, who echoed the same talking points — without sparing a single word of compassion for the Iranian people living under the ayatollahs’ reign of terror, for the women murdered over hijab laws, or for the dissidents rotting in regime prisons.

New Yorkers who find this response unconscionable — and polling suggests the overwhelming majority of Americans support the president’s action — should know that the law provides remedies. The City Charter was written precisely for moments when leadership fails the people it is sworn to serve.

The question is no longer whether the tools exist to hold Mayor Mamdani accountable. They do. The question is whether those in positions of authority — the governor, the Corporation Counsel, the Comptroller, the Council Speaker, and the borough presidents — have the will to use them. And whether the citizens and the business community of New York will supply the pressure needed to stiffen their spines.

History does not remember the appeasers kindly. It remembers those who acted.