Protecting New York City

Executive Summary

On Tuesday, November 5^th, Donald Trump was elected to serve as the 47^th President of the United States. Unlike Trump in 2020, Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the results and conceded the election, supporting the peaceful transfer of power.

This document assesses the risks posed by the Trump Administration to New York City’s budget, economy, infrastructure, and people. It is based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric, the Project 2025[1] playbook prepared for his Administration, and the experience of his first term as President.

The purpose of this assessment is to give New Yorkers a clear-eyed view of the risks and threats posed by the Trump Administration, in order to prepare to protect New York City and vulnerable New Yorkers to the greatest extent possible.

New York City’s Budget

• Federal Funding for City Operations & Individuals: New York City’s FY 2025 Adopted Budget includes $7.92 billion in federal grants, approximately 7% of the total budget, providing funding for critical services like cash assistance, education, housing, child care, and other social services. While significant cuts would require congressional approval, funding could also be curtailed through executive action (e.g. refusal to disperse authorized funds) and the imposition of programmatic restrictions.
• Public Education: New York City’s public schools, CUNY, and early childhood education programs receive $3.5 billion annually in federal funds. That funding could be reduced or eliminated, redirected to vouchers or Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), or become subject to conditions that the City would not accept.
• Funding for Housing & Homelessness: While government funding for housing has steadily shifted over the past few decades from the federal to city and state levels, New York City still relies on federal resources for key programs for affordable housing preservation and development, NYCHA, and programs to prevent homelessness including housing vouchers.
• Public Hospitals: Project 2025 calls for restricting federal funds to public health care systems like New York City Health and Hospitals (H+H), that perform abortions and provide gender-affirming care. H+H serves 1.2 million New Yorkers each year.

Economic Impacts

• Projected Impact of Trump’s Economic Policies: Announced and anticipated economic policies regarding tariffs, immigration, and health care would affect New York City through higher prices and reduced labor supply. Additional tax cuts may offset price increases, but they will likely be targeted to higher-income earners. Changes to regulatory policies would also primarily benefit high-income filers and corporations and would increase the City’s tax revenues at least in the short run.
• SALT Deduction: The removal of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap would narrow the tax differential with other jurisdictions, particularly at the top of the income distribution and improve New York City’s competitiveness.
• Impact on the City’s Housing Construction & Supply: Repercussions will likely be felt more acutely in the construction sector. New York City’s rental vacancy rate reached historic lows in 2023 with only 1.4% of units available for rent, while rents skyrocketed to record highs. In addition to the threats posed to federal funding to the City’s housing and homelessness programs, Trump’s campaign proposals threaten to further increase the sky-high cost of construction, worsen labor shortages, and further constrain new development and housing supply in New York City.

Infrastructure

• Congestion Pricing: The most immediate and financially significant risk under a Trump Administration U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) for New York City’s public transit system would likely be an effort to cancel the MTA’s pending congestion pricing program. Governor Hochul and the MTA should move immediately to implement the program, prior to January 20, 2025, consistent with state law and the federally-approved environmental assessment, in order to put the program on the firmest possible legal footing.
• Transportation & Infrastructure Funding: New York City depends on federal funding for transportation (including public transit, where New York receives a dramatically outsized share) and infrastructure. Any reduction in funds, including the withholding of funds for critical projects like the Gateway Tunnel and Second Avenue Subway, or through legislative attempts to defund or eliminate federal infrastructure programs, could have devastating impacts on the city and the region.
• Climate Protection: There is uncertainty around the potential dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), reauthorization of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and disaster recovery funding. While New York City and State have enshrined crucial climate goals through the passage of the Climate Mobilization Act (including LL97) and the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), federal funding and financing are critical to achieving those goals.

Protecting New York City’s Vulnerable Populations

• Immigrant New Yorkers: Immigration is a core part of NYC’s history, population, identity and economic strength. Our leadership in welcoming immigrants will likely put the city in the crosshairs of Trump’s hateful policies (as it did in Trumps first term). NYC took the first Trump Administration to court to defend local sanctuary laws and protect the rights of immigrant New Yorkers and won. This time, Trump is promising “mass deportations,” which could target long term New Yorkers – even those with legal status – and new arrivals. Mass deportations would tear families apart, hollow out communities throughout the city, devastate our economy, and violate New York City’s values as an immigrant city.
• Access to Safe & Legal Abortion: The passage of New York State Proposition 1 on November 5^th puts protections for abortion care and against discrimination in the New York State Constitution. Nonetheless, a Trump presidency threatens to significantly curtail access to safe and legal abortions through executive action including reductions in federal funding, restrictions on certain medications, and the advancement of federal laws that would criminalize the provision of care across state lines.
• Gender-Affirming Care & Trans Rights: Currently, health insurance, including Medicaid, must cover medically necessary gender affirming care, but Trump promises to end federal funding for gender-affirming surgeries and would likely seek to severely limit access to gender-affirming care for transgender Americans. The incoming Administration has also promised to roll back civil rights protections for transgender Americans, making it hard to obtain identity documents in one’s correct gender, re-interpreting sex discrimination laws to not include sexual orientation or gender identity, and prohibiting transgender children from participating on sports teams.
• Access to Health Care: While the most harmful policies proposed by Project 2025 will require congressional approval, such as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a second Trump Administration will likely bring policies that raise the costs of healthcare and reduce access to healthcare programs that serve millions of New Yorkers.
• Workers’ Rights: The previous Trump Administration rolled back the ability of unions and workers to organize, scaled back federal enforcement of wage and safety standards, and implemented deregulation that left the U.S. more vulnerable to the ravages of the pandemic.
• Fighting Discrimination & Advancing Racial Equity: Trump’s presidency and bombastic rhetoric pose threats to New York City’s efforts to combat employment and housing discrimination, advance racial equity, and thrive as a place of great diversity. Project 2025’s seeks to eliminate anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ Americans and target “critical race theory,” which in practice could leave the City’s racial equity work vulnerable to challenges.

New York City’s Budget

Federal Funding for City Operations & Individuals

New York City’s FY 2025 Adopted Budget includes $7.92 billion in federal funding, approximately 7% of the total budget, providing funding for critical services like cash assistance, education, housing, child care, health care, and other social services. That amount will increase over the course of the fiscal year as additional funding gets recognized.[1] Though the City is less reliant than it used to be on federal funding – which has decreased from about 12% of the City’s total budget a quarter century ago – federal funding still plays a critical role in supporting core government operations, especially in times of crisis. In FY 2022, federal support rose to 14% due largely to an infusion of pandemic relief and stimulus funding.

Beyond the City’s core operating funds, the federal government provides critical funding to the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), City University of New York (CUNY), and NYC Health + Hospitals (H+H). The National Endowment for the Arts provides grant support to arts and cultural organizations.

In addition, millions of New Yorkers directly receive federal benefits including Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and healthcare through Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

As discussed in greater detail later in this document, the federal government also provides capital funds to support infrastructure projects like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and flood remediation projects. And over 46,000 federal employees worked in New York City as of September 2024.[2] Their total wages in 2023 amounted to $4.7 billion.[3]

During the first Trump Administration, the President proposed draconian cuts in each of its executive budgets including steep reductions in cash assistance, social services, education, and public housing. However, most of these cuts did not pass Congress. Due to the pandemic response, federal funding to localities, including New York City, increased significantly at the end of that term.

Specific proposals during Trump’s presidency included over $200 billion (roughly 25-30%) in cuts to SNAP benefits, substantial cuts to Medicaid, repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), reversing the related Medicaid expansions, reductions in rental assistance and income support, and broad cuts in non-defense discretionary funding, including job training programs. Overall, these cuts would have fallen disproportionately on low or moderate-income households. According to the Brookings Institute, in the FY 2018 budget proposed by the Trump Administration, programs for people with low or modest incomes would have borne 59% of the non-defense-related reductions, despite comprising only 28% of all non-defense spending.[4]

Given his campaign stances, it is likely that the next Trump Administration will again propose large cuts in federal spending over the next four years. Elon Musk, who is expected to join Trump’s Administration in some capacity, has touted $2 trillion as his target to cut out of the $6.75 trillion federal budget.  Because the size of that cut exceeds the total of all discretionary spending, such a large cut would likely both decimate discretionary programs and cut entitlement programs, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.[5]

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and policy agendas released by House Republicans again call for large cuts to Medicaid and other health programs, the SNAP program (which is currently up for renewal and thus particularly vulnerable), and various income security programs. Included are proposals that would convert current entitlement programs to block grants, including Supplemental Security Income for low-income seniors and disabled people and Medicaid. [6]

Despite being led by a Republican majority, Congress did not pass the President’s proposals in 2017 and 2018 but rather kept most of these programs intact. In 2017, the U.S. Senate declined to pass the repeal of the ACA, despite advocacy by President Trump. After the 2018 election ushered a Democratic majority, the House of Representatives helped thwart deeper cuts in 2019, and ultimately helped push through the pandemic response, noted above, in 2020.

It is unclear whether a Republican-led Congress will balk at voting for sizable cuts to programs that their constituents depend on this time around. However, Trump has stated that this time he would reduce spending by impounding funding approved by Congress (meaning that he would withhold funds that Congress has appropriated, preventing them from being spent on their intended use).[7]  Similarly, unobligated capital awards could also potentially be delayed or reprogrammed.  Lacking Congressional approval, it is likely that unilateral efforts to cut or withhold funding by the Administration would go to the federal courts to resolve.[8]

Where the first Trump Administration was more successful in its goals, and will likely double-down in the next term, is in changing how programs are administered that are funded by the federal government (e.g., stricter enforcement of work requirements for SNAP recipients, opening up access to federal education funding to religious organizations, rolling-back of nondiscrimination policies for religious-based social service providers, and barring any provider receiving federal family planning funding from mentioning abortion care).[9]  A second Trump Administration would likely revert back to its previous policies and layer in additional programmatic changes such as work requirements and time limits on housing assistance.[10]  Even if massive reductions ultimately don’t pass Congress, the layering on of restrictions and limits on the use of funds will likely put pressure on the City and State to supplement and work around such restrictions (e.g., by providing funding for services after time limits go into effect or rejecting federal funding for family-planning providers).[11]

Public Education

A second Trump presidency poses threats to the funding of New York City’s public schools and the City University of New York (CUNY). In his first term, Trump was unable to enact the most far-reaching of his education policies because of congressional opposition.[12] Much of what he was able to achieve through executive action deferred to state power in education decisions, giving New York the flexibility to ignore much of his rulemaking.

With Republican control of Congress, there is a stronger likelihood of funding for school choice programs, including vouchers or education savings accounts (ESAs) that favor private and parochial schools over public ones. Project 2025 and the America First Fiscal Policy Institute have proposed the elimination of the federal Department of Education and the elimination of Title I funds over ten years.[13]

The amount of federal funding currently budgeted for public K-12, early childhood education and child care in New York City that could potentially be affected is $2.5 billion. An additional $1 billion in federal funding flows to CUNY.

In addition, the Trump Administration would likely tie federal funds to rollbacks of Title VI and IV civil rights protections against discrimination on the basis of sex and impose other efforts to roll back any focus on equity and restorative justice in schools, including banning “critical race theory” and eliminating funding for school meals unless states remove transgender protections from administration of Title IX.

K-12 Public Schools

Roughly 5 percent, or $2 billion, of the $40 billion NYC Department of Education (DOE) budget comes from the federal government. DOE’s federal funding includes:

• Title I Funding for Low Income Students: More than 800,000, or 76 percent of NYC public school students live in poverty, according to DOE demographic data. Of the federal funding DOE receives, the portion likely most at risk is Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Title I funding.[14] The City’s largest share of Title I funding (Part A) is directed at schools serving large numbers of low-income students. New York City receives an estimated $700 million in Title I Part A funding.[15] Other components of ESSA funding that could be lost total another $179 million.
• Funding for Students with Disabilities: Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding which supports students with disabilities totals $291 million. This funding may be converted to an ESA or voucher type of grant to parents, redirecting it away from public schools. There are 224,000 public school children with disabilities in NYC, more than the total enrollment in Houston, TX public schools.
• Universal Free Lunch: Another large component of the City’s federal education funding is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded school food program—a major weapon in the fight against child poverty for which New York City receives $545 million in federal funding. New York City’s program has a universal entitlement to free school lunch/breakfast and summer meals for the one million NYC public school students, which could face new restrictions under Trump.

A large portion of these federal funds are targeted for low-income students and students with disabilities, who would therefore bear the brunt of any cuts. These risks should be considered as New York State considers revisions to its Foundation Aid formula.

Early Childhood Education

Trump’s focus on traditional ideas of motherhood threatens support for center-based and group setting child care and early childhood education.[16] The federal Head Start wraparound preschool program supports early childhood education and services for low income children and their families. Approximately 32 percent of Head Start providers receive $71 million in federal funds through the DOE, with many more providers receiving their funding directly from the Federal government.[17]  In total, 19,000 NYC children rely on this vital federally-funded program.[18]

The Federal Child Care & Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds early childhood education programs (extended day programs for 0-5 year olds), administered by the DOE, and child care vouchers for low income households and families on public assistance, managed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Department of Social Services respectively. The City has increasingly been relying on child care block grant funds for these programs, and while it only has budgeted $513 million so far in FY 2025, additional funds are anticipated to support the nearly 80,000 infants, toddlers, preschool and school age children that receive all or part of their child care from this program.[19]

Higher Education

CUNY receives an estimated $1 billion in federal funding largely in the form of Higher Education Act (HEA) Title IV financial aid funding (Pell Grant and Direct Student Loan programs) and federal grants that support academic research.[20] These funds could be diminished by budget cuts, by policies that would make student loans more difficult to access, or by making funding contingent on policies that bar the teaching of “critical race theory,” DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), or gender studies programs. In addition, student loan forgiveness programs adopted by the Biden Administration are not subject to congressional approval and would likely face elimination. Given that 50% of CUNY students are from households that earn less than $30,000 per year, these losses would be felt acutely by CUNY’s largely low-income students who depend on financial aid.

Funding for Housing & Homelessness

With a majority of renter households in New York City considered rent-burdened, New York City relies on critical resources from the federal government that are at significant risk under a Trump presidency. Many of those resources flow through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to finance rehabilitation programs, code enforcement, emergency repairs, and rental assistance programs. During Trump’s first term, HUD Secretary Ben Carson consistently proposed drastic 13-18% cuts to the agency.

Such cuts pose particular threats to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the largest housing authority in the country. Home to approximately 1 in 17 New Yorkers, NYCHA currently serves over 520,000 low- and moderate-income residents across over 300 developments.[21] Disinvestment  over decades has already contributed to a deterioration of the housing stock, with current capital needs estimated to be nearly $80 billion.[22] Proposed budget cuts in Trump’s first term would have completely eliminated HUD’s Public Housing Capital Fund for infrastructure upgrades and reduced its Operating Funds for apartment-level repairs and day-to-day maintenance by 37%.[23] Without these funds, NYCHA will have severely diminished capacity to address common issues that impact resident health and safety such as leaks, mold, broken boilers, and malfunctioning elevators.

NYCHA and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) also administer the largest Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance programs in the country, serving approximately 123,000 households across the five boroughs.[24] Trump’s budget requests in his first term proposed reducing Section 8 funding by approximately $5 billion, correlating with a loss of approximately 9,000 vouchers across NYCHA and HPD. His administration also attempted to increase the rent that voucher holders must contribute, while no longer allowing families to deduct childcare expenses from the income determining rent payments.[25] Similar budget cuts and policy shifts would be devastating for many working families and likely contribute to higher evictions and homelessness.

HPD receives over half of its funding from the federal government.[26] Potential cuts to programs such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Community Development Block Grants would threaten the city’s ability to enforce the housing and maintenance code and develop and rehabilitate affordable housing. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a staffing shortage at HPD and a backlog of housing projects have accumulated. A decrease in capital or operating funding sources or uncertainty that such sources could be cut may further exacerbate delays.[27]

Trump Administration policies may also further worsen the city’s homelessness crisis. Project 2025 and the America First Agenda both specifically target “Housing First” policies – an evidence-based practice that prioritizes providing housing to homeless people with psychiatric and substance abuse disorders. New York City has had successes with Housing First programs for veterans through HUD funding that reduced veteran homelessness by 90% since 2011.[28] Trump’s platform rejects Housing First, and instead prioritizes law enforcement to conduct sweeps of encampments, a practice that has shown little success in connecting the street homeless population with permanent housing, or even with shelter.[29]

Public Hospitals

Project 2025 calls for restricting federal funds to public healthcare systems, such as Health and Hospitals (H+H), that perform abortions and provide gender-affirming care. H+H serves 1.2 million New Yorkers each year.[30] The loss of federal funding to H+H would have the most significant impacts on low-income and undocumented New Yorkers who rely on H+H as a safety net public healthcare system. Additionally, a second Trump Administration may seek to strip federal funding from health clinics that provide abortion or gender-affirming care, such as the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Sexual Health Clinics.

Economic Impacts

Tariffs

Given broad executive power and faster implementation than polices that require congressional approval, tariffs are likely the first area of the Trump Administration’s economic policy action. Public statements point to a combination of targeted tariffs on China (to the order of 60%) and universal tariffs from 10% to 20%. Prohibitive tariffs have also been proposed on vehicle imports from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) review in 2026 is also a deadline for changes to trade policy.[31]

In January 2018, during Trump’s first term, the U.S. announced tariffs on washing machines, solar panels, steel, and aluminum, with retaliation by China and the EU following in the spring and focused on farm products. In the summer and fall of 2018, the U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on a wide range of Chinese imports, followed by retaliatory tariffs. In the summer and fall of 2019, the U.S. further expanded the scope of the tariffs on Chinese imports and raised levies from 10% to 25%, also followed by retaliation. China and the U.S. agreed to halt tariff escalation in January 2020. To offset losses from the trade war, the U.S. created the Market Facilitation Program, which in 2018 and 2019 distributed $23 billion to farmers.[32]

The empirical evidence shows that the 2018-2019 tariff interventions increased import prices dollar-for-dollar.[33] This means that they were fully borne by U.S. firms and consumers. Setting aside the potential for retaliatory measures from the rest of the world, tariffs result in higher price levels that increase inflation while they filter through the economy.

Immigration Controls

Even before the election, immigration projections were already trending to a reversal from the over 3 million net immigration estimates in 2023 and 2024 toward the historical level of approximately 1 million per year.[34] Under Trump’s second term, immigration flows could likely return to the 0.7 million average annual number in 2017-2019. Trump’s Administration will likely renew efforts to heavily restrict all forms of lawful immigration, thus reducing immigration to the U.S. Mass deportation would drive net immigration down further from the 0.7 million level and further shrink the labor force. The most direct economic effect would be to constrain labor supply, lower economic growth, and increase inflation.

Tax Policy

With Republican control over the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the likely starting point is an extension of the individual tax provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that are set to expire in 2025. Various analyses of TCJA concluded that the largest reductions in tax burden accrued to the top 20% of taxpayers.[35]

The menu of tax policy items includes:

• Extension of individual tax provisions of TCJA: lower tax rates, higher standard deduction and child tax credit, higher estate tax exemption, lower Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the pass-through business income deduction, limitation of the mortgage interest deduction, and others.[36]
• Repeal of the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. It is unclear whether the cap repeal would be accompanied by the reinstatement of the pre-TCJA Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which limited the benefits of SALT.
• Elimination of individual tax on: Social Security benefits, tips for restaurant and hospitality workers, overtime, and U.S. citizens living abroad. Creation of a deduction for interest paid on auto loans.
• Repeal of green incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act.
• Reinstitution of the Domestic Production Activities Deduction: this 28.5% deduction would lower the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Reinstitution of TCJA’s bonus depreciation and reversion to pre-2022 rules for the interest paid deduction limitation.

In other areas of fiscal policy, Affordable Care Act enhanced health insurance subsidies expiring in 2025 would likely not be extended under a Republican Congress. The subsidies have substantially increased marketplace enrollment since their introduction as part of the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Medicaid access and waiver policies will be negatively affected by administrative changes.[37]

Federal Reserve Independence

Members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are appointed by the President, with advice and consent from the Senate. Board members can be removed “for cause.” However, there is no such language regarding the removal of the Chair and Vice Chairs.[38] Given the potential for adverse market reactions following a forced removal of demotion of the Chair, it appears more likely that the appointment of a new Chair in May 2026 could mark the beginning of a shift toward fiscal influence on monetary policy decisions. The end result of such a shift would be structurally higher inflation and a loss of credibility of monetary policy targets and implementation.

Estimates of Impact on the US Economy

In the studies reviewed by our office, tariffs lead to higher inflation, lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, and an appreciation of the dollar due to larger growth of trade uncertainty in the rest of the world. Expansionary tax policy is generally expected to offset the negative growth impact of tariffs.[39] However, some activities, like housing construction could be disproportionately impacted by the composition of tariffed sectors.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the combined impact of tariff, mass deportation, and reduced Fed Reserve independence could increase inflation from a baseline of 1.9% to a range of 6%-9.3% by 2026, with declining impacts afterwards. In these scenarios, influence over Fed policies increase long-run inflation from 2% to 4% and the overall GDP impact is a drop of 2.8% to 9.7% (relative to baseline) by the end of 2028.[40]

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s central estimate of the 10-year federal deficit impact of Trump’s tax and tariff policy is $6.9 trillion.[41] This estimate does not include the repeal of the SALT deduction cap which, if not coupled with changes to the AMT, could add more than $1 trillion to the federal deficit over ten years.[42] Long-term yields reacted strongly to the election results in anticipation of larger fiscal deficits.

Potential NYC Economic Impacts

Higher U.S. inflation due to tariffs would filter through to the New York City’s economy with a lag due to the structure of the city’s consumption basket, which is more heavily skewed toward housing. Given the small size of the manufacturing sector, the production activity that is likely to be more directly impacted is construction, particularly if combined with mass deportation reducing labor supply, as outlined below.

Immigration is key to New York City’s population and economic growth. Given the trend toward a lower natural balance (births minus deaths) and the net outflow of residents toward the rest of the U.S., New York City relies on sustained net international migration flows to fuel population growth, or even just to offset population decline. While massively underestimated by the Census Bureau, international migration in 2023 was well in excess of 100,000 and was likely to grow the overall population. During the first Trump term, international migration dropped from a yearly average of about 60,000 in 2011-2016 to 30,000 by 2019. The Trump Administration will renew its attacks on the immigration system, restricting lawful immigration to the U.S.

As to deportation programs, while the number of likely undocumented NYC residents has been falling over time, a deportation program could potentially target at least 5% of the population. Based on Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data, our office estimates that:

• Approximately 400,000 New York City residents were likely undocumented in 2022, excluding those in group quarters (e.g., shelters). With more than 200,000 asylum seekers receiving shelter at some point since 2022 and nearly 60,000 in City shelters currently, the population of undocumented people in New York City likely exceeds 500,000.
• In 2021-2022 likely undocumented residents were 5.0% of the total household population, down from 8.0% in 2011-2013. The decline took place as the fraction of foreign-born living in New York City remained essentially stable (37.8% vs. 37.1%).
• In 2022, labor force participation among likely undocumented immigrants was 80.7% and wage income represented 5.5% of the NYC total. Two sectors (Construction; and Food Services and Drinking Places) represented more than 30% of employment in this group.

The combination of proposed tariffs on specific goods including steel, plus the potential increased cost of construction labor due to a reduction in the local labor force through large-scale deportations could further increase the already astronomical cost of housing construction, further worsening New York City’s housing supply shortage.

It is also possible that economically and socially regressive federal policies could increase New York City’s attractiveness to high skilled workers in the technology sector, the creative economy, and to entrepreneurs. Constraints on legal immigration would have the opposite effect.

Potential NYC Fiscal Impacts

Tax code and regulatory changes could, at least in the short run, increase the City’s tax revenues due to their impact on high-income filers, the financial sector, and corporations more generally. TCJA’s individual tax provisions lowered the effective federal individual tax rate for the majority of New Yorkers, with the exception of high-income filers due to the cap on the SALT deduction. Therefore, repealing the SALT cap while at the same time extending TCJA’s AMT provisions would primarily benefit high-income filers and narrow their tax differential against other jurisdictions, improving New York City competitiveness. Estimates for 2021 show a reduction in average federal tax liability for NY State taxpayers with income above $500,000 exceeding 10%, and a federal cost of approximately $15 billion.[43]  Since 2021, both New York City and New York State introduced policies to circumvent the cap on income generated by pass-through businesses, but the value of repealing the cap nonetheless remains substantial. New York State decoupled personal income taxes from the federal tax code after the passage of TCJA, preventing the automatic flow-through of the other tax proposals.

As to the corporate tax items, the higher interest paid deduction limitation would flow through the City’s tax base but its impact would be relatively muted and would reduce the tax burden on manufacturing, management, and information sectors.[44]

The new administration’s regulatory stance will sustain or boost financial sector earnings, merger activity, and initial public offerings, increasing the City’s corporation and personal income tax revenues, the latter through higher incentive-based compensation.

Higher long-term yields due to higher deficits and inflation may also negatively affect the City’s cost of borrowing. Should long term interest rates increase over budgeted assumed rates (6.0% for General Obligation and 5.8% for Transitional Finance Authority), future financial plans will reflect increased interest expense correspondingly. Otherwise, the impact will consist of lower future budgetary savings due to smaller positive variance between budgeted assumed and actual realized rates. Additionally, higher interest rates would make refinancing issues less lucrative. In FY 2024, the combined TFA and GO interest cost on new issuances averaged 4.5%.[45] By lowering high-income residents’ effective tax rates, repealing the SALT deduction cap could also lower demand for tax-exempt bonds.

Infrastructure

Congestion Pricing

The most immediate and financially significant risk of a Trump Administration USDOT for New York City’s public transit system would likely be an effort to cancel the MTA’s pending congestion pricing program. Governor Hochul and the MTA should move immediately to implement the program, prior to January 20, 2025, consistent with state law and the federally approved environmental assessment, in order to put the program on the firmest possible legal footing.

In 2019, the New York State Legislature passed the Traffic Mobility Act, directing the MTA to create and implement a plan to toll vehicles entering Manhattan’s central business district. This legislation required congestion pricing to raise $15 billion to fund critical transit capital improvements, including extending the Second Avenue Subway to West Harlem, modernizing decades-old signal technology, and accessibility upgrades at 23 stations. The plan would simultaneously deliver unique climate, air quality, and traffic reduction benefits for the New York region.

In 2019, the MTA approached the Trump Administration seeking guidance on the type of federal environmental review necessary to move forward with congestion pricing. Then-Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao failed to clarify the issue, leaving congestion pricing in limbo until President Biden took office.[46] The USDOT under President Biden directed MTA to proceed with an Environmental Assessment, the standard requirement for programs looking to mitigate congestion by tolling federal highways.

In May 2023, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in response to the MTA’s Environmental Assessment (EA). This decision marked the federal government’s approval of the MTA’s plan, clearing a major hurdle towards implementation. FHWA’s approval was the result of years of painstaking work by the MTA, Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority, New York State Department of Transportation, and NYC Department of Transportation to analyze, design, and gather public input on congestion pricing. FHWA subsequently approved a final plan to institute a $15 charge on most vehicles entering Manhattan below 60^th Street.

Less than one month before congestion pricing’s scheduled start date, Governor Kathy Hochul abruptly paused the program’s implementation. In addition to violating multiple state statutes[47], this decision had immediate and profound consequences for the MTA. The loss of congestion pricing created a $15 billion shortfall in the agency’s current capital plan, endangering projects promised to transit riders for years, if not decades.

With a second Trump Administration set to take office, the window to implement congestion pricing and fund these projects is quickly receding. Failure to implement congestion pricing before January 20, 2025 would jettison decades of work by advocates, public servants, and transportation experts to fund dozens of transit accessibility, expansion, and modernization projects while delivering traffic, climate, and air quality benefits no other policy mechanism offers. Substantive changes to the program at this stage may require lengthy federal approval processes and risk running out the clock. Permanently securing the revenue stream congestion pricing provides demands the immediate implementation of the program.

Transportation & Infrastructure Funding

In 2016, former USDOT Secretary Chao withheld funds for transit expansion projects awarded through the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program[48] and deprioritized programs and projects that would advance improved climate, safety, and fuel efficiency outcomes. A second Trump Administration may similarly represent a threat to urban transportation and infrastructure.

New York City has been a significant beneficiary of federal transportation and infrastructure funding made available through the Biden Administration. The City of New York has secured over $2.3 billion in federal grants, including $1.3 billion from competitive grant applications.[49] The IIJA is authorized for a five-year term, and is set to expire in 2026 and Congress will need to reauthorize these funds and programs. A Trump-era reauthorization will likely result in de-prioritization of mass transit, climate, equity, and environmental justice across federal programs, including the potential discontinuation of discretionary grant programs that New York City has secured in the past.

Project 2025 and the Trump campaign endorse several other policy positions that undermine New York City’s transportation policy goals and financial stability. Specific threats include:

• Withholding funds for the Gateway Tunnel, Second Ave Subway Phase II, and other NYC-based transit expansion projects, further delaying these crucial projects and driving up final costs.

• Deprioritizing competitive grant applications from the City of New York, jeopardizing the City’s ability to fund critical projects and infrastructure like the reconstruction of the BQE or build out electric vehicle charging stations.

• Reneging on USDOT rulemakings aligned with NYC’s policy goals, including eliminating new rules requiring state transportation agencies to report GHG emissions as a performance metric and vehicle manufacturers to incorporate the safety of pedestrians and cyclists when issuing New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings.

• Rolling back corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, canceling investments in electric vehicle infrastructure, and removing mandates around vehicle electrification – undermining investments and commitments New York City and State have already made.

• Defunding the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program and mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, eliminating two major sources of capital funding for the MTA.
• Eliminating many of the discretionary grant programs authorized under the IIJA that have provided over $1 billion in funding to City projects.

• Preempting cities from regulating the autonomous vehicle and drone industries in a manner appropriate for dense urban areas, allowing a largely untested technology to operate with minimal oversight.

Climate Protection

During his first term, Trump rolled back over 100 environmental rules, resulting in a major step backwards for climate and environmental protections.[50] Trump advanced policies that impaired air and water quality, harmed human health and safety, damaged biodiversity, and gutted federal regulatory and administrative capacities. His environmental legacy is estimated to have resulted in thousands of excess pollution-related deaths and an additional 1.8 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.[51].

Project 2025 lays out a vision that further dismantles the climate and environmental efforts that the Trump Administration started in 2016. More than 150 out of the 900 pages of Project 2025 are dedicated to climate and environmental issues.[52]

New York City and State have enshrined crucial climate goals through the passage of the Climate Mobilization Act (including LL97) and the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), but successfully achieving the objectives of the laws remain at risk under a potential second Trump presidency. The most pressing threats to NYC’s climate efforts under a second Trump Administration include:

• Clean energy financing and funding: Trump’s campaign platform calls for the repeal of the IRA would require congressional approval. The IRA’s National Clean Investment Fund awards have largely been dispersed. Tax incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electric vehicles remain popular with red states and are most likely to stay intact. However, Solar for All grants, which operate on a reimbursement basis to state and local governments, are most at risk of being defunded. New York City has been awarded funding as part of NYSERDA’s award under this program, including for the innovative Public Solar NYC program. Trump has also called for the elimination of entire offices of the Department of Energy, which plays a major role in supporting green banks and local governments obtain funding, financing, and technical assistance to carry out critical climate projects. [53] The removal of these resources would pose a significant risk to City and State decarbonization strategies, such as New York City’s LL97 and the CLCPA.
• Access to federal disaster aid: New York City has experienced 5 disasters between 2011-2023, resulting in $10.3 billion in recovery funding to the five boroughs. Trump’s history of restricting or withholding disaster recovery funding based on vindictive political whims may affect the flow of federal aid to New York in the event of future extreme weather.[54]
• Offshore wind permits: NYSERDA is leading the development of 9,000 MW of offshore wind projects. All but one of the offshore wind farms in the NY Bight lease area procured by NYSERDA need permit approvals from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to proceed. A second Trump Administration is likely to delay or withhold approvals that could jeopardize the implementation of these important renewable energy projects.
• Climate justice and equity: The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and IRA both elevate environmental justice as a centerpiece of federal climate policymaking. The Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative directs at least 40% of benefits from federal investments to be invested in “disadvantaged communities” (DACs) and encourages federal agencies to incorporate equity and justice objectives into their notices of funding opportunities. The Trump Administration reauthorization of infrastructure funds in 2026 would almost certainly eliminate goals and programs relating to equity and environmental/climate justice. Those programs may also be defunded through the annual appropriations process. Because 60% of NYC’s census tracts are considered DACs, NYC stands to lose out on future federal funds that do not prioritize DACs. The Trump campaign has also proposed eliminating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.[55] Trump’s climate denialism is likely to have a chilling effect on federal agencies’ policies, guidance documents, and directives to integrate climate considerations into their programs that serve state and local governments.
• Undermining climate science and research: Project 2025 proposes to abolish National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Weather Service (NWS), which would stymy federal agencies from conducting climate research, reduce access for state and local governments to high quality climate data, and make it more difficult for localities to advance data-driven climate policies, or to prepare for and respond in a timely fashion to future emergencies.

Protecting NYC’s Vulnerable Populations

Immigrant New Yorkers

Immigration is a core part of NYC’s history, population, identity and economic strength.[56] New York City is home to about 3.1 million immigrants, nearly 40% of the city’s total population.[57] Almost 50% of New York City residents live in a household with at least one immigrant.[58] One million New York City residents live in a mixed status household.[59] As a city with such high numbers of immigrants who are deeply embedded and connected to our communities, changes in federal immigration policy have big impacts on everyday New Yorkers.

The first Trump Administration enacted cruel immigration policies through executive order, rulemaking, and administrative action that made it harder for immigrants to come to the U.S. lawfully, detained families in inhumane conditions, separated children from their parents, and in some cases conducted raids to deport individuals. Examples include the “Muslim ban,” rescinding DACA, cancelling TPS for several countries, as well as making it harder overall to access humanitarian, employment-based, and family sponsored immigration.[60]

In the face of those policies, New York City expanded policies that protect immigrants irrespective of their immigration status, sometimes referred to as “sanctuary city” policies (the first of which were adopted in the Koch Administration). These policies generally prohibit city agencies from using city resources to conduct federal immigration enforcement.[61]  In particular,  NYPD and the NYC Department of Correction are prohibited from honoring “detainer requests” (i.e. a request to detain a certain person for possible future deportation) from with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with exceptions for individuals with convictions for violent or serious crimes or are on the federal terrorist watch list, and when ICE officials had obtained a judicial warrant.

Because of these policies, New York City became a target of the Trump Administration. The Department of Justice sought to withhold federal public safety grant money from “sanctuary cities.”[62] The Trump Administration also sought to prohibit New Yorkers from participating in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Global Entry program because New York State allows residents to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status.[63]

New York City and state led many lawsuits fighting back against the Trump Administration’s regressive immigration policies and attempts at political retribution. New York successfully led litigation against Trump’s “Public Charge” rule, attempt to defund sanctuary cities, ban on New Yorkers’ access to Global Entry, attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the Census count, and immigration enforcement arrests at courthouses.[64] New York City also submitted amicus briefs in support of litigation protecting immigrant rights, including challenging the decision to end DACA and attacks on privacy protections for immigrants.[65] The City also submitted comments against proposed regulations that would evict mixed status families from public housing.[66]

When the Trump Administration carried out its “zero tolerance” policy, using family separation to deter people from seeking asylum, about 300 children who were separated from their parent or caregiver at the border ended up in federal foster care facilities in New York City. Despite the refusal of the federal government to provide complete information, the City responded through a coordinated inter-agency effort to make sure that children were receiving mental health care and access to legal services.[67]

The Trump campaign has promised to resurrect many of these policies. The Trump campaign promised “extreme vetting” to prevent prospective immigrants from getting status based on ideology, defunding sanctuary cities, enacting another “travel ban,” and sending the U.S. military to the Southern border.[68]

The Trump campaign’s central promise on immigration is to carry out the “largest mass deportation in history,” which would have devastating effects on New Yorkers and the local and national economy.[69] Mass deportations would tear New York City families apart, worsen labor shortages, decrease tax revenues, and increase reliance on the social safety net.[70] According to a 2016 study, a policy of large-scale deportation could result in a loss to New York State of $40 billion in GDP over ten years.[71]

Deportations mean loss of freedom, permanent separation from families and communities, and possible return to dangerous conditions in another country. Trump’s immigration policy proposals will directly harm U.S. citizens, especially the over 200,000 U.S. citizen children living in mixed-status households in New York City.[72] Incoming Trump Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. citizen family members of those targeted for deportation should leave the U.S. and self-deport.[73] The Trump Administration has also proposed ending Birthright Citizenship, stripping U.S.-born children of immigrants of their U.S. citizenship. Specifically, the Trump Administration has proposed to strip citizenship from the 4 million Americans born to undocumented immigrants.[74] While this proposal is plainly in violation of the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution[75], it reflects the extremist position of the Trump administration.

Mass deportations would also mean federal immigration authorities resume workplace raids, which could have serious impacts on New York City’s workforce and create chilling effects that make immigrant workers afraid to advocate for their rights in the workplace. Understanding that immigrant workers may be afraid to come forward if they have been the victim of labor violations, in 2021 the Biden Administration announced a new program, Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement (DALE) that provided work authorization and protection from deportation to workers who cooperate with labor investigations.[76] As a labor enforcement agency enforcing the City’s Prevailing Wage Law, DALE has been an important tool for the Office of the Comptroller in ensuring that workers feel safe coming forward and participating in investigations.[77] A second Trump Administration is a threat to important programs such as DALE. Ending DALE will be a step backwards in labor law enforcement. The Trump Administration’s promises to carry out extremist immigration enforcement and heavily restrict all forms of lawful immigration will exacerbate the fears immigrant workers have in cooperating with labor law enforcement.

New York City is home to over 400,000 undocumented immigrants who may be at risk of deportation. Additionally, there are currently over 60,000 migrants and asylum seekers residing in New York City shelters, likely bringing the estimated undocumented population to over 500,000.[78] It is possible that ICE may target City shelters housing asylum seekers and migrants for enforcement actions which could be one of the flashpoints of a more aggressive deportation effort. Most asylum seekers are already facing removal proceedings as they pursue their asylum claims. The Administration is likely to enact policies that make it much harder to win asylum while dramatically expanding immigration detention of those facing deportation.

Moreover, a mass deportation policy as proposed by the Trump campaign goes beyond undocumented immigrants, targeting people with status who may be removable on the basis of criminal convictions, no matter how old. A mass deportation policy would likely need to rely heavily on cooperation from local law enforcement as a means for identifying and detaining potentially deportable immigrants.

Standing by New York’s current laws which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities will be the first line of defense to mitigate the impacts of a mass deportation operation. Ensuring that personal and sensitive information is protected will also be critically important to protect communities against such sweeping enforcement policies. Protecting the rights and dignity of asylum seekers in New York City’s shelter system as they pursue their immigration pathways, find work, and exit shelter. Under local law, federal immigration authorities may not enter private areas of City-owned or leased property without a judicial warrant.[79]

Mayor Eric Adams has called upon the Trump Administration (as he did the Biden Administration) to expedite the issuance of work authorization for asylum seekers. Currently, under federal law asylum seekers do not become eligible for work authorization until six months after they have submitted their applications.  A change in federal law could reduce this wait time, or the federal Administration can use other tools, such as Temporary Protected Status or Humanitarian Parole, to provide faster access to work authorization. Advocates have called upon the city, state, and federal government to provide resources and coordination for a significant scaling up of the legal services, case management, job training and placement that would enable people to obtain work, move out of shelter, and attain self-sufficiency while their asylum case is processed.

Access to Safe & Legal Abortion

During his first term, Donald Trump defunded health clinics including Planned Parenthood through the reinstatement and expansion of the “gag rule” and supported state-level laws that sought to dramatically restrict access to reproductive care across the nation.[80] His appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices led directly to the June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion protections.[81]

New York City and State took critical steps to defend reproductive rights throughout Trump’s first term and in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, providing State and City funds to increase access to affordable and safe reproductive care for New Yorkers and across state lines.[82] Attorney General Letitia James has worked to defend New York based abortion providers and individuals from out of state traveling to New York to seek out safe and legal abortions from legal action, discrimination and harassment.[83]

Thanks to leadership from Senator Liz Krueger and Assemblymember Seabright, the New York State Legislature passed the Equal Rights Amendment (Proposition 1), putting the codification of reproductive rights on the ballot among other rights.[84] Proposition 1 won the overwhelming approval of New Yorkers on November 5, 2024, enshrining abortion as a fundamental right in our State constitution and prohibiting the passage of state laws, policies or regulations that create barriers to abortion, birth control, IVF and other essential reproductive health care.

But even with those protections in place, a Trump presidency poses significant risks to abortion access in New York City. While Trump’s public rhetoric on abortion has been inconsistent, Project 2025 seeks to severely limit abortion access nationwide by reversing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone and reviving the 19^th century Comstock Act to ban any abortion medications, equipment, or materials from being sent through the U.S. Postal Service, which would amount to what the ACLU has called a “de facto national abortion ban.”[85] Americans are already suffering the consequences of Trump’s efforts to restrict reproductive rights, including increased maternal and infant mortality rates.[86]

Gender Affirming Care & Trans Rights

As dozens of bills across the country seek to ban gender affirming care for transgender minors, New York enacted protections for those seeking care from out of state.[87] In 2023, the Mayor signed an Executive Order that prohibits the City from cooperating with any kind of prosecution of individuals or providers for accessing gender-affirming care.[88] New York State also passed a law that prohibits state cooperation with any such prosecution and prohibits New York courts classifying the provision of gender-affirming healthcare as child abuse.[89]

Although transgender Americans comprise only less than one percent of the population, they have become a point of fixation for the Trump Administration.[90] Trump has promised to end federal funding for gender affirming surgeries. Currently, health insurance, including Medicaid, must cover medically necessary gender affirming care under section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. Another Trump Administration would seek to severely limit access to gender affirming care for transgender Americans – likely beginning with transgender youth. While gutting anti-discrimination protections, a second Trump Administration could tell hospitals that they would lose their Medicaid funding if they provide gender affirming medical care to trans individuals. Such harmful policies would have an outsized impact on New York, home to one of the largest populations of transgender people in the U.S. and the highest percent (3%) of youth who identify as transgender.[91] Denying medically necessary care to trans New Yorkers could create public health and mental health crises within our communities.

In addition to using federal power to attack trans health care, the incoming Trump Administration will seek to curtail the civil rights of trans Americans. Trump has promised to legislate new legal definitions of binary sex, eliminating third gender options on federal forms and data collection. The Trump Administration will also likely revive the ban on transgender people serving openly in the U.S. military. The Administration will seek to end anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ Americans by re-interpreting sex discrimination laws and, as laid out in Project 2025, explore additional avenues to punish gender nonconformity and prevent transgender people from living openly.

Access to Health Care

Trump attempted to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) several times throughout his first presidency, starting within hours of taking office. While Trump was ultimately unsuccessful in repealing the bill, his administration eroded major components of the ACA, cut Medicaid, and deregulated the healthcare industry. Project 2025 reiterates the goal of repealing the ACA, though Trump has stated that he does not plan to revisit that fight in his second term and will instead focus on more targeted administrative and funding changes to healthcare programs.[92] A second Trump Administration will bring policies that raise the costs of healthcare and reduce access to healthcare programs that serve millions of New Yorkers.

The Biden-era healthcare subsidies that made health insurance more affordable for millions of people are set to expire at the end of 2025. Trump and other Republicans have signaled that they would not extend the subsidies, which would result in costlier premiums and the loss of insurance coverage for an estimated 3.4 million people across the country.[93] Many more will lose healthcare access if Trump is successful in eliminating employer insurance requirements and gutting funding for navigators that help people choose coverage plans. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has also proposed to offer differentiated plans based on health risks. Risk pooling is an essential feature of ACA and this proposal would lead to skyrocketing premia (or need for subsidies) for the less healthy, assuming insurance plans could remain viable.[94] Trump’s efforts to deregulate and privatize healthcare will further increase healthcare costs and reduce healthcare access. In his second term, Trump will likely seek to cut funding to and make it harder to enroll in Medicaid. This would have a disproportionate impact on New York City, where 4 million residents rely on Medicaid.[95] He has already expressed support for Medicare Advantage, as well as short-term insurance plans that were curtailed by the Biden Administration and have significantly fewer benefits than ACA plans.

Trump not only intends to cut overall funding to Medicaid and ACA programs, but also proposes to make federal funding for healthcare contingent on banning gender affirming care and limiting abortion and reproductive care. As outlined earlier, these policies would have a devastating impact on NYC Health + Hospitals, which serve millions of low-income New Yorkers.

Changes to federal healthcare financing could also affect funding for graduate-level medical education and other revenue that supports the city’s hospitals. New York City’s many medical schools and teaching hospitals educate a large share of the country’s medical residents, for which both Medicare and Medicaid provide substantial support. A Republican Congress could prevent federal funding to medical schools with DEI programs. Other reforms could also reduce the number of residents that city hospitals are allowed to train. Rate changes, waiver approvals, and Medicaid funding caps are other mechanisms the Administration may use that will impact NYC’s public and private health care providers.

Trump has also indicated that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine advocate, may take on a healthcare-related role in the administration, and Project 2025 proposes eliminating various departments with the federal FDA. Education funding could be tied to elimination of vaccine requirements for public school students.

Workers’ Rights

The ability of unions to organize and win material gains for workers has a major impact on residents of New York City. It is estimated that there are around 693,000 union members residing within New York City and 19.8% of all workers in the city are unionized. About 13.5% of private sector workers in New York City are unionized, which is 7.5% more than the national average and 61.1% of all public sector workers in the city are unionized, around 29% more than the national average.[96] A Trump presidency could have significant negative impacts on labor and workers’ rights in New York City.

The previous Trump Administration’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) significantly rolled back the ability of unions and workers to organize at workplaces. Under Trump, the NLRB limited the already very restricted union access to engage with workers at their place of work, enabled employers to manipulate the size and scope of a bargaining unit to increase the chances of union representation election losses, gave employers the right to make unilateral changes to collective bargaining agreements, gave employers the ability to withdraw recognition of a union after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, narrowed the types of worker organizing activities that fall under “protected concerted activity,” narrowed the definition of a legitimate strike, and expanded the ability of employers to fire workers for organizing and without good cause.[97]

On the public sector side, the Trump Administration through executive orders “decimated the power of those unions, weakening their ability to bargain contracts and curtailing the amount of time union representatives can spend helping members with their complaints.”[98] The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Janus v. AFSCME, with Trump-appointed Justice Gorsuch voting in the majority opinion, barred public sector unions from charging “agency fees” to workers covered under collective bargaining agreements that choose not to be members. Getting rid of these fees had been a long goal of anti-union organizations like the National Right to Work Foundation, which aimed to financially hamper the capacity of public sector unions to organize.[99]

The previous Trump Administration also issued rules and pursued policies that limited the enforcement of both wages and safety protections. One of the most critical actions was a rule they issued that reduced the number of workers eligible for overtime pay, reversing a plan by the Obama Administration to extend overtime. As a result of the reversal, around 8.2 million additional workers were excluded from overtime.[100] In addition, the Trump Administration put forward a rule, which ultimately failed, tied to tip stealing that in essence “allowed employers to pocket the tips of their employees, as long as workers are paid the minimum wage,” which would have resulted in an estimated $5.8 billion lost in tips.

Trump also dramatically scaled back the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and kept the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, the leader of the agency, vacant for four years along with half the agency’s senior positions. The Trump Administration failed to protect workers from the workplace hazard of COVID-19 by ending a rule-making process that required healthcare facilities to preemptively put together plans to combat infectious airborne pathogens, known as the airborne standard. The standard would have likely saved a significant number of lives of healthcare workers and patients during the pandemic.[101]

A second Trump Administration could have major implications both the hundreds of thousands of unionized workers in New York City and the surge of workers in New York City actively seeking to join unions. According to an analysis by the AFL-CIO, Project 2025 would threaten the ability of unions to win gains for their members and organize new workplaces proposing to end unionization in the public sector, let employers decertify unions, narrow what organizing activities are protected from employer retaliation, ban voluntary recognition of unions (“card check”), and remove job protections for federal workers, 46,000 of whom work in New York City, among other policies.[102]

A second Trump Administration would also likely have a major impact on the wage and safety protections enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. Project 2025 calls for the rollbacks on the Fair Labor Standards Act, weakening overtime rules, ending federal prevailing wage by repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, scaling back of these protections, and repealing key child labor protections.[103] While many of these proposals require congressional approval, Trump will likely double down on the executive actions that successfully rolled back worker protections in his first term.

Fighting Discrimination & Advancing Racial Equity

A Trump presidency and the rhetoric stoked by his campaign poses significant threats to NYC’s efforts to combat discrimination and advance racial equity. New York City and State both have strong civil and human rights laws. Proposition 1 (aka the Equal Rights Amendment) codified protections against discrimination based on based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and reproductive healthcare, into the New York State Constitution.[104] New York City’s Human Rights Law is widely recognizing as one of the strongest in the country, prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on a wide range of categories that go beyond Proposition 1, with additional protections in both employment (including arrest or conviction record) and housing (including source of income).

Project 2025 proposes to erode civil rights protections in the following ways:

• Weaken the enforcement power of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The proposed changes would make it harder for workers to seek protection from discrimination in the workplace. Not only does Project 2025 seek to eliminate protections for LGBTQ+ workers and make claims of racial discrimination harder to prove, but it also proposes changes, such as disclaiming the ability to issue guidance or enter into consent decrees, that undermine the ability of people with disabilities to have appropriate legal remedies for discrimination.
• Prohibit “critical race theory” trainings, by which it appears to mean to any federal workplace trainings on racial equity. It also proposes using the U.S. Department of Justice to interpret Title IIV of the Civil Rights Act to mean that such trainings are a form of racial discrimination. Project 2025 would have the Department of Justice take enforcement action against workplaces that collect data on race/ethnicity, have “racial classifications and quotas,” or have racial equity trainings. In 2022, New York City voters approved changes to the City Charter that require all City agencies to report on their efforts to eliminate racial disparities.[105] Under a second Trump Administration that seeks to impose such warped and extreme interpretations of civil rights law, the City’s racial equity work – including its M/WBE program – could become a target.
• End federal nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. New York City is home to the largest LGBTQ+ population in the country and is a popular destination for LGBTQ+ tourists from around the world.[106] Famously the home of Stonewall and the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, New York City is proudly one of the most LGBTQ+ friendly cities in the world. The impacts of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, legislation, and policy across the country embolden a culture of bigotry and impact LGBTQ+ New Yorkers’ mental health and ability to travel safely.[107] Despite these protections, a change in federal nondiscrimination policy could negatively impact LGBTQ+ New Yorkers’ ability to access federal programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, and federal employment.
• Weaken fair housing protections. In Trump’s first term, HUD Secretary Carson quickly moved to terminate the Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) rule that requires municipalities receiving federal funding to report on racial bias in their housing markets and design plans to address them. The Biden Administration re-instated the rule, but Trump’s second term will likely come with renewed efforts to undermine anti-discrimination efforts. His first administration included attempts to evict approximately 3,000 mixed-status households that receive housing subsidies, as well as rules allowing homeless shelters to turn away transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.[108]

Conclusion

The purpose of this assessment is to give New Yorkers a clear-eyed view of the risks and threats posed by the Trump Administration to New York City. It does not cover a broader set of risks to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which of course would have impacts here as well. The goal is to prompt and inform dialogue and action – among civic, business, labor, faith, cultural, and community leaders and members, mindful that they will have different perspectives on these challenges, befitting the extraordinary diversity of this city – in order to protect New York City, its people, and its future to the greatest extent possible.

Footnote

[1] Project 2025, also known as “Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise” is an 887-page playbook published by the American conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. The document proposes conservative policies for implementation after Donal Trump is inaugurated as president.

Endnotes

[1] The City increases the amount of federal funding over the course of the fiscal year when additional reimbursable expenses are incurred. For example, in FY 2024, the City added $489 million for public assistance and $385 million for child care vouchers.

[2] FRED, Federal Reserve Economic Data. (n.d.). All Employees: Government: Federal Government in New York City, NY. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMU36935619091000001.

[3] New York State Department of Labor. (n.d.). NYS DOL Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. https://dol.ny.gov/quarterly-census-employment-and-wages

[4] Greenstein, R. (2024, September 4). Trump administration budgets and programs for people of limited means: Medicaid and ACA. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-administration-budgets-and-programs-for-people-of-limited-means/#medicaid-aca

[5] Dennis, S.T. (2024, October 28). Musk Wants $2 Trillion Cut From US Budget. It’d Be Difficult. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-28/musk-wants-2-trillion-cut-from-us-budget-it-d-be-difficult

Arends, B. (2024, October 29). Opinion: If Musk and Trump want to cut federal spending by $2 trillion, they’ll have to come for Social Security and Medicare. MarketWatch. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-musk-and-trump-want-to-cut-federal-spending-by-2-trillion-theyll-have-to-come-for-social-security-and-medicare-36450c5f

[6] CBPP Staff. (2024, September 3). House Republican Agendas and Project 2025 Would Increase Poverty and Hardship, Drive Up the Uninsured Rate, and Disinvest From People, Communities, and the Economy. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-republican-agendas-and-project-2025-would-increase-poverty-and

[7] Trump, D.J. (2023, June 20). Agenda47: Using Impoundment to Cut Waste, Stop Inflation, and Crush the Deep State. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-using-impoundment-to-cut-waste-stop-inflation-and-crush-the-deep-state

[8]Angeloni, M., Ford, W., and Gaffney, C. (2024, June 13). The impoundment threat, explained. Protect Democracy. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/impoundment-threat-explained/

Bradner, R. H., Perry, E.C. et. al. (2024, July 16). Potential Implications of a Trump Presidency for Unspent Out-Year Federal Appropriations. Holland & Knight https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/07/potential-implications-of-a-trump-presidency-for-unspent

[9] Politico Staff. (2021, January 18). 30 Things Donald Trump Did as President You Might Have Missed. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/18/trump-presidency-administration-biggest-impact-policy-analysis-451479

The Imprint Staff Reports. (2021, January 12). Trump Finalizes 11th-hour Rule Change Allowing Religious and Sex-Based Discrimination. The Imprint. https://imprintnews.org/foster-care/trump-rule-change-religious-sex-based-discrimination/50894

Garson, J. (2021, October 5). The 19th Explains: What is Title X, and what did Trump and Biden do to change it? The 19^th. https://19thnews.org/2021/10/title-x-contraception-family-planning/

[10] CBPP Staff. (2024, September 3). House Republican Agendas and Project 2025 Would Increase Poverty and Hardship, Drive Up the Uninsured Rate, and Disinvest From People, Communities, and the Economy. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-republican-agendas-and-project-2025-would-increase-poverty-and

[11] City of New York Office of the Mayor Bill de Blasio.  (2019, June 28). To Protect Access to Abortion at Nation’s Largest Public Hospital System, Mayor de Blasio and NYC Health + Hospitals Reject Federal Funding Tied to New “Gag Rule.” https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/322-19/to-protect-access-abortion-nation-s-largest-public-hospital-system-mayor-de-blasio-nyc#/0

[12] Wong, K. K. (2020). Education policy Trump style: The administrative presidency and deference to states in ESSA implementation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 50(3), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa016

[13] Parshall, A. (2024, October 14). How the 2024 Election Could Reshape Education, from Pre-K to College. Scientific American.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-and-harris-have-vastly-different-plans-for-public-education/

[14] New York State Education Department. (n.d.). 2022-23 Preliminary Allocations for Title I, Part A. https://www.nysed.gov/essa/2022-23-preliminary-allocations-title-i-part

[15] Ibid.

[16] Potter, H. and Naji, Y. (2024, October 30). How Project 2025 Would Threaten Education in New York City. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/how-project-2025-would-threaten-education-in-new-york-city/

[17] New York City Department of Education; City of New York Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget. (2024).

[18] Potter, H. and Naji, Y. (2024, October 30). How Project 2025 Would Threaten Education in New York City. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/how-project-2025-would-threaten-education-in-new-york-city/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2022). Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2022. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoing-monitoring/article/head-start-program-facts-fiscal-year-2022

[19] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (2024, September 10). Spotlight: NYC’s Publicly Supported Child Care Programs. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/spotlight-nycs-publicly-supported-child-care-programs/

[20] The City University of New York. (2023, June 30). Basic Financial Statements, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, and Supplementary Schedules. https://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/budget-and-finance/

[21] New York City Housing Authority. (2023). NYCHA 2023 Fact Sheet. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/NYCHA-Fact-Sheet-2023.pdf

[22] New York City Housing Authority. (2023, July 12). NYCHA Releases New Physical Needs Assessment Demonstrating 73 Percent Increase In Its Capital Needs, Now Totaling $78.3 Billion. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/press/pr-2023/pr-20230712.page#:~:text=The%20New%20York%20City%20Housing,a%20similar%20assessment%20in%202017.

[23] New York City Housing Authority (2018, February 12). Statement From NYCHA Chair and CEO Shola Olatoye On The President’s Budget. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/chair-shola-olatoye-on-the-presidents-budget.pdf

[24] NYU Furman Center. (2023). The Use of Housing Choice Vouchers in New York City. https://furmancenter.org/stateofthecity/view/the-use-of-housing-choice-vouchers-in-new-york-city

[25] Office of Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez. (2020, February 25). City Delegation Says Trump Budget Would Devastate NYC Housing. https://velazquez.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/city-delegation-says-trump-budget-would-devastate-nyc-housing

[26]Kroop, D. and Storey, J. (2024). Fiscal 2025 Executive Plan: Department for Housing Preservation and Development Budget Overview. New York City Council. https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2024/05/HPD.pdf

[27] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (2024, February 8). Building Blocks of Change: A Blueprint for Progress at NYC’s Housing Preservation and Development. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/building-blocks-of-change/

[28] New York City Department of Veterans’ Services. (n.d.). Ending Chronic Veteran Homelessness. https://www.nyc.gov/site/veterans/initiatives/ending-chronic-veteran-homelessness.page

[29] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (2023, June 28). Comptroller Audit Found that Only 3 People Secured Permanent Housing Out of 2,308 Caught in Mayor Adams’ Homeless Sweeps. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/comptroller-audit-found-that-only-3-people-secured-permanent-housing-out-of-2308-caught-in-mayor-adams-homeless-sweeps/

[30] Glants, D. (2024, March 5). Report on the Fiscal 2025 Preliminary Plan and the Fiscal 2024 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. New York City Council Finance Division https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2024/03/819-H-H-1.pdf

[31] Meltzer, J.P. and Verheul, S. (2024, March 6). USMCA review: Upcoming elections and a path forward. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/usmca-review-upcoming-elections-and-a-path-forward/

[32] U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2021, November 18). USDA Market Facilitation Program: Stronger Adherence to Quality Guidelines Would Improve Future Economic Analyses, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-468.

[33] Fajgelbaum P. and Khandelwal A. (2022, August). The Economic Impacts of the US-China Trade War. Annual Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-051420-110410

[34] Congressional Budget Office. (2024). The Demographic Outlook: 2024 to 2054.  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59697.

[35] Congressional Research Service. (2024, April 22). Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Expiring Tax Provisions: Economic and Distributional Effects. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12641.

[36] Congressional Research Service. (2023, November 1). Reference Table: Expiring Provisions in the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47846/3.

[37] Ortaliza, J., Cord, A., McGough, M. et. al. (2024, July 26). Inflation Reduction Act Health Insurance Subsidies: What is Their Impact and What Would Happen if They Expire? KFF. https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/inflation-reduction-act-health-insurance-subsidies-what-is-their-impact-and-what-would-happen-if-they-expire/.

Rudowitz, R., Tolbert J., Hinton, E. et. al. (2024, November 8). What Administrative Changes Can Trump Make to Medicaid? KFF. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/what-administrative-changes-can-trump-make-to-medicaid/.

[38] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (n.d). Federal Reserve Act, Section 10. https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section10.htm.

[39] York, E., Watson, G., Durante, A. et. al. (2024, October 14). Donald Trump Tax Plan Ideas: Details and Analysis. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/donald-trump-tax-plan-2024/.

[40] McKibbin, W.J., Hogan, M., and Noland, M. (2024, September 26). How much would Trump’s plans for deportations, tariffs, and the Fed damage the US economy? PIIE. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/how-much-would-trumps-plans-deportations-tariffs-and-fed-damage-us

[41] Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (2024, October 28). The Fiscal Impact of the Harris and Trump Campaign Plans, https://www.crfb.org/papers/fiscal-impact-harris-and-trump-campaign-plans.

We excluded from the total impact certain spending items (military, border protection) as well as housing, health care and education policies.

[42] Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania. (2024, February 8). Lifting the SALT Cap: Estimated Budgetary Effects, 2024 and Beyond. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/2/8/lifting-the-salt-cap-budget-effect.

[43] Boyd D.J., Jensen M. (2021, October 25). Repealing the SALT Cap: State-by-State Impacts. Tax Notes, Vol.102(4). https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021tns43-6.pdf?x85095.

[44] Richmond J., Goodman L., Isen A. (2023, October 31). Tax Policy, Investment, and Firm Financing: Evidence from the U.S. Interest Limitation. https://jordan-richmond.github.io/research/s163j_jmp.pdf.

[45] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (2024, October 30).  Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the Comptroller, Table 6: GO and TFA Fiscal Year 2024 new money issuance summary. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/ACFR_2024_WHITE-BOOK.pdf.

The average interest cost is a weighted average calculated using PAR amounts as weights.

[46] Colon, D. (2020, February 18). MTA Boss Vows Congestion Pricing Will Happen. Streetsblog NYC. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/02/18/mta-boss-vows-congestion-pricing-will-happen/

[47] Knoblauch, J.A. (2024, August 6). We’re Suing New York State for Blocking its Traffic Relief Law. Earthjustice. https://earthjustice.org/article/were-suing-new-york-state-for-blocking-its-traffic-relief-law

[48] Bliss, L. (2018, August 15). The $1.4 Billion Transit Fund the U.S. Government Won’t Release. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-15/the-trump-administration-is-holding-back-transit-money

[49] City of New York Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice. (2024, October 28). Funding the Future: New York City’s Collaborative Approach to Maximize Federal Infrastructure Funding. https://climate.cityofnewyork.us/reports/funding-the-future/

[50] Popovich, N., Albeck-Ripka, L., and Pierre-Louis, K. (2021, January 20). The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

[51] Popovich, N. and Plumer, B. (2020, September 17). What Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Mean for Global Warming. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/17/climate/emissions-trump-rollbacks-deregulation.html

[52] Earthjustice. (2024, August 30). What Project 2025 Would Do to the Environment – and How We Will Respond. Earthjustice.

https://earthjustice.org/article/what-project-2025-would-do-to-the-environment-and-how-we-will-respond

[53] Houe Budget Committee Democrats. (2024, September 19). Donald Trump’s Project 2025 Puts Polluters Over People, Democrats Invest in America’s Climate and Clean Energy Future. https://democrats-budget.house.gov/resources/fact-sheetss/donald-trumps-project-2025-puts-polluters-over-people-democrats-invest

[54] Milman, O. (2024, October 13). ‘Vengeful’ Trump withheld disaster aid and will do so again, ex-officials warn. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/13/trump-disaster-funding-warning

[55] House Budget Committee Democrats. (2024, September 19). Donald Trump’s Project 2025 Puts Polluters Over People, Democrats Invest in America’s Climate and Clean Energy Future. https://democrats-budget.house.gov/resources/fact-sheetss/donald-trumps-project-2025-puts-polluters-over-people-democrats-invest

[56] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (2024, January 4). Facts, Not Fear: How Welcoming Immigrants Benefits New York City. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/facts-not-fear-how-welcoming-immigrants-benefits-new-york-city/

[57] City of New York Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs. (2023). 2023 Annual Report on New York City’s Immigrant Population and Initiatives of the Office.  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/MOIA-Annual-Report-2023_Final.pdf

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Knefel, J. (2017, January 29). Inside the Huge JFK Airport Protest Over Trump’s Muslim Ban. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/inside-the-huge-jfk-airport-protest-over-trumps-muslim-ban-124190/

Romo, V., Stewart, M. et. al. (2017, September 5). Trump Ends DACA, Calls On Congress To Act. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/546423550/trump-signals-end-to-daca-calls-on-congress-to-act

Smith, D. (2018, March 12). Trump’s decision to deport 200,000 to his ‘shithole countries’ challenged in lawsuit. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/12/trump-lawsuit-tps-immigration-deportation

[61] City of New York. (n.d.). NYC Administrative Code § 4-210, § 9-131, § 9-205, § 10-178, § 14-154, § 23-1202, § 39-02. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-1

[62] Associated Press. (2018, July 18). Six states and NYC sue Trump admin over requiring ‘sanctuary cities’ to work with feds. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/six-states-nyc-sue-trump-admin-over-requiring-sanctuary-cities-n892596

[63] Kanno-Youngs, Z. and McKinley, J. (2020, February 6). Trump Administration Freezes Global Entry Enrollment in New York Over Immigration Law. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/us/politics/dhs-new-york-global-entry.html

[64] New York City Law Department. (2020, April 29). New York City Continues Fight to Stop Public Charge Rule. https://www.nyc.gov/site/law/news/040-20/new-york-city-continues-fight-stop-public-charge-rule

State of New York Attorney General Letitia James. (2019, April 19). Attorney General James Leads Multistate Coalition In Ongoing Efforts To Protect Critical JAG Funding. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/attorney-general-james-leads-multistate-coalition-ongoing-efforts-protect

State of New York Attorney General Letitia James. (2020, February 10). Attorney General James Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Assault On New York Travelers. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-files-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-over-assault

New York City Law Department. (2020, September 10). Statement from Corporation Counsel James E. Johnson on Court Ruling that President Trump Cannot Exclude Undocumented Immigrants from the Census. https://www.nyc.gov/site/law/news/053-20/statement-corporation-counsel-james-e-johnson-court-ruling-president-trump-cannot

State of New York Attorney General Letitia James. (2020, June 10). Attorney General James Wins Lawsuit Against Trump Administration’s Illegal Policy of Making ICE Arrests at State Courthouses. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-wins-lawsuit-against-trump-administrations-illegal-policy

[65] New York City Law Department. (2019, October 8). New York City Joins Amicus Brief Supporting DACA In Advance of Supreme Court Arguments. https://www.nyc.gov/site/law/news/023-19/new-york-city-joins-amicus-brief-supporting-daca-advance-supreme-court-arguments

New York City Law Department. (2018, May 18). NYC Files Amicus Brief On Behalf Of 21 Jurisdictions Supporting Local Right To Protect Sensitive Information Of Immigrant Communities. https://www.nyc.gov/site/law/news/010-18/nyc-files-amicus-brief-behalf-21-jurisdictions-supporting-local-right-protect-sensitive

[66] Ferré-Sadurni, L. (2019, May 16). She’s Undocumented. Her Children Aren’t. The Trump Administration Wants to Evict Them. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/nyregion/public-housing-immigration-trump.html

[67] Lumos and Cities for Action. (2018, September). On the Frontlines of the Family Separation Crisis. https://lumos.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2018/09/Family_Separation_Crisis_Report_WEB-SINGLES_21SEP18.pdf

[68] Republican National Committee. (2024, July 8). 2024 GOP Platform: Make America Great Again! https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*whfb0a*_gcl_au*ODA5MDY0MDA0LjE3MzAyMjQ1OTI.&_ga=2.241420354.1521710456.1730224592-1777493293.1730224592

[69] American Immigration Council. (2023, October). Mass Deportation: Devasting Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/mass_deportation_report_0.pdf

[70] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (2024, March 18). Economic Benefits of Immigration Legal Services. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/economic-benefits-of-immigration-legal-services/

[71] Edwards, R. and Ortega, F. (2016, September). The Economic Impacts of Removing

Unauthorized Immigrant Workers. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/massdeport1003.pdf

[72]  City of New York Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs. (2023). 2023 Annual Report on New York City’s Immigrant Population and Initiatives of the Office. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/MOIA-Annual-Report-2023_Final.pdf

[73] Haner, J. (2024, October 28). Ex-Trump ICE chief: ‘Families can be deported together.’ The Hill.  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/4957180-former-ice-director-thomas-homan/

[74] Hurley, L. (2024, July 28). ‘Litigation is a certainty’: Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship would face a mountain of opposition. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/litigation-certainty-trumps-call-end-birthright-citizenship-face-mount-rcna162314 ; see also https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/repealing-birthright-citizenship-unintended-consequences#:~:text=How%20many%20children%20in%20the,100%2C000%20holding%20a%20green%20card.

[75] U.S. Const. amend. XIV. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

American Immigration Council. (2024, October). Birthright Citizenship in the United States. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/birthright_citizenship_factsheet_241017.pdf

[76] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (n.d.). Immigrant Workers Resource Guide: Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/for-the-public/immigrant-workers-resource-guide/know-your-rights/deferred-action-for-labor-enforcement/

[77] Ibid.

[78] City of New York Office of the Comptroller Brad Lander. (n.d.). Accounting for Asylum Seeker Services: Asylum Seeker Census. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/for-the-public/accounting-for-asylum-seeker-services/asylum-seeker-census/

[79] City of New York. (n.d.) NYC Administrative Code § 4-210. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-2141

[80] Planned Parenthood. (2019, August 19). Trump Administration Gag Rule Forces Planned Parenthood Out of Title X National Program for Birth Control. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-gag-rule-forces-planned-parenthood-out-of-title-x-national-program-for-birth-control-2

[81] Hurley, L. (2024, January 3). Trump built the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, but it doesn’t always rule in his favor. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-built-supreme-court-conservative-majority-loses-rcna131956

Brennan Center for Justice. (2022, September 28). Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court Abortion Cases. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases#:~:text=In%20Dobbs%20v.%20Jackson%20Women’s,however%2C%20independently%20protect%20abortion%20rights.

[82] New York State Division of the Budget. (2024, April 22). Governor Hochul Announces Investments to Help Members of Every Community Grow and Thrive as Part of the FY 2025 Budget. https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/press/2024/fy25-enacted-budget-communities.html

New York City Council. (2022, September 13). Speaker Adrienne Adams, First-Ever Women Majority New York City Council Announce Largest Commitment of Municipal Funds by Any City in U.S. to Support Increased Access to Abortion Care. https://council.nyc.gov/press/2022/09/13/2254/#:~:text=City%20Hall%2C%20NY%20%E2%80%93%20Council%20Speaker,city%20in%20the%20United%20States.

[83] State of New York Attorney General Letitia James. (n.d.). Reproductive rights: Health Care & Insurance. https://ag.ny.gov/resources/individuals/health-care-insurance/reproductive-rights-abortion-legal-new-york

[84] New York State Senator Liz Krueger. (n.d.). Proposition One – The Equal Rights Amendment https://www.lizkrueger.com/proposition-one-the-equal-rights-amendment/

[85] Associated Press and Fernando, C. (2024, October 17). Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights. Whyy. https://whyy.org/articles/trump-abortion-reproductive-rights-elections/

Quinn, M. (2024, Jun 13). Supreme Court preserves abortion pill access, rejecting mifepristone challenge. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-abortion-pill-case-opinion/

Perrone, M. (2023, April 8). What does 1870s Comstock Act have to do with abortion pills? AP News.https://apnews.com/article/comstock-act-abortion-pills-dbf61e25f6f23cd3772c597dd6d4e337

ACLU. (2024, June 21). ACLU Applauds Effort to Repeal Comstock Act. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-effort-to-repeal-comstock-act#:~:text=They%20are%20arguing%20that%20the,apply%20to%20legal%20abortion%20care.

[86] Baden, K., Dreweke, J., Gibson, C. (2024 May). Clear and Growing Evidence That Dobbs Is Harming Reproductive Health and Freedom. Guttmacher. https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/05/clear-and-growing-evidence-dobbs-harming-reproductive-health-and-freedom

Cha, A.E. (2024, October 23). Infant mortality got worse after Roe reversal. Experts are investigating. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/10/23/infant-mortality-rate-dobbs-decision-abortion-bans/

[87] Trans Legislation Tracker. (2024). 2024 anti-trans bills tracker. https://translegislation.com/

[88] City of New York Office of the Mayor Eric Adams. (2023, June 12). Mayor Adams Signs Executive Order Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Health Care in New York City. https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/407-23/mayor-adams-signs-executive-order-protecting-access-gender-affirming-health-care-new-york-city

[89] Yurcaba, J. (2023, June 26). New York governor signs ‘safe haven’ law for transgender youth. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/new-york-governor-signs-safe-haven-law-transgender-youth-rcna91156

[90] Herman, J., Flores, A.R., and O’Neill, K.K. (2022, June). How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States? Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/

[91] Ibid.

[92] Owermohle, S. (2024, November 6). Donald Trump returns to the presidency with big ambitions to shake up health care. STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/06/presidential-election-trump-health-care-abortion-medicare-rfk/

[93] Weiland, N. (2024, November 7). Will Trump Have a New Opening to Repeal Obamacare? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-aca-obamacare.html

[94] Owermohle, S. (2024, November 6). Donald Trump returns to the presidency with big ambitions to shake up health care. STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/06/presidential-election-trump-health-care-abortion-medicare-rfk/

[95] New York State Department of Health. (n.d.). NYS Medicaid Enrollment Databook by Month https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/enrollment/docs/by_resident_co/current_month.htm

[96] Milkman, R. and van der Naald, J. (2024). The State of the Unions 2024: A Profile of Organized Labor in New York City, New York State, and the United States. CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies. https://slu.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/The-State-of-the-Unions-2024.pdf

[97] McNicholas, C., Poydock, M., and Rhinehart, L. (2019, October 16). Unprecedented: The Trump NLRB’s attack on workers’ rights. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/unprecedented-the-trump-nlrbs-attack-on-workers-rights/

[98] Hsu, A. (2024, August 15). Trump gutted federal employee unions. They believe he’d do it again. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/08/15/nx-s1-5052728/federal-labor-unions-trump-project-f-2025

[99] Artz, M. (2023, October 31). The Impact of Janus on the Labor Movement, Five Years Later. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/labor-and-employment-rights/impact-of-janus-on-the-labor-movement/?__cf_chl_tk=legKAy9LqMeMbUkOVEThUJCil1iLbYto.SnDPKWZevU-1730404444-1.0.1.1-K0UMStbN.mnigm1.Ok4i8AIuq28bJoGxcKKJ0QJkRgo

[100] Poydock, M. (2020, September 17). President Trump has attacked workers’ safety, wages, and rights since Day One. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/blog/president-trump-has-attacked-workers-safety-wages-and-rights-since-day-one/

[101] Lerner, S. (2020, October 20). How Trump Gutted OSHA and Workplace Safety Rules. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/20/trump-osha-workplace-safety-covid/

[102] FRED, Federal Reserve Economic Data. (n.d.). All Employees: Government: Federal Government in New York City, NY. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMU36935619091000001.

[103] Project 2025 and Unions. (n.d.). It’s Better in a Union. https://betterinaunion.org/project-2025

[104] New York State Board of Elections. (n.d.). 2024 Statewide Ballot Proposal. https://elections.ny.gov/2024-statewide-ballot-proposal

[105] NYC Racial Justice Commission. (n.d). NYC Racial Justice Commission. https://racialjustice.cityofnewyork.us/

[106] Conron, K.J., Luhur, W., Goldberg, S.K. (2021, March). LGBT Adults in Large US Metropolitan Areas. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbt-msa-press-release/

[107] City of New York Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity. (n.d.) Health and Well-Being. https://equity.nyc.gov/domains/health-and-wellbeing/youth-feeling-sad-or-hopeless

[108] Splvack, C. (2019, May 15). New HUD rule could force NYC families from public housing. Curbed New York. https://ny.curbed.com/2019/5/15/18625062/nycha-hud-nyc-families-public-housing