BARRED FROM TAKING THEIR SEAT - DISASTROUS NEWS HITS MAMDANI'S SOCIALISTS AFTER THEY WON THEIR PRIMARIES
NEW YORK — August 14, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his progressive allies faced a pair of significant legal and political challenges this week, following a federal court defeat over a massive affordable housing dispute and a new congressional effort led by conservative lawmakers targeting a recently victorious democratic socialist candidate in the state's Democratic primary.
The legal setback unfolded in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, where Judge David Jones formally approved the $450 million sale of more than 5,000 rent-subsidized apartments formerly owned by the Pinnacle Group.
The ruling delivered a blow to the Mamdani administration, which had intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings to halt the auction to Summit Real Estate Holdings.
The properties are plagued by housing code violations. The Mamdani administration argued the sale should be delayed, alleging the new ownership could create additional housing instability and noting the company allegedly owed the city $12.7 million in unpaid fines.
However, Judge Jones ruled the sale could proceed, determining the city could not indefinitely block the transfer.
Concurrently, a separate controversy emerged in Washington, D.C., surrounding a Mamdani-endorsed congressional candidate.
Following the recent primary victories of several prominent progressive candidates in New York, Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.) announced his intention to introduce a House rules amendment designed to prevent newly elected members from being seated if they refuse to swear the constitutional oath of office.
Steube’s proposal specifically targets Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who recently won her Democratic primary for a U.S. House seat. Steube and other Republicans point to Avila Chevalier's past activism as disqualifying for federal office.
According to Steube, the candidate co-founded the Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) organization.
Republican critics have highlighted the group's published platform, which includes statements calling for “Death to America” and the “total eradication of Western Civilization,” alongside the use of militant force to achieve those objectives.
Furthermore, Steube referenced previously reported social media posts attributed to the candidate, including claims she joked about using an American flag as a napkin.
“Every member of Congress has to swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution,” Steube stated. “If she is refusing to do that, she should not be seated. I’m calling for a House rules change to ensure anyone who refuses the oath is barred from taking their seat.”
Steube argued that these positions are fundamentally incompatible with upholding the constitutional oath of office, which mandates that all members swear to support and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
Steube has not yet released the specific legislative text detailing how the proposed rule would apply to questions surrounding a member's intent or past statements.
The proposal would require majority approval in the House at the beginning of the new Congress to take effect. If elected, Avila Chevalier would still be required to take the constitutional oath before assuming office.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
