New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing criticism after urging residents to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to the city, with police advocates warning that the move could create additional security challenges for an already stretched NYPD.

Critics argue that Mamdani is approaching the situation more like a political activist than the leader of the nation’s largest city, saying his public call for demonstrations could make an already demanding job even more difficult for law enforcement.

The mayor’s comments come after an especially busy stretch for the NYPD, which has spent weeks providing security for several major events, including the FIFA World Cup, Independence Day celebrations, and the America 250 festivities that brought millions of visitors into New York.

Police supporters say encouraging another large demonstration only adds pressure to officers who have already been working extended hours.

“The mayor’s activist posturing puts police officers on the street in a terrible position,” NYPD Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Hendry said, per the New York Post.

“Protests during the UN General Assembly are nothing new, but when the mayor of the city is actively calling for demonstrations, violent agitators will assume they have permission to cause as much havoc as possible,” he added.

“Those same agitators know that the NYPD’s protest response is already hamstrung by the dangerous lawsuit settlement the city signed over the PBA’s opposition,” said Hendry.

“The mayor’s heated rhetoric could be enough to push demonstrations over the edge into chaos.”

Mamdani has been an outspoken critic of Netanyahu since before launching his successful mayoral campaign. His criticism of Israel has drawn sharp backlash from opponents, some of whom have accused him of promoting anti-Israel rhetoric that crosses into anti-Semitism.

During the campaign, Mamdani pledged that he would seek to have Netanyahu arrested if the Israeli leader traveled to New York, referencing the International Criminal Court’s 2024 warrant alleging war crimes in Gaza.

This week, however, the mayor acknowledged that he does not possess the legal authority to carry out such an arrest.

Instead, Mamdani encouraged New Yorkers who oppose Netanyahu’s visit to exercise their First Amendment rights by demonstrating publicly, a decision critics say will require additional police resources for crowd control and security.

“This is a city where, if anyone feels a level of frustration or opposition, protest is something that we will always respect,” Mamdani told reporters at City Hall this week.

“That New Yorkers can express themselves, whether they are in support or in opposition, no matter on whatever topic,” he said.

“And I’ve always said that when we respect our Constitution, we also respect our First Amendment,” he claimed.

The mayor’s comments come just as the NYPD is recovering from one of its busiest summers in recent memory. Officers worked 12-hour shifts for weeks while policing massive crowds during international sporting events and national celebrations, completing those assignments without major incident.

Now, some officers fear another wave of demonstrations will place unnecessary strain on an already exhausted force.

“Was he serious?” one incredulous Manhattan cop asked The Post.

“Cops just came off a crazy six weeks between the Knicks and the World Cup working long hours every day, and now he’s going to subject them to unnecessary problems,” the officer added, per The Post.

A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.

Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.

While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.

“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.

“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”

Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.

“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.

The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.

“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?

“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”

Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.

At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.

Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.

Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.

Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.

“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.

“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”

“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”

“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.

The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.

Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.

The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.

Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.

The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.

For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.

Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.

Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.

As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.

A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.

Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.

During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.

“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”

Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.

“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”

The criticism did not stop there.

Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.

“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.

His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.

“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”

In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.

“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.

The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.

Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.

Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.

The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.

Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.

Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.

Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.

Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.

As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.

For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.