Scott Galloway, a prominent left-leaning podcaster, says he turned against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani after a city database identified owners of high-value properties, a move Galloway calls doxxing and dangerous for progressives.
Scott Galloway, who built a large audience in New York City, publicly criticized Mayor Zohran Mamdani after finding his own information listed in a newly released property-owner database. Galloway had supported Mamdani politically but says the mayor’s decision crossed a line when it exposed names tied to high-value residences. The discovery pushed Galloway to distance himself from the mayor’s approach and speak out.
The database published names and properties appraised above specific thresholds: co-ops and condos valued greater than $1 million and single-, two-, or three-family homes worth $5 million or more. That searchable list reportedly covers roughly 950,000 residences that could be subject to a proposed pied-a-terre tax on second homes. The revelation triggered immediate backlash from people across the political spectrum who worry about privacy and public targeting.
Mamdani and city officials say the tax is meant to generate revenue to fund policy priorities, with estimates that it would raise $500 million from about 13,000 homes. Under the plan, some of the highest-value properties would face a 1.3 percent surcharge on their property taxes, and owners would need to prove a listing is their primary residence to avoid the increase. The plan is framed as progressive taxation, but critics argue the rollout is heavy-handed and punitive.
https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2083348667323281429
After his name surfaced in the database, Galloway criticized the tactic as a form of public shaming. “He’s taken a legitimate source of tax revenue, and he’s turning it into a wanted poster,” Galloway said. “The question I would have is, other than trying to identify and imply these people have done something wrong—and then, 18 months after a healthcare CEO was executed in the street, published the list—what is the upside here? Why is he doing this?”
Galloway’s comments were striking because he does not oppose progressive taxation in principle. He told listeners he supports raising rates in a progressive structure. But he argued that the list and the manner of its publication hand Republicans ammunition to portray progressives as vindictive and reckless when they pursue revenue through public naming.
“He’s not only playing into the worst fears about him, but he’s making it harder for all progressives,” Galloway continued. “I believe in a progressive tax structure. I believe we should raise tax rates. The Republicans, in order to create deficits and continue to transfer money from the poor to the rich, they argue that progressive tax structures are persecution. This plays exactly into that entire narrative.”
Critics on the right have seized on Galloway’s shift as proof that the mayor’s tactics alienate allies and bolster conservative narratives about property rights and privacy. From a Republican perspective, the public naming of wealthy property owners looks less like tax policy and more like political theater that risks chilling effects on residents and investors.
Supporters of the release push back by pointing out that property data is often public and that transparency helps enforce tax law. According to Fox News, New York’s governor defended the decision as “not new” and said the information is routinely released by city agencies. Even so, the timing and presentation of the list have intensified debate over whether the city crossed a line.
The dispute highlights a tension within progressive politics: seeking revenue for ambitious programs while maintaining public trust and protecting citizens from targeted exposure. For Republicans and others wary of expanded government power, the episode reinforces concerns that policy can too easily slide into punitive public disclosure rather than careful, fair administration.
At the center of the debate is a policy choice about how to raise money for government priorities and how to treat people on whom those costs fall. The fallout from this database shows that even allies can break publicly with leaders when methods feel reckless, and it demonstrates how a single policy move can reshape political alliances and rhetorical advantage.
