The Physics of Power: Why Trump and Mamdani Struggle with “What They Promised”
In the theater of modern politics, the promise, especially during an NFL season, acts as the playbook. It’s the grand, sweeping declaration that captures our imagination and, ultimately, secures the mandate.
But for those of us exhausted by the theater, it’s the execution that matters.
After the ballots are counted, the hard work of turning rhetoric into reality begins. This is where the physics of power i.e. the structural limits of the machine takes over.
In January 2025, two men, separated by scale but defined by their populist platforms, stand at the same starting line. Donald Trump, returning as the 47th President, begins his second term with a mandate for “America First” nationalism.
Simultaneously, Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, takes office as the new Mayor of New York City with a mandate for a sweeping “affordability” agenda.
Both men told us exactly what they would do.
The question for us: the hopeful realists who believe truth is still worth fighting for and is not what they promised, but what they can actually execute.
Point 1: Trump’s Test of Will
When Donald Trump first ran, his platform was built on tangible, declarative promises. His first-term record was a simple ledger of those promises against reality: clear victories like the 2017 Tax Cuts and a reshaped federal judiciary, alongside high-profile failures, like the unbuilt, unpaid-for wall and the unrepealed ACA.
Now, he returns having told voters he will finish the job.
He told us he will enact the largest deportation operation in American history and “seal the border.”
He told us he will push for sweeping new tax cuts and impose new tariffs on imported goods.
He told us he will “drill, baby, drill,” unleashing American energy production.
He told us he will fundamentally overhaul the federal government, dismantling parts of the bureaucracy to consolidate executive power.
For President Trump, execution is a test of will against established structures. His advantage is the immense power of the executive branch and his prior experience wielding it. His obstacles are the same unmovable pillars he faced before: a Congress required to pass his economic legislation, and a federal civil service explicitly designed to be a non-partisan check on executive ambition.
Point 2: Mamdani’s Test of Jurisdiction
In New York City, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoralty on an agenda just as ambitious, resting on a single, powerful word: affordability.
He told us he would freeze rents for over two million New Yorkers.
He told us he would make city buses fast and, building on his state-level pilot program, make them entirely free. (This, of course, isn’t “free.” It’s a massive budget line item, requiring a new public funding source to replace all lost fare revenue.)
He told us he would deliver universal childcare and create city-run grocery stores to fight high food prices.
He told us he would fund this by “taxing the rich” and large corporations.
For Mayor Mamdani, the question of execution is not one of will, but of jurisdiction. This is the critical, non-negotiable fact.
Unlike a president, a mayor’s power is formidable but fundamentally limited. Mamdani can appoint members to the Rent Guidelines Board to enact a rent freeze. He can use city agencies to launch pilot programs for grocery stores.
However, the core of his agenda, its funding, lies entirely outside his control.
The mayor of New York City cannot unilaterally raise taxes on the wealthy. That power rests exclusively with the state legislature and governor in Albany. Likewise, making all buses free requires control of the state-run MTA.
The Collision Course
This is where the “same starting line” framing becomes a direct confrontation. Both leaders begin in 2025, but their paths to execution are not just different; they are in direct conflict.
Trump, armed with federal power, faces the machine of Congress and the administrative state. Mamdani, armed with a municipal mandate, faces the machine of Albany.
The most significant challenge, however, may be each other. During the campaign, President Trump singled out Mamdani, threatening to withhold federal funding from New York City. In his victory speech, Mamdani issued a direct reply, vowing to “Trump-proof” the city and protect its residents.
They have told the public what they will do. The structural reality is that they cannot both succeed. The coming years will reveal which machine breaks first, or which leader does.
For us, the challenge is to watch this without cynicism. The antidote to that cynicism is clarity. We must be the observers who understand the structural limits of power, so we can accurately judge the difference between a promise broken by a lack of will and a promise broken by the hard-coded physics of the system.
Author’s Note: Which person will listen to law and act within its guide?
Join the Discussion
I’m handing the analysis over to you, the members of the Institute. This is where we build our understanding together.
President Trump’s challenge is willpower against the bureaucracy. Mayor Mamdani’s is permission from the state. Which of these two “machines” do you see as a more powerful or legitimate check on executive ambition?
When a leader’s promise (like “free buses”) collides with a structural limit (like jurisdiction), is it a failure of vision, or is it a failure of the public to understand the system’s constraints in the first place?
As a “Hopeful Realist,” how do you measure success? Should we grade these leaders on their stated intent or purely on their executable results?
As always “DEFAULT: THINK”
- Mark