ALL EYES ON GRACIE: Mayor Zohran Mamdani is expected to sit down with President Donald Trump at Gracie Mansion this afternoon, their third in-person meeting in less than a year and the latest wrinkle in one of the strangest relationships in American politics.

Since Mamdani’s first, shockingly cordial meeting with Trump at the White House last November, political observers have scratched their heads about the democratic socialist mayor playing nice with the Republican president despite their deep disagreements on … just about everything. Ostensibly, Mamdani is putting his personal distaste for Trump aside and betting it’s best for New York City to keep things cordial so as to avoid drawing the president’s ire.

But as resistance to Trump remains animating for Democrats nationally ahead of November’s midterms, Mamdani’s strategy for engaging with him stands out.

Earlier today, Gov. Kathy Hochul made clear that she, for one, has no plans to meet with Trump while he’s in New York. “I speak to him on the phone whenever I need to,” she told reporters in Manhattan.

Hochul, who’s facing reelection in November and tends to directly criticize Trump more frequently than Mamdani, said it was her understanding that the mayor agreed to host the president at Gracie Mansion during a previous conversation at the White House.

“The mayor and [Trump] said that when he's back in town again, he would go to Gracie Mansion,” the governor said. “I don't have a Gracie Mansion to invite him to.”

Still, Hochul said there’s an opportunity for Mamdani to use the Gracie confab to push Trump on releasing federal funding for New York, including for law enforcement, that she said the president’s administration has been withholding.

“We have to continue fighting for what New York needs,” she said.

Mamdani’s office wouldn’t say who requested today’s meeting or share specifics about the expected focus in advance, only saying the mayor will talk to Trump about “issues affecting New York City.” A Mamdani spokesperson said the mayor will elaborate on what was discussed at a post-meeting press conference that Trump isn’t expected to attend.

After the appointment at Gracie, Trump is slated to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron before headlining a couple Republican fundraisers. By contrast, after his Trump tête-à-tête, Mamdani will have dinner with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s in the city to headline a United Nations Charter event this evening that will also feature pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a person familiar with the plans who was granted anonymity to discuss them told Playbook.

The Queens-born Trump is in town ahead of his Tuesday address to the United Nations General Assembly.

Maintaining a relationship with Trump isn’t without risk for Mamdani.

As Trump remains deeply unpopular amid the war in Iran and other controversies, some Democrats are privately questioning why the mayor sees a need to keep interacting with the president. But so far, Mamdani hasn’t faced any significant pushback from his hard-left base over his engagements with Trump, with leaders of the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America largely viewing it as the mayor acting in the city’s best interests. — Chris Sommerfeldt and Madison Fernandez 

From the Capitol

EYES ON AI: Hochul floated requiring safeguards like an artificial intelligence “kill switch” as part of state-level interventions to address the rapidly evolving technology.

During a Monday event in Manhattan rolling out next steps for enacting the RAISE Act, New York’s landmark AI safety law that is set to go into effect in January, the governor said she’ll “look closely at additional ways to build on” the legislation — including AI kill switches “if they're deemed feasible and in the best interest of our state.”

The governor in recent days has vowed to take additional AI-related actions beyond the RAISE Act, but has not specified what that might look like. Her suggestion of a kill switch comes days after California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to explore such a requirement for AI companies’ most-advanced models.

Some in the tech industry have argued implementing one is not technically feasible. Federal legislation to enact a kill switch requirement is currently stalled in Congress.

When asked to expand on the prospect of requiring a kill switch, Hochul said that “all options are on the table,” but wasn’t making a commitment.

“We're going to do the research and make the decisions that are thoughtful to protect New Yorkers,” she said. “We'll go as far as we need to to protect people of this state and ultimately this country in the absence of other leadership.”

Read more from Madison Fernandez in POLITICO Pro.

MORE BLAKEMAN MONEY: Billionaire former casino developer Steve Wynn has donated $1 million to the main super PAC supporting Republican Bruce Blakeman’s gubernatorial bid, records filed with the state Board of Elections this morning show.

The committee, Strong and Safe New York, has now raised $5.3 million since July.

Wynn has been a top donor to national Republican causes for over a decade. His most recent large donations in New York came last year, when he gave $361,000 to the state GOP and $500,000 to a super PAC boosting Andrew Cuomo’s mayoral bid. — Bill Mahoney

FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

ENDORSEMENT CORNER: Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) endorsed GOP Rep. Mike Lawler in his reelection campaign in suburban New York, Golden wrote in an opinion article published Monday.

Lawler is facing a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Cait Conley in one of the biggest House battlegrounds this November. The lawmakers have previously collaborated to advance the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, and are both members of the centrist Problem Solvers Caucus.

Golden, who is not running for reelection, was one of two House Democrats to break with the party and twice vote in favor of the Republican legislative agenda earlier in September.

“Mike Lawler has been a true partner to me and a friend to fishing families he will never represent,” Golden wrote. “I strongly back him, and I hope voters send him back to work. Wherever you live, find the members who pass laws with the other party, and keep them.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the cross-aisle endorsement a “smoke and mirrors ploy” that “will do nothing to change the outcome of the race.”

“In desperation, [Lawler] is peddling an 11th hour endorsement from a retiring Congressmember who represents an out of town district more than 400 miles away,” Jeffries said in a statement. “Mike Lawler is an unadulterated phony who has never shown bipartisan courage when it matters.”

Read more from POLITICO’s Elleiana Green.

ON THE AIRWAVES: With fewer than 50 days to go before Election Day, House Democrats’ main super PAC is making its first TV ad buy in support of Conley on Monday.

The House Majority PAC said it is reserving $1.2 million on cable in the Hudson Valley contest. (An additional $1.2 million is going toward fighting Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.’s re-election in New Jersey, which is also covered by the New York City media market.) HMP said earlier this year that it didn’t include the high-dollar NYC media market in its initial reservations because it was “prioritiz[ing] markets where rates increase significantly.”

Republicans have been largely outpacing Democrats in NY-17 on the ad spending front, thanks to significant buys from super PACs backed by the president and House leadership. From the beginning of September through Election Day, the GOP has placed $15 million on ads across broadcast, cable, CTV and digital platforms, according to ad tracker AdImpact.

The new HMP spend is the biggest from an outside Democratic group so far, but still leaves a large gap between the parties. Democrats have placed around $3 million on advertising in the period between September and Election Day, with the largest chunk coming from the Conley campaign. — Madison Fernandez

IN OTHER NEWS

IN OTHER NEWS:

— JUDGES CASH IN: Brooklyn Democratic Party leaders have raked in $190,000 in contributions from judges and judicial candidates since 2012, raising some ethical and legal concerns. (New York Post)

— AFFORDABILITY AHEAD: Anthony Shorris, the mayor’s new pick for the president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, laid out a vision for solving the city’s affordability crisis that goes beyond Mamdani’s vision for five city-owned grocery stores. (The New York Times)

— BUY NOW, PAY LATER: The Mamdani administration is pushing Albany for tougher ‘buy now, pay later’ regulation, as many New Yorkers use the plans to pay for basic essentials, sinking deeper into debt. (amNY)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

CHICAGO — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker revealed Monday that he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes two years ago and began taking a GLP-1 medication, resulting in an 80-pound weight loss that he says has transformed his health and daily life.

The disclosure marks the first time the Democrat has publicly disclosed that he has diabetes, as well as officially acknowledging that he is on GLP-1 medication, which is prescribed both for diabetes treatment and weight loss. The governor told CBS News he started taking the medication after doctors warned that he would likely need insulin for the rest of his life.

Pritzker is viewed as a likely 2028 presidential candidate and has spent two years batting away questions about his visibly slimmer appearance, though he did hint at his weight loss during the Gridiron Club and Foundation’s annual white-tie dinner in Washington, D.C., earlier this year.

“I’m JB Pritzker, governor of the great state of Illinois, and if you’re seeing me in person for the very first time, yes, I’m the guy who put ‘gov’ in ‘Wegovy,’” he told the high-profile crowd.

The 61-year-old governor said he has struggled with his weight since childhood, dating back to when he was a 7-year-old. That’s about the time his father, Donald Pritzker, suffered a fatal heart attack at age 39 while playing tennis.

President Donald Trump has made Pritzker’s weight an issue, often commenting about it in personal attacks. Asked about his weight loss during an interview with POLITICO in the spring of 2025, Pritzker said, “How about, just for health.”

In Monday’s CBS interview, the governor said he closely monitored his cholesterol, triglycerides and other health markers for years because of his family history. But after becoming governor, he acknowledged the stress of leading the nation’s sixth-largest state contributed to additional weight gain.

Two years ago, that concern became more urgent when doctors diagnosed him with Type 2 diabetes, he told CBS. “My doctor said, ‘Oh no, you’ll never come off of it. You’re going to have to do this the rest of your life, and I recommend that you take a GLP-1,’” Pritzker recalled about being told he’d have to take insulin.

His wife, MK Pritzker, encouraged her husband to proceed on GLP-1. “I want him to be around for a really long time,” she told CBS.

The governor’s office confirmed that as a result of the GLP-1, plus improved diet and exercise, Pritzker “is no longer on insulin and down to levels that indicate no diabetes/prediabetic levels."

Pritzker said the effects were almost immediate. Within days, he said, he didn’t feel the appetite urges. “It was the strangest feeling.”

The governor also has gained local attention for taking walks along the Lake Michigan walking path in Chicago. Along with adopting the healthy habit, it’s allowed him to talk regularly to constituents.

During Monday’s interview, Pritzker side-stepped questions about whether he was running for president. “I honestly am focused on what's best for the people of Illinois,” he said.

The governor also talked about being proud of Illinois' decision to cover GLP-1 medications for people with diabetes, becoming emotional describing a woman who approached him and told him access to the medication had saved her life.

The announcement about his weight comes as Pritzker is taking a more prominent role in the 2026 midterms, chairing a political action committee focused on investing at least $20 million in Democratic House races. The move has added to speculation about a potential presidential bid, where the demands of a national campaign would put his health and stamina in sharper focus.

Voters are perfectly fine supporting candidates who aren’t white men.

But they do show small preferences for candidates who are younger and Christian, according to new results from The POLITICO Poll. And voters were most likely to penalize transgender candidates in hypothetical matchups, though Democrats were more likely to support them than GOP voters were.

The results cast a new light on a simmering, yearslong public conversation within both parties about what it means to be electable and whether putting forward candidates of varying backgrounds is too politically risky in a close election environment. It’s a debate that defined the last open Democratic presidential primary in 2020 and is poised to play a role in 2028 too.

Democrats have largely focused their debates on whether voters would accept a person of color or a woman, particularly after President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024 — while losing to Joe Biden in 2020. But the poll results suggest the characteristics voters care most about are different, shaped by frustrations over aging politicians and both new and old culture wars.

“The American people, I believe, think about identity way less than the average political consultant does,” said Mike Nellis, a longtime Democratic digital strategist who advised Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign. “Obviously there are factors in society that make it harder for women and people of color to get elected, but there are plenty of incredibly talented people out there who are capable of getting over the hump on that.”

To test whether demographic characteristics make a candidate more or less electable, POLITICO’s polling partner, Public First, showed thousands of respondents a series of head-to-head matchups. In each case, respondents were given basic information about the candidate’s demographics, such as their race, age and gender; their career, with titles such as doctor, attorney general or CEO; and a single-sentence description of their political alignment, either as a progressive or moderate Democratic, independent, or moderate or MAGA Republican.

Respondents then picked which candidate they would prefer, and the results overwhelmingly showed voters cared the most about a candidate’s political ideology. But respondents also revealed more subtle patterns in their preferences.

Voters across both parties were more likely to reject older candidates in favor of younger ones. Republicans in particular favored candidates who were described as Christian or regular churchgoers, even when controlling for the candidates’ politics. GOP respondents picked candidates described as regularly attending a church just under 9% more often than candidates who did not have any faith.

That means that even though Republican respondents usually picked the GOP candidate in head-to-head matchups, for example, they were more likely to cross over and support an independent or Democratic candidate when that candidate was described as Christian.

The results on sexual orientation were more complicated: When candidates were described as “gay,” they were picked about 10% less often across all voters. But when the candidate descriptions describe the candidate as a man married to his husband — without a label for sexual orientation — respondents did not pick them less often in a statistically significant manner.

Voters were less likely to pick transgender candidates, with Democratic voters about 5% less likely while GOP voters were 17% less likely, all else held equal.

The age results were a strong signal that voters want a new generation of candidates after the last presidential cycle was driven by concerns about Biden’s age, fueling a slew of intergenerational primary contests this year and leading major Democratic voices to publicly call for a younger candidate for 2028. Trump is now 80, and Republicans have faced their own conversations about aging politicians, as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) faced serious health challenges earlier this year.

Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, which recruits candidates under the age of 40, said when the group started its work nearly a decade ago, younger people were often seen as “risky bets” electorally.

“Now I think people are starting to see that that is not true. Voters will judge people one by one,” Litman said. “They're also really hungry for change and really hungry for someone who didn't get us into this mess.”

The poll found candidates over the age of 70 were nearly 10% less likely to be picked than candidates under the age of 50, with Democrats slightly more likely than Republicans to disfavor a candidate due to age.

Notably, The POLITICO Poll didn't find differences based on a candidate’s race or gender overall, outside of gender identity. That has long been a topic of debate among Democrats thinking about winning the presidency.

When Harris replaced Biden on the top of Democrats’ ticket in 2024, few questioned that she would choose a white man as her running mate. Since her loss, some Democrats have argued that a white male candidate might be the best path forward for the party in 2028.

Harris also wrote in her memoir about the campaign that she thought picking former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg as her running mate would have been “too risky” because he is gay, and that he otherwise would have been her ideal partner.

But Buttigieg, who is contemplating running for president in 2028, recently argued that the country is ready for a gay president, saying he wouldn’t have launched a bid in 2020 otherwise.

“What's on people's minds isn't about you, your identity as a candidate,” he told NBC News last weekend. “It's about them. It’s about their lives.”

Farm-state Republicans don’t support President Donald Trump’s move to import cheap beef — but they’re still getting grilled for it.

Trump’s plan to combat sky-high beef prices by introducing discounted, tariff-free foreign beef has been widely condemned by ag-state Republicans who are concerned it will undercut the domestic beef industry and hurt ranchers, a normally reliable constituency.

And their opponents see an opening to paint Republicans as unconcerned about voters’ pocketbook concerns.

“Our ranchers and our farmers keep getting kicked in the teeth, and we have politicians that keep telling us that everything's great, that we’re the hottest country,” Dan Osborn, an independent running for Senate in Nebraska, said in an interview. “And to be quite frank, I'm pretty pissed off about it.”

Osborn’s state is one of the top four top cattle-producing states — along with Texas, Kansas and Iowa — all of which have more-competitive-than-expected Senate races this cycle. And Trump’s controversial plan to remove tariffs from 300,000 metric tons of imported beef, sold at 25 percent below current market prices, is doing Republicans no favors.

Osborn’s campaign went on air with a pun-filled ad this week in which he says the import plan is “selling out American farmers and ranchers,” and blasts Congress for being “too chicken to stand up to the corporations who bought them off.” The campaign says it plans to spend at least six figures airing the spot. It’s the first major spending from a campaign focused on the beef import plan. But it plays into a larger economic argument Democrats are pushing to break through with farmers and ranchers: Trump and Republicans have turned their backs on rural America, as a worsening farm crisis and spiking fuel and fertilizer prices pinch agricultural communities.

“It’s part of a wider frustration,” said an adviser to one of the farm-state GOP senators, granted anonymity to speak openly. “I don’t think it sways anyone’s vote, but it isn’t a great look. … It isn’t fun for me to read the headline. It’s frustrating.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Osborn’s opponent, said in a statement he has a record of standing for his state’s agriculture community, “no matter who is president — from fighting Biden’s 30x30 plan to opposing this beef import plan.”

“Ranchers know the difference between a senator who delivers and a candidate reading a script his socialist ad agency wrote,” Ricketts said.

Farm-state Democrats and independents believe beef imports provide a window to speak to rural voters who have skewed red for decades but suddenly look more competitive amid Trump’s plunging political standing. A strategist working on Osborn’s campaign, granted anonymity to discuss strategy, said Osborn’s ad “codes as non-partisan in a way that running ads about taxes or healthcare doesn’t.”

Trump’s overall unpopularity is hurting Republicans across the map, but this policy could be especially problematic in a quartet of once-sleeper Senate races that could hand Democrats control of the upper chamber.

Spokespeople for the GOP nominees in Iowa and Kansas declined to discuss the issue, pointing to their candidates’ statements in August, when Trump’s plan was announced: Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) called Trump’s plan a “bad idea,” while Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) said the priority should be growing the U.S. cattle herd, “not flooding the market with imports.”

Last week, during a debate at the Kansas State Fair, Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton slammed the import plan as “a slap in the face of all of our cattle ranchers,” earning a raucous response from fair-goers, and hit Marshall for “tepidly respond[ing] to it as opposed to shouting like hell that this is not okay.”

In Iowa’s agriculture-heavy first district, Democrats have been on the air since June with an ad hammering Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks for record-high beef prices” and other cost-of-living increases under the Trump administration. The Republicans who were already getting hammered for high prices before now are now hobbled by a proposed remedy — one that has infuriated their own base.

When asked how Republicans should message the beef plan back home, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, acknowledged there’s “certainly a lot of concern amongst our cattle producers.”

“I think they understand what's going on. They're just not pleased with it,” Boozman said. “We're in contact with the administration, a lot of members are in contact, helping them understand the unintended consequences of it. We'd like to lower prices, but again, we don't want the unintended consequence of lowering cattle futures significantly.”

That leaves ranchers worried that the import plan will undercut their struggling industry.

“President Trump wants to lower the price of beef, I think that's where it's coming from,” said Ben Menges, a cattle rancher in Arizona’s battleground 6th District. “The best way that President Trump can do that is by lowering the cost of fuel, not by importing a bunch of beef.”

Some Republicans have looked to turn the conversation into a culture war issue — hitting their opponents for past stances on meat consumption or veganism.

Vice President JD Vance, during a visit to Iowa Friday — which Hinson did not attend — slammed Hamilton, the pastor-turned-Democratic nominee for Senate in Kansas, for having a “kind of a ‘gee whiz, I'm a nice pastor’ vibe” who tells his congregation to “repent for their white privilege while eating beef.”

It’s an attack Marshall made at last week’s debate, hitting Hamilton for a sermon he delivered on climate change and the impact of meat consumption.

“I think the senator needs to repent for not standing up for the beef industry,” responded Hamilton.

Respondents presented with 2 choices of candidates with various traits. Results represent the estimated impact of each trait on likelihood of selection.

Gubernatorial candidates across the country are racing to stake out positions on AI as the battle over regulating the technology intensifies.

They’re watching as sitting governors of both parties turn the rapidly evolving technology into a political priority, from Gavin Newsom in California to Ron DeSantis in Florida and Kathy Hochul in New York.

Now they’re starting to join the chorus, calling for more state-based action to put guardrails on AI — even if they don’t know what that would look like yet.

POLITICO reached out to more than 18 Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates on their plans and received responses from eight. Nearly all said they want states to take the lead on AI, signaling a frustration with Washington’s inaction and acknowledgement that — if they eventually secure the governor’s mansion — they can’t dismiss the growing warnings.

Candidates said they were motivated by different concerns including fraud, job displacement and children’s safety. Their lack of detail on just how to address AI also reveals a tricky pivot these gubernatorial candidates are facing: To date, much of their campaign messaging on AI or the technology race with China has focused on data centers’ impact on energy prices.

Now, with less than six weeks until Election Day, they’re attempting to talk about AI in a more existential — and more far-reaching — manner.

"The federal government has failed to lead on this issue, and we cannot trust the billionaires profiting off of AI to self-regulate,” said Gina Hinojosa, Texas’ Democratic nominee for governor, in a statement. “State government has the most direct impact on our day-to-day lives, and at a time when Texans are more uncertain and concerned about AI than ever, it’s critical that we put the needs of Texans before corporate profits.” (GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, Hinojosa’s opponent, did not respond to a list of questions.)

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who’s heavily favored to succeed Newsom in California, is in conversations with tech industry leaders and economists on the path forward. He will “work to set firm guardrails to prevent the threat of real harms to workers, to children, to our privacy rights, to public safety,” spokesperson Jonathan Underland said in a statement. “California is the birthplace of modern AI, and California will lead the way in making it safe.”

Becerra’s longshot Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, told POLITICO that there’s a place for narrow regulation on AI — even though he thinks some of the warnings are overblown and “preposterous.”

“California should lead on this because we are leading on the technology, and therefore we should lead on the regulation,” Hilton said. “I would prefer to see both the Congress and politicians in other states back off and stop talking about something they don't understand.”

Recent warnings from top AI leaders about the technology’s potential apocalyptic trajectory roiled Democrats and Republicans both in Washington and on the campaign trail. According to a new POLITICO Poll, a majority of voters now think that AI poses an existential threat to humanity and a plurality want to see a pause in development of advanced models.

“There is a lot of education that's needed here, and people are navigating an issue that they weren't even really thinking about six months ago beyond the beyond ‘Should we have data centers’?” said Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist who has worked with Alex Bores, a New York state lawmaker who gained national attention in his failed campaign for Congress for opposition to unchecked AI.

“They're talking about it,” she added. “That's a meaningful difference.”

The National Governors Association, which convened a working group on AI’s impact on the workforce earlier this year, plans to release a policy roadmap for governors in November on how states can take action.

"We have 39 gubernatorial elections happening in November, and at least 21 new governors will be sworn in in January,” said Sophia Yager, the NGA’s policy director for workforce development and economic policy. “So we wanted to have a resource available not only for incumbent governors who are thinking and working on this issue, but for all of the new governors coming in, wanting to have something available for them from the jump in November."

So far, Democrats have taken the sharpest aim at the Republican-controlled federal government for its inaction on establishing safeguards against AI.

“While regulation is strongest and most effective at the federal level, President [Donald] Trump dismisses the need for even the most basic guardrails, and we know it can take time for Congress to act,” said Federico Araujo, a spokesperson for Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek, who’s locked in a tightening battle for reelection. “States, in the meantime, must act with more urgency and do everything possible to manage how AI impacts our economies, energy prices and natural resources.”

David Crowley, the Democratic nominee in Wisconsin, told POLITICO in a statement that AI safety is “an issue Wisconsin can address” but “we need strong leadership and partners in Washington who are looking out for us at home.” Still, he didn’t offer specifics, and much of his battle with GOP nominee Tom Tiffany — and even the Democratic primary — has been focused on data centers’ proliferation in Wisconsin.

Tiffany did not respond to a request for comment.

The calls for action on state-based regulation have not been limited to Democrats alone. Republicans — including some Trump allies — signaled a willingness to create safe buffers for the technology at the state level, following the lead of governors like DeSantis and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who have long advocated for states’ abilities to install guardrails amid federal inaction.

“States should have a say in how AI is regulated,” said Dan Capodilupo, spokesperson for Iowa GOP gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn. “Zach is committed to protecting states rights.” State Auditor Rob Sand, his Democratic opponent, did not respond to a request for comment.

In Georgia, Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for GOP nominee Rick Jackson, stopped short of calling for local regulations but said that the health care executive “supports efforts to ensure that new models are tested for risks and that safety standards are established. He added that Jackson is “committed” to working with the state legislature on protecting consumers from AI-driven scams.

Georgia’s Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump has labeled concerns about AI’s existential threat a “HOAX” and derided efforts to regulate the technology, and his White House has pushed preemption of state-level regulation. In February, the White House urged Utah legislators to abandon an AI transparency bill; the administration has similarly gone after state-level legislation in Colorado and in California.

A POLITICO review of state-level legislation found 18 laws in 13 states, led by both Republicans and Democrats, that contradict the White House’s preemption framework.

These candidates’ calls for state-based action mirror some early actions that both red and blue state executives are taking from their statehouse perches, explicitly defying Trump’s hands-off approach to regulating the nascent but powerful industry.

This week, Cox urged Washington to “establish a consistent national framework for the development of frontier AI,” and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a speech at an AI-focused conference in Pittsburgh, called for the “federal government to step up and regulate the AI industry just like they do for nearly every other industry that significantly impacts our lives.”

Shapiro — who’s up for reelection in the battleground state this year and is considered a 2028 presidential contender — outlined what he sees as the stakes of slow-walking protective measures.

“By the time Congress comes back into session after the election, we could be dealing with a whole new generation of generative AI, and more scary examples of AI agents going rogue,” he said.

Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report. 

SESSION LESSON: Assemblymember Alex Bores would really like to take another swing at regulating Big Tech before he leaves office at the end of the year.

The New York lawmaker faced the multimillion-dollar wrath of the tech industry after leading the charge on crafting state regulations for artificial intelligence, falling short in his quest to move on to the halls of Congress.

But he said he’s optimistic about policymakers taking action amid growing public alarm over the risks of AI — and that he’d support a special session in Albany on the issue.

“This is an urgent problem, and too frequently we have left it to California to set the nationwide standards,” Bores said. “We’ve got some pretty darn talented people here in New York … and I would love to give them the chance to lead.”

The outgoing assemblymember, who has work experience in the industry, has positioned himself as a national leader on the issue with the launch of a $30 million group to develop the Democratic agenda on AI rules.

There are currently no plans for a special session on AI, according to Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office.

The lack of plans to return to Albany before January to work on AI rules contrasts with discussions in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has mused on the possibility of calling lawmakers back to Sacramento.

Newsom signed an executive order today to speed up implementation of recently passed AI safety laws and consider proposals like requiring a “kill switch” for advanced AI models. New York regulators issued an order requiring gas, electric and water utilities to report on their use of AI yesterday, and New York Attorney General Letitia James urged employees at AI companies to report any rulebreaking.

The jockeying between states to act on AI comes amid a crescendo of alarm, including from the industry itself, that the technology is outpacing humans’ abilities to monitor and control it. Hochul has also said she wants to take additional actions, but without offering specifics.

The rhetorical flurry among state officials is also being sparked by the Trump administration’s dismissal of AI safety threats and a widespread sense that there’s little chance Congress will act on the issue anytime soon.

Democratic lawmakers who’ll be returning to Albany in January are discussing their options — and gearing up for pushback from the industry.

“The crux of the fight is in clawing back power from these oligarchs and putting real people in the driver's seat,” said state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, chair of the Internet and Technology committee.

Read the full story from POLITICO Pro’s Marie J. French.

HEALTH CARE

SETTLEMENT WATCH: NYU Langone agreed to pay $8.5 million and stop providing puberty blockers and hormonal treatment to minors under an agreement with the Justice Department announced today.

DOJ has announced similar agreements with five other hospital groups, including the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, as part of a nationwide investigation into gender-affirming care that came at the direction of President Donald Trump.

NYU Langone spokesperson Steve Ritea said the DOJ agreement “protects our providers and secures the privacy and confidentiality of our patients and their families,” noting the health system denied any wrongdoing or liability as part of the agreement.

“Under this agreement, DOJ has agreed to resolve its investigations, removing the threat that NYU Langone would have to provide the confidential information previously demanded about patients under 18 who received gender-affirming care at our institution,” Ritea said in a statement.

NYU Langone’s statement echoes comments by Mount Sinai upon reaching a similar agreement with the Justice Department. — Maya Kaufman

MEASLES ON THE RISE: In response to a growing number of measles cases in rural New York, state Health Commissioner James McDonald is calling on all New Yorkers to make sure they’ve received the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

McDonald said yesterday at a Public Health and Health Planning Council meeting that there are 66 cases across the state, with roughly two-thirds of those in adults aged 18 years old and older. The state’s new measles dashboard reports 51 cases, but it hasn’t been updated since Saturday.

The outbreak is primarily in rural and western parts of the state. Fifteen counties have reported at least one case, but the majority of cases are concentrated in Steuben, Seneca, Otsego and Allegany counties.

McDonald said he’s been in contact with health officials in neighboring Pennsylvania, where 767 cases and four deaths have been reported in a fatal outbreak there, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health dashboard.

“I can’t explain why the federal government is being as confusing as they are about vaccines,” McDonald said yesterday. “But I’m not confused. There was no new research or new science when they did their executive order. Nothing changed in New York State. States determine what the required vaccines are.”

He said the state has been working with local health departments to distribute more than 700 MMR vaccine doses to people living in the affected counties, where health officials traditionally face skepticism surrounding healthcare and vaccines.

The push is part of a broader effort to overcome confusion over an executive order signed by President Trump last month that directs federal agencies to reduce the number of recommended vaccines children receive and spread the shots out over a longer time period.

The executive order has ignited renewed hope among parents seeking exemptions from the state’s vaccine laws, which do not include a religious exemption and have proven to be a challenge when attempting to qualify for a medical exemption. — Katelyn Cordero

FROM CITY HALL

SCHOOL SAFETY: A longtime union leader is demanding Mayor Zohran Mamdani come up with a plan to keep classrooms safe amid recent weapons seizures at public schools.

Gregory Floyd, who heads Teamsters Local 237, pointed to several recent incidents, including a student caught with a loaded gun at a Staten Island high school.

His union represents nearly 2,000 municipal workers, including school safety officers.

“He’s yet to say anything, he’s yet to address it,” Floyd told Playbook. “Before we get further into the school year, we want him to come up with a comprehensive plan to make sure that no one in the public school system is seriously injured or possibly killed.”

Floyd decried a shortage of school safety agents, noting that the city has lost 2,000 agents since 2022. And the Mamdani administration, he said, isn’t hiring.

A City Hall spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The city saw a decrease in major felony crimes in schools, according to the mayor’s management report released Thursday.

Mamdani faced criticism over the summer after eliminating vacant school safety agent positions, drawing backlash from parents and advocates as felony assaults in schools rose.

Floyd pointed specifically to a lack of metal detectors. The most current version in schools, he said, has proven incapable of detecting smaller scalpels, which he described as an emerging threat in schools. Fewer than 100 schools currently have full-time scanners, according to Floyd. — Madina Touré

IN OTHER NEWS

— STOKING SPECULATION: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plans to campaign for candidates across New York, reigniting speculation she’ll run for senator or president in 2028. (The New York Times)

— PRE-K PAY: After severe funding delays, providers of free childcare in New York City are finally being paid by the Mamdani administration, but some are still waiting. (Gothamist)

— $10M PAYOUT: Family of Robert Brooks, man beaten to death by corrections officers, to get $10 million settlement. (WPTZ)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.