Why AOC-Aligned Leftists Are Quietly Preparing to Work With a Second Trump Term

New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani still calls Donald Trump a fascist. But like a growing slice of the American left, he’s also saying something many progressives once treated as unthinkable: if Trump returns to the White House, they will organize against him — and still work with his administration when doing so could materially help their constituents.

The Axios Interview That Exposed a New Left Dilemma

An Axios report in late November 2025 highlighted an uncomfortable reality for the American left. New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani — a prominent democratic socialist who has backed figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and belongs to the same political orbit as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — reiterated that he views Donald Trump as a fascist threat to American democracy. Yet he also made clear he would not refuse to engage with a second Trump administration on specific issues that could deliver concrete gains for working-class New Yorkers.

According to the Axios account, Mamdani suggested that while Trump represents a systemic danger, progressive lawmakers may still be morally bound to take federal money, navigate federal agencies, and press for district-level relief if Trump is back in power. This is not an endorsement; it is a strategy of harm reduction and resource extraction in a hostile political environment.

The nuance of that position — resistance plus selective cooperation — is triggering intense debate across the U.S. left, and it may foreshadow how blue-state officials, activists, and movements will behave if Trump regains the presidency in 2025–2029.

From #NotMyPresident to “We Still Have To Govern”

In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s 2016 victory, the slogan “Not My President” captured a moral refusal to normalize his leadership. Progressive members of Congress boycotted his inauguration. Cities branded themselves as “sanctuary” jurisdictions in direct defiance of Trump’s immigration agenda. The posture was combative, often deliberately non-cooperative.

Yet those same years also exposed a paradox that is resurfacing now:

• Blue states and cities continued to accept federal dollars for disaster relief, infrastructure, and healthcare.
• Local officials lobbied Trump-era agencies for waivers, grants, and policy flexibility.
• Activists organized mass opposition while still navigating federal power structures to limit harm.

Mamdani’s current stance appears to acknowledge that paradox upfront rather than hiding it behind symbolic slogans. It may signal a shift from pure moral repudiation toward what some on the left are calling an “anti-fascist municipalism” — resisting authoritarian drift while still using every lever of the state apparatus to protect people’s material conditions.

Why Call Trump a “Fascist” — And Still Engage?

The use of the word “fascist” remains deeply contested in U.S. political discourse. Some historians warn against overuse; others argue that certain contemporary patterns have uncomfortable parallels with 20th-century Europe.

Key elements frequently cited by scholars who warn about Trump’s trajectory include:

• Personality cult politics: A leader-centered movement that privileges loyalty over institutions, as seen in Trump’s repeated attacks on judges, civil servants, and even his own former appointees.
• Disdain for democratic norms: Persistent false claims about the 2020 election, culminating in the January 6 Capitol attack. Congressional hearings and extensive reporting by outlets such as AP News and The Washington Post have detailed the role Trump and his allies played in attempting to overturn the result.
• Ethno-nationalist rhetoric: Describing migrants as an “invasion,” promoting bans targeting majority-Muslim countries, and leaning into white grievance narratives that, as CNN and NPR have often noted, fuel far-right mobilization.
• Revenge and retribution language: Trump’s increasingly explicit promises to prosecute political opponents and purge the civil service, which legal analysts have described to outlets like The Hill as a direct threat to rule-of-law norms.

For someone like Mamdani, who embraces anti-fascist politics as part of his ideological identity, these patterns support his use of the label. Yet the practical question he faces is less theoretical and more immediate: if your constituents are at risk of losing housing, healthcare, or public transit funding, do you refuse to deal with the federal government because you oppose its leader’s worldview?

His answer — which may become the dominant position among left-wing city and state officials — appears to be: you fight the administration’s authoritarian tendencies while still extracting every possible resource for vulnerable residents.

Left Strategy: Boycott, Bargain, or Both?

The debate playing out now can be framed as three overlapping strategies for responding to an illiberal federal government:

1. Symbolic Boycott

Some activists argue that working with a Trump White House at any level risks normalizing it. Under this view, any photo-op, public meeting, or joint announcement confers legitimacy. Those in this camp prefer maximum distance, limited institutional engagement, and public refusal to appear alongside Trump-aligned officials.

On Reddit, users on progressive subforums have voiced this perspective by arguing that “you can’t out-govern authoritarianism, you have to delegitimize it.” They warn that even transactional cooperation can be spun by Trump allies as proof that “the left came around” or that his second term is functioning normally.

2. Hard-Nosed Bargaining

Others, including pragmatic progressives and some socialists, emphasize material outcomes over optics. If a Trump administration controls federal agencies and budget streams, their logic goes, blue-state officials are obligated to show up in the room, even if they denounce the president outside of it.

According to prior reporting from The New York Times and Reuters on the Trump years, Democratic governors and mayors frequently used back-channel negotiations to secure disaster funding or infrastructure dollars while publicly clashing with the White House on immigration and civil rights. That pattern may intensify if Trump returns to power with a more ideologically committed staff.

3. Dual Track: Resistance + Resource Extraction

Mamdani’s comments, as reported by Axios, suggest the left may coalesce around a dual-track strategy:

• Uncompromising opposition to any authoritarian, xenophobic, or anti-labor policy moves, including protests, litigation, and legislative obstruction.
• Maximum tactical engagement to secure federal grants, protect social programs, and redirect resources into housing, healthcare, and climate resilience projects at the local level.

This approach borrows from past examples where movements battled hostile national governments while still operating within the state. Analysts have compared it to Latin American leftists who opposed U.S.-backed regimes yet still used state institutions to deliver services, or to civil rights leaders who denounced segregationist administrations but engaged federal courts and agencies when it advanced their cause.

How This Plays With U.S. and Canadian Audiences

For readers in the U.S. and Canada, Mamdani’s stance taps into a wider North American anxiety: What does effective opposition to illiberal politics look like when democratic institutions still (partially) function?

In the U.S.

A second Trump term would likely deepen red-blue polarization and force new tests of federalism. Blue states could become both:

• Sanctuaries and shields against federal overreach — especially on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion access.
• Negotiating hubs that must sit across from Trump-appointed officials to secure essential funding.

Progressive lawmakers would be scrutinized constantly: Are they compromising values, or responsibly governing? Social media would amplify every handshake photo, budget vote, or grant announcement into a referendum on moral coherence.

In Canada

For Canadians, this debate is not just an American curiosity. Canada’s left and center-left often look to U.S. politics as a cautionary tale. Commentary on CBC and in Canadian newspapers during Trump’s first term already emphasized the risks of importing U.S.-style polarization.

A renewed Trump administration with left U.S. officials publicly calling him “fascist” but still working with his agencies could influence how Canadian politicians approach right-populist leaders at home and abroad. It may also pressure Ottawa to more clearly define how it cooperates with Washington on border policy, defense, and climate, while responding to domestic calls to take a principled stance against authoritarian tendencies in its closest ally.

Social Media: “Is This Pragmatism or Capitulation?”

The Axios story and similar conversations have already generated polarized reactions across platforms.

Reddit

On Reddit, users on U.S. politics and left-wing subforums have split into roughly three camps:

• The pragmatists argue that refusing to take federal money under Trump would “abandon the poor to make a point,” framing engagement as a basic duty of governance.
• The purists warn that normalizing transactional politics with a would-be authoritarian undermines the urgency of resistance. Some liken it to “working with the arsonist to rebuild the house he keeps setting on fire.”
• The skeptics question whether Trump would actually offer meaningful resources to progressive cities, or whether any negotiations would be primarily for show.

Twitter/X

On Twitter/X, where political discourse tends to be sharper and more performative, reactions lean heavily on messaging and optics:

• Many users express suspicion that Republicans will weaponize any left-federal cooperation by saying, “See, they’re happy to cash the checks.”
• Some conservative accounts mock the idea that officials who label Trump a fascist would then line up for funding, accusing them of “fake outrage.”
• Progressive accounts emphasize that “fascism is also about starving opposition areas of resources,” arguing that refusing money could actually play into an authoritarian strategy.

Facebook and Local Comment Threads

In Facebook comment sections on local news pages, the debate often looks more concrete and less ideological. Commenters focus on:

• The state of local schools, transit, rents, and hospitals.
• Whether their governor or mayor “gets things done” regardless of who is in the White House.
• A fatigue with national-level theatrics and a demand for “results over rhetoric.”

This divergence suggests a political risk: ultra-online debate may punish any left official seen as “compromising,” while many local voters judge them primarily on service delivery, not purity tests.

Lessons From History: Working Within and Against the State

While the U.S. has not experienced full-scale fascism in the 20th-century European sense, there are historical analogues to the current strategic debate.

New Deal and Red Scare Tensions

During the New Deal, some socialists and communists in the U.S. argued that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reforms did not go far enough, yet they still participated in New Deal programs and unions that leveraged federal policy. Decades later, in the McCarthy era, leftists faced intense repression but continued to engage with certain state programs that benefited workers and communities.

The pattern: ideological opposition does not always translate to total institutional disengagement.

Civil Rights Movement

Leaders of the civil rights movement denounced segregationist governors and lawmakers as racist authoritarians. At the same time, they filed lawsuits in federal courts, lobbied key members of Congress, and engaged with parts of the federal government they saw as more receptive. They viewed the state as a contested terrain, not a single monolithic enemy.

Modern left actors like Mamdani appear to be reviving a similar concept: the state as a battlefield where different factions control different agencies, courts, and budgets — some more hostile than others.

International Comparisons

Political scientists who spoke to outlets like The Guardian and The Economist in recent years have compared Western left strategies to those used in countries facing democratic backsliding. In places from Hungary to Brazil (under Jair Bolsonaro), opposition parties and movements have often:

• Condemned leaders’ authoritarian drift in harsh terms.
• Still used local and regional governments to buffer communities from federal policies.
• Negotiated over budgets, infrastructure, and public health programs even while campaigning for regime change.

The uncomfortable lesson: When the stakes are high, opposition movements rarely have the luxury of all-or-nothing positions on engagement.

What This Means for 2026 and Beyond

Looking ahead, several trends appear likely if Trump either returns to office or continues to dominate the Republican Party from outside government.

1. Blue-State Institutionalization of “Counter-Government”

Expect blue states and progressive municipalities to increasingly act as semi-autonomous “counter-governments.” Analysts have already observed this trend in areas like climate policy and immigration, where states like California, New York, and Washington built independent frameworks during Trump’s first term.

In a second Trump era, this could accelerate:

• State-funded legal defense networks for immigrants and protestors.
• Independent climate policies and cross-border coordination with Canadian provinces.
• State-level data privacy and civil liberties protections that conflict with federal priorities.

Mamdani’s position fits this trajectory: oppose the federal regime’s authoritarian tendencies, but leverage its resources where possible.

2. Internal Left Fights Over “Collaboration” vs. “Responsibility”

Within DSA, progressive caucuses, and activist coalitions, internal splits are likely:

• Some will push for resolutions forbidding any formal cooperation with Trump officials.
• Others will argue that refusing to engage federal agencies is a dereliction of duty toward the working-class base.
• The reputations of figures like Mamdani may hinge on how they navigate these pressures, especially if they seek higher office.

Observers previously told The Hill that progressive infighting after the 2020 primaries hurt the left’s overall leverage. A similar dynamic could repeat if movements split over what counts as unacceptable collaboration.

3. Messaging Challenges for Democrats Nationally

If prominent leftists call Trump a fascist yet still describe working with his administration, Democrats will face a messaging test:

• Moderates may worry that the “fascist” label is being diluted if officials still treat Trump as a normal bargaining partner.
• Leftists may argue that refusing to use historically charged language understates the danger.
• Republicans will likely seize on any nuance to accuse Democrats of inconsistency or bad faith.

According to commentary on cable news panels and in outlets like Politico, Democrats already struggle to balance institutionalist rhetoric (“protect our norms”) with movement-style urgency. Mamdani’s stance underscores how that tension could deepen.

4. A New Era of Local Political Accountability

For U.S. and Canadian voters alike, the era of nationalized politics may have an unexpected side effect: more intense scrutiny of local officials’ choices.

Constituents could begin asking pointed questions:

• Did my mayor take federal funding that came with strings attached?
• Did my provincial or state government refuse beneficial programs to make an ideological point?
• When they met with controversial federal leaders, did they extract real concessions or just play into a photo-op?

In that environment, officials like Mamdani will be judged not only on their rhetoric about authoritarianism but on the visible outcomes they secure for their communities.

The Real Test: Outcomes, Not Just Rhetoric

Beneath the online noise, one sober reality shapes this debate: millions of Americans and Canadians live paycheck to paycheck, struggle with rent, medical bills, or food costs, and worry about climate shocks. Whether their representatives denounce or engage a polarizing federal leader matters — but what may matter more, in the end, is whether those representatives deliver protection and stability.

Mamdani’s willingness, as reported by Axios, to both denounce Trump as a fascist and still say he would work with his administration captures the core dilemma of this political moment. It raises a question that will haunt not only the American left but democratic societies across the West:

In an era of democratic backsliding, is the most responsible politics one of clean moral refusal, or messy, compromised engagement that still keeps food on the table and shelters people from the worst effects of power?

The answer, as U.S. and Canadian politics edge into a more volatile decade, may not be fully satisfying to anyone. But as local officials and movements chart their path under a potential second Trump term, they will be forced — like Mamdani — to make that choice in public, under pressure, with real lives on the line.