Reihan Salam, president of the conservative Manhattan Institute, has positioned his organization as a leading voice challenging the progressive agenda of New York City’s newly elected Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Both men, South Asian Muslim natives of New York City and alumni of rival public high schools, share deep ties to the city, but sharply differing perspectives on its future.

Mr. Salam, who assumed leadership of the Manhattan Institute in 2019, contends that New York is at a critical juncture. While Mayor Mamdani views the city’s chief challenge as affordability and has advanced ambitious proposals—including free public transit, universal child care, and rent stabilization—Mr. Salam warns that such expansive government spending threatens to undermine the city’s fiscal health. He argues that the mayor’s vision, which he dismisses as “unlimited welfarism for the near-rich,” risks repeating the fiscal crises that nearly bankrupted New York in the 1970s.

The Manhattan Institute, known for its long-standing advocacy of smaller government and private sector solutions, is striving to serve as the intellectual bulwark against Mayor Mamdani’s agenda. Despite the difficulty of countering a popular mayor backed by a strong Democratic political machine, the institute is leveraging policy expertise and the city’s historical lessons to question the sustainability and efficacy of some of the mayor’s proposals. Critiques from the institute target measures such as rent freezes, suggesting they could further depress housing turnover and destabilize the market, or free buses, which they argue might strain transit systems already coping with social challenges.

Maryland-based experts affiliated with the Manhattan Institute, including local housing analyst Eric Kober, have proposed alternative approaches that attempt to balance fiscal responsibility with service improvements. These include easing certain development regulations to attract private investment and redirecting subsidies from new municipal stores to upgrading existing retail outlets. Another fellow, Stephen Eide, emphasizes the need for government to focus on core responsibilities, especially services that only the public sector can provide, like mental health outreach and emergency response.

While the mayor’s office declined to comment on the institute’s critiques, Mr. Mamdani has repeatedly defended his commitment to expanding government services, framing such efforts as essential responses to the city’s housing and cost-of-living crises. His advisers acknowledge the institute’s intellectual rigor but question its current influence, noting the group lacks the political and cultural leverage it once held.

The Manhattan Institute’s stature in New York has seen significant shifts over the past decades. Once a central force during Rudy Giuliani’s mayoralty in the 1990s, influencing policies on crime reduction and public services, the institute is now navigating an era where its perspectives are less aligned with prevailing city leadership. Its critics point to controversies surrounding past policing strategies associated with the institute’s favored “broken windows” approach, which drew accusations of racial targeting.

Audience reception to the institute’s message remains divided. The organization continues to enjoy support within segments of the city’s business elite, exemplified by high-profile fundraising events attended by donors willing to invest substantial sums to support its cause. However, many progressive activists and elected officials dismiss its work as biased or disconnected from the lived realities of New Yorkers facing economic hardship.

Ultimately, Mr. Salam views the institute’s role as a defender of a diverse, prosperous metropolitan future rooted in economic opportunity rather than expanded government redistribution. He sees the current political moment as a test of whether the city will embrace what he calls a more pragmatic vision or face a fiscal reckoning reminiscent of its past struggles. As Mayor Mamdani pursues a bold policy agenda, the Manhattan Institute aims to influence public debate and policy by urging caution and promoting alternatives grounded in their vision of sustainable urban governance.