In the heated run‑up to the 2025 New York City mayoral election, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa has positioned himself not just against his opponents, but as the voice of alarm about the city’s direction. Sliwa has unleashed a pointed critique of both Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani, accusing Cuomo of being the architect of New York’s decline — and Mamdani his ideological apprentice. What’s driving this scorched‑earth framing? What is the substance of his claims? And what does it reveal about the broader stakes of this election?

Who Are The Actors?

Curtis Sliwa is the founder of the Guardian Angels and a long‑time New York City conservative talk‑radio host who is the Republican nominee for mayor in 2025. Andrew Cuomo, former governor of New York, is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary. Zohran Mamdani, a Queens assemblyman and the Democratic nominee for mayor, represents the progressive left wing of the party in this race.

The Narrative Sliwa Is Selling

During the first major mayoral debate on October 16, 2025, Sliwa referred to Cuomo as the “architect” and Mamdani as the “apprentice” of policies he argues have produced a crime crisis in the city: “We have the architect and the apprentice of no cash bail … We have the architect and the apprentice of closing Rikers Island, which would just release criminals into the street.”

That quote encapsulates his core claim: that Cuomo designed and implemented reforms (while governor) that weakened the city’s legal and public‑safety frameworks; Mamdani is poised to extend or intensify them. Sliwa is therefore arguing the danger is double‑barreled: one man created the structure of decline, the other is ready to take it further.

What Does Sliwa Mean by “Architect of Our Destruction”?

Cash bail reform, raise‑the‑age, Rikers IslandSliwa specifically calls out Cuomo’s record on bail reform and criminal justice. For instance, Sliwa blamed bail‑reform legislation passed under Cuomo for contributing to New York City’s crime crisis. He frames these reforms as misguided: instead of protecting the vulnerable, they “protect the perps,” and expose victims and citizens to greater risk.

Governance and public safety failuresSliwa argues that under Cuomo’s leadership (and by implication, under the policies he supported), the city’s safety and order structures eroded. He described New York City as “a complete catastrophe” when speaking to business and civic leaders, pointing to subway killings, low test scores and empty storefronts.

Cuomo’s legacy and credibilitySliwa doesn’t just attack policies; he attacks Cuomo’s overall role. In an August 2025 interview, Sliwa said Cuomo “had his chance” and is “the reason we’re in this mess” — dismissing the idea that Cuomo is a moderate alternative. The framing is harsh: Sliwa wants to place blame squarely at Cuomo’s feet for the current condition of the city.

Why Call Mamdani the “Apprentice”?

Sliwa portrays Mamdani as the next iteration of the same policy direction — only bolder. In his framing:

Mamdani supports sanctuary city and non‑citizen voting policies; Sliwa claims Cuomo and Mamdani “share the same views.”

During the debate, Sliwa lumped Mamdani and Cuomo together when criticizing bail and Rikers Island reforms.

Sliwa argues that voters who oppose these reforms should not be fooled by the idea that Mamdani is dramatically different from Cuomo — “they couldn’t be more hopelessly wrong” to assume one is closer to Sliwa’s policies than the other.

So Mamdani’s “apprentice” status means: he inherits, leverages and may extend the policy path that Sliwa believes Cuomo initiated — and Sliwa views that path as destructive.

The Stakes of This Framing

Crime and public safety as central issueSliwa’s campaign positions law and order at its core. By labeling Cuomo (former governor) the “architect” of city decline and Mamdani the “apprentice,” he recasts the race as fundamentally about public safety, not just typical municipal issues. In this narrative, the city is on the brink and only a radically different leadership will reverse the trajectory.

Electoral positioning and opposition strategySliwa sees both Cuomo and Mamdani as part of the same problem. This allows him to avoid being viewed simply as the Republican in a heavily Democratic city. Instead, he frames himself as the outsider who stands between elites (Cuomo), progressives (Mamdani), and everyday New Yorkers concerned about real‑world safety and quality of life.

Messaging to moderates and disaffected votersBy attacking Cuomo’s legacy and exposing policies he says harmed the city, Sliwa tries to win over independents and moderate Democrats who might feel alienated by both mainstream and progressive wings of the Democratic Party. The message: “They created the problem; I’ll fix it.”

Undermining the opposition’s coalitionSliwa uses the “architect/apprentice” language to sow doubt about whether Mamdani truly offers change. If voters believe Mamdani is simply a continuation of harmful policies, then Sliwa hopes the anti‑progressive vote fragments and opens space for him.

Points of Contention and Questions

Is the “architect” claim fair?While Cuomo signed bail reform and other criminal‑justice policies, he also had a mixed legacy on law enforcement and policing before his resignation as governor. Some would argue that many of the reforms were driven by legislative majorities rather than his single‑handed design. Sliwa’s language simplifies complex policy causation into blame.

Does Mamdani truly follow Cuomo’s path?The “apprentice” label is rhetorically compelling but may not map precisely to Mamdani’s policy platform. While he is progressive, his ideas differ in many ways from Cuomo’s centrism. Framing him as a direct continuation of Cuomo simplifies his distinct identity.

Does Sliwa’s own platform match the scale of change he promises?Sliwa critiques both opponents heavily, but as a Republican in a city dominated by Democratic registration, his viability depends heavily on voters believing he can actually deliver change. Some critics point to his limited government experience and the structural challenges of the office.

Political calculationsSliwa is also using this strong rhetorical framing to resist calls to drop out of the race (to prevent splitting anti‑Mamdani votes). He insists his supporters would not vote for Cuomo under any circumstance, making his decision to stay in the race part of his narrative of independence.

Notable Quotes

On the debate stage: “We have the architect and the apprentice of no cash bail … We have the architect and the apprentice of closing Rikers Island …”

Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani share the same views. They are protecting the violators, the perps. I am protecting the victims.”

Regarding craps bail reform and his opposition: “Protect the perps … I am protecting the victims.”

Why This Matters for the 2025 New York City Race

A turning‑point election?New York City’s mayoral election often sets the tone for urban governance: policing, housing affordability, public transit, education. The intensity and framing of this race reflect deeper fault‑lines within the city’s politics — between law‑and‑order conservatives, moderate Democrats, and the progressive left.Narrative of decline vs. renewalSliwa is betting that many voters feel the city has declined under recent reforms and failed leadership. By casting Cuomo as the architect of that decline and Mamdani as ready to double‑down, he offers an alternative of renewal and reversal. Whether that message resonates can signal whether the city embraces continuity or change.

Party dynamics and coalition shiftsThe fact that Sliwa, a Republican, is positioning himself against both a former Democratic governor and a progressive Democrat speaks to how ideological divisions are influencing coalition politics in NYC. Voters frustrated with both old‑school Democrats and progressive insurgents might see Sliwa as a vehicle for a “third way.”

Implications for policy and governance
If Sliwa’s framing succeeds and he gains traction, it likely would push the political discourse toward stricter public‑safety regimes, tougher bail and crime policies, and perhaps a rollback of some progressive reform efforts. Conversely, if his framing fails and Mamdani ascends, it would signal momentum for more transformational or radical policy frameworks in the city.

My Assessment

Sliwa’s rhetoric is sharp and calculated. Labeling Cuomo as the “architect of destruction” grabs attention, while naming Mamdani his “apprentice” places the progressive candidate in the crosshairs as well. It allows Sliwa to argue: the problem isn’t just the left—it’s the policies that cut across both sides. He is trying to reframe the election as less about party labels and more about outcomes.

There is truth in the critique that New York City has grappled with public‑safety challenges, housing crises and governance issues. However, the causation is complex and attributing the city’s troubles predominantly to Cuomo’s policies stretches the nuance of decades of policy, economic forces and structural change.

What Sliwa offers is a clear narrative: decline caused by failed reform, and renewal via tough leadership. Whether that resonates depends on the electorate’s mood. In a city where crime, affordability and service delivery are immediate concerns, some voters may respond. On the other hand, the deeply Democratic registration and structural advantages of his opponents pose heavy headwinds.

Conclusion

As the 2025 New York City mayoral race hurtles towards its climax, the framing offered by Curtis Sliwa — Andrew Cuomo as the “architect of our destruction” and Zohran Mamdani as his “apprentice” — stands out as one of the key narrative battles. Whether voters accept this portrait, reject it outright, or see elements in both sides will help determine not just who leads the city, but what kind of leadership New York expects.

In political terms, Sliwa’s strategy is bold: he rejects party alignment, storms the Field of battle between two major figures, and bets on the public’s appetite for a hard break from what he calls a destructive legacy. Whether this gamble pays off remains to be seen—but it is shaping how the city’s future is being contested right now.