By ANTHONY IZAGUIRRE, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City Democrats will decide Tuesday whether to reboot Andrew Cuomo’s political career, elevate liberal upstart Zohran Mamdani, or turn to a crowded field of lesser-known but maybe less-polarizing candidates in the party’s mayoral primary.

Their choice could say something about what kind of leader Democrats are looking for during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The vote takes place on a sweltering day about four years after Cuomo resigned as governor following a sexual harassment scandal. Yet the 67-year-old has been the favorite throughout the race, with his deep experience, nearly universal name recognition, strong political connections and juggernaut fundraising apparatus.

The party’s progressive wing, meanwhile, has coalesced behind Mamdani, a 33-year-old self-described democratic socialist. A relatively unknown state legislator when the contest began, Mamdani gained momentum by running a sharp campaign laser-focused on the city’s high cost of living and secured endorsements from two of the country’s foremost progressives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

FILE- This combination photo shows on left, Democratic mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo speaking during a Democratic mayoral primary debate, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, in New York and on right, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani talking to people after the New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary Debate at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the Gerald W. Lynch Theater on Thursday, June 12, 2025 in New York City. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, file and Vincent Alban/The New York Times via AP, Pool, file)

While preliminary returns will be released after the polls close at 9 p.m. Tuesday, a winner might not emerge for a week because of the city’s ranked choice voting system, which allows voters to list up to five candidates in order of preference. If a candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters, they win outright. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the tabulation of the rankings wouldn’t begin until July 1.

The primary winner will go on to face incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat who decided to run as an independent amid a public uproar over his indictment on corruption charges and the subsequent abandonment of the case by Trump’s Justice Department. Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, will be on the ballot in the fall’s general election.

Related Articles

Trump administration postpones classified briefings for lawmakers on Iran

South Dakota eager for Trump’s statue garden near Mount Rushmore despite local opposition

Trump says whether he’ll commit to NATO mutual defense guarantee ‘Depends on your definition’

Justice Department official suggested ignoring court orders on deportations, whistleblower claims

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

The mayoral primary’s two leading candidates — one a fresh-faced progressive and the other an older moderate — could be stand-ins for the larger Democratic Party’s ideological divide, though Cuomo’s scandal-scarred past adds a unique tinge to the narrative.

The rest of the pack has struggled to gain recognition in a race where nearly every candidate has cast themselves as the person best positioned to challenge Trump’s Republican agenda.

Comptroller Brad Lander, a liberal city government stalwart, made a splash last week when he was arrested after linking arms with a man federal agents were trying to detain at an immigration court in Manhattan. It was unclear if that episode was enough to jump-start a campaign that had been failing to pick up speed behind Lander’s wonkish vibe.

Among the other candidates are City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, hedge fund executive Whitney Tilson and former city Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Mamdani’s energetic run has been hard not to notice.

His army of young hipster canvassers relentlessly knocked on doors throughout the city seeking support. Posters of his grinning mug were up on shop windows. You couldn’t get on social media without seeing one of his well-produced videos pitching his vision — free buses, free child care, new apartments, a higher minimum wage and more, paid for by new taxes on the rich. He would be the city’s first Indian-American and first Muslim mayor.

Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani arrives at the NBC studios to participate in a Democratic mayoral primary debate, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, Pool)

Cuomo and some other Democrats have cast Mamdani as unqualified. They say he doesn’t have the management chops to wrangle the city’s sprawling bureaucracy or handle crises. Critics have also taken aim at Mamdani’s support for Palestinian human rights.

In response, Mamdani has slammed Cuomo over his sexual harassment scandal and his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

In one heated debate exchange, Cuomo rattled off a long list of what he saw as Mamdani’s managerial shortcomings, arguing that his opponent, who has been in the state Assembly since 2021, has never dealt with Congress or unions and never overseen an infrastructure project. He added that Mamdani couldn’t be relied upon to go toe-to-toe with Trump.

Mamdani had a counter ready.

“To Mr. Cuomo, I have never had to resign in disgrace,” he said.

New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo, center, waves as he walks in the Puerto Rican Day Parade, Sunday, June 8, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Heather Khalifa)

Cuomo resigned in 2021 after a report commissioned by the state attorney general concluded that he had sexually harassed at least 11 women. He has always maintained that he didn’t intentionally harass the women, saying he had simply fallen behind what was considered appropriate workplace conduct.

During the campaign, he has become more aggressive in defending himself, framing the situation as a political hit job orchestrated by his enemies.

The fresh scandal at City Hall involving Mayor Eric Adams, though, gave Cuomo a path to end his exile.

By JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — There is a history-rich part of London that few people have seen, where the city braced for the Blitz, James Bond’s creator got inspiration and secret Cold War messages passed between Washington and Moscow.

It’s a network of tunnels 100 feet below the streets that was secret for decades — but could be the city’s next big tourist destination. Local authorities have approved plans to fill the 90,000 square-foot site with an intelligence museum, an interactive World War II memorial and one of the world’s deepest underground bars.

“It’s an amazing space, an amazing city,” said Angus Murray, chief executive of The London Tunnels, as subway trains rattled overhead. “And I think it tells a wonderful story.”

Angus Murray, CEO of The London Tunnels, gestures as he shows photos and diagrams relating to the history of the tunnels speaking during a press tour in London, Thursday, June 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Joanna Chan)

A vast bomb shelter

The tunnels lie directly below London Underground’s Central Line in the city’s Holborn area. Work to dig them began in secret in 1940, when Britain feared invasion by Nazi Germany. They were designed to shelter up to 8,000 people in a pair of parallel tunnels 16½ feet wide and 1,300 feet long.

The tunnels were never used for that purpose; by the time they were finished in 1942 the worst of the Blitz was over, and Underground bosses had opened up subway stations as air raid shelters for Londoners.

Instead, the tunnels became a government communications center and a base for the Special Operations Executive, a clandestine unit that sent agents — many of them women — on perilous sabotage missions in Nazi-occupied territory under orders from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to “set Europe ablaze.”

Skittles left in one of the tunnels are seen during a press tour in London, Thursday, June 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Joanna Chan)

A naval officer named Ian Fleming was a liaison officer to the SOE, and the subterranean HQ may have provided inspiration for the world of secret agent 007 that he went on to create.

“This truly is the Q Branch of James Bond,” said Murray, referring to the thrillers’ fictional MI6 quartermaster and gadget-maker.

After the war, more tunnels were added to the complex and the site became a secure telephone exchange. From the mid-1950s it was a terminus of the first trans-Atlantic undersea telephone cable. After the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962, a “red telephone” hotline between the Pentagon and the Kremlin was established and ran through here.

Up to 200 people worked underground, bound to secrecy but with the compensation of an onsite canteen and bar. For a time, the site also housed a bunker to be used by the government in the event of nuclear war.

By the 1980s, technology had moved on and British Telecom moved out. The tunnels lay largely forgotten until BT sold them in 2023 to Murray’s private equity-backed group.

Plans include a memorial to the more than 40,000 civilians killed by German bombing in the war, cultural exhibitions and a nightspot that Murray boasts will be “the deepest bar in the world in a city.”

Bottles and glasses left on the counter of one of the bars that operated from the 1980s, are seen during a press tour in London, Thursday, June 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Joanna Chan)

Secret wartime history

It also will house Britain’s Military Intelligence Museum, which is currently tucked away on a military base north of London with limited public access. Museum bosses have agreed to move a collection covering more than 300 years of history to the tunnels, bringing a much higher profile for a story they believe needs to be told.

”It’s not targeted at people who already have an interest in military topics,” said the chair of the museum’s board of trustees, who gave only his first name, Alistair, because of the museum’s connection to Britain’s armed forces.

“A heavy theme that will run through the new museum is that there are skills and tools that military intelligence has developed over years and centuries … and the fundamental one is, how do you tell truth from lies?” he said. “That’s a very big theme of now.”

A general view of one of the tunnels during a press tour London, Thursday, June 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Joanna Chan)

The museum also will flesh out the secret story of the Special Operations Executive. The museum’s collection contains agent messages, supplies, weapons and sabotage equipment from the SOE’s wartime adventures.

“Most of the people that worked in SOE never talked about it, either at the time or afterwards, and many of the records have disappeared,” Alistair said. “So a lot is known about SOE, but we don’t know everything, and the chances are we will never know everything.”

Related Articles

Surging travel in Europe spikes concerns over tourism’s drawbacks

How the humble water gun became the symbol of Barcelona’s anti-tourism movement

Could you eat this much ice cream after walking 1,100 miles? Some Appalachian Trail hikers try

Trump bans ‘negative’ signage at national parks, asks visitors to snitch on unpatriotic text

Smaller amusement parks hope for a strong summer under the shadow of tariffs

A unique attraction

For now, the tunnel entrance is through an unmarked door in an alley, and walking the cool, dim corridors brings the thrill of discovering a hidden corner of history. Within the thick steel and concrete walls are chunky old generators and telecoms equipment, a staff canteen with its kitchen still intact, and the bar, its 1960s orange and brown décor giving off retro “Austin Powers” vibes

Here and there are graffiti tags and a few items left by urban explorers who snuck in over the years, including a set of bowling pins with ball, and — incongruously — a bear costume.

London Tunnels aims to open in 2028, and to attract up to 4.2 million tourists a year. That may sound ambitious, but Murray says the site’s mix of “history and heritage and novelty” makes it a unique draw.

“If you go home and say, ‘I went to this really cool tunnel today,’ then we’re halfway there,” he said. “If what’s inside of it is even better, you’re going to go ‘Oh that’s fantastic.’”

The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it.

A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products.

Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal.

Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options.

Question: Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers?

Economists

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn’t know were available. I’m also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It’s appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug’s usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug’s value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license.

Ray Major, economist

YES: Every ad starts with or ends with “ask your doctor if this drug is right for you.” Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients’ needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline.

Executives

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let’s limit ads during the first few years of release.

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors’ advice.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world’s highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to “ask your doctor” for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients’ physicians, not a jingle on TV.  Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers – which is why many countries prohibit advertising.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: While I don’t enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don’t support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

 

By BEATRICE DUPUY, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — With his calm and cool demeanor, fashion disruptor and multi-hyphenate Virgil Abloh artfully challenged the fashion industry’s traditions to leave his mark as a Black creative, despite his short-lived career.

In the years since his 2021 death at just 41, his vision and image still linger. Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Robin Givhan sheds new light on how Abloh ascended the ranks of one of the top luxury fashion houses and captivated the masses with her latest book, “Make It Ours: Crashing the Gates of Culture with Virgil Abloh.”

In the book out Tuesday, Givhan documents Abloh’s early life growing up as the son of Ghanaian immigrants in Rockford, Illinois, his days as graduate student studying architecture and his working relationship and friendship with Kanye West.

Before taking the helm of Louis Vuitton as the house’s first Black menswear creative director, Abloh threw himself into his creative pursuits including fine art, architecture, DJing and design. Abloh remixed his interests with his marketing genius and channeled it into fashion with streetwear labels like Been Trill and Pyrex Vision.

These endeavors were the launchpad for his luxury streetwear label Off-White, known for its white diagonal lines, quotation marks, red zip ties and clean typeface. Off-White led to Abloh’s collaboration with Ikea, where he designed a rug with “KEEP OFF” in all-white letters and also with Nike where he deconstructed and reenvisioned 10 of Nike’s famous shoe silhouettes.

Throughout his ventures, Abloh built a following of sneakerheads and so-called hypebeasts who liked his posts, bought into his brands and showed up in droves outside his fashion shows. Social media made Abloh accessible to his fans and he tapped into that.

Off-White had built a loyal following and some critics. Givhan, a Washington Post senior critic-at-large, openly admits that she was among the latter early on. Givhan said she was fascinated that Abloh’s popularity was more than his fashion.

“For me, there was something of a disconnect really,” she said. “That here was this person who had clearly had an enormous impact within the fashion industry and outside of the fashion industry, and yet it wasn’t really about the clothing. It was about something else.”

For her latest project, Givhan spoke with The Associated Press on how she approached each of Abloh’s creative undertakings and his legacy during a period of heightened racial tension in America. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

AP: Tell me why you felt it was important to include the context of what was happening at the time Abloh was growing up as well as on his rise up through the fashion industry, with him ultimately ending up at Louis Vuitton.

GIVHAN: Fashion doesn’t just sort of happen in a vacuum. People are the product of their parents, their family, their environment, their timing, their interests, all of those things.

I always like to see, what is swirling around people when they make certain decisions? What is sort of in the water that you’re absorbing, that you are not even conscious that you’re absorbing it.

AP: Can you talk about the process of writing about all of his creative endeavors and how they shaped his career?

GIVHAN: The skater culture — in part because it was such a sort of subculture that also had a very specific aesthetic and was such a deep part of the whole world of streetwear — and then the DJing part intrigued me because so much of his work as a designer seems to reflect a kind of DJ ethos, where you’re not creating the melody and you’re not creating the lyrics. You’re taking these things that already exist and you’re remixing them and you’re responding to the crowd and the crowd is informing you. And so much of that, to me, could also be used to describe the way that he thought about fashion and the way that he designed.

AP: What role would you say that Virgil has had in the fashion industry today?

GIVHAN: He certainly raised the question within the industry of what is the role of the creative director? How much more expansive is that role? … And I do think he has really forced the question of how are we defining luxury? Like what is a luxury brand? And is it something that is meant to sort of have this lasting impact? Is it supposed to be this beautifully crafted item? Or is it really just a way of thinking about value and beauty and desirability? And if it’s those things, then really it becomes something that is quite sort of quite personal and can be quite based on the community in which you live.

AP: How did he use social media to his advantage and to help catapult his career?

GIVHAN: He really used social media as a way of connecting with people as opposed to just sort of using it as kind of a one-way broadcast. He was telling his side of things, but he was also listening to other people. He was listening to that feedback.

That’s also what made him this larger-than-life person for a lot of people, because not only was he this creative person who was in conversation with fans and contemporaries, but he was this creative person inside. He was this creative person at the very top of the fashion industry. For a lot of people, the idea that you could ostensibly have a conversation with someone at that level, and they would seemingly pull back the curtain and be transparent about things — that was really quite powerful.

AP: You write about his relationship to Kanye in the book. Were you able to get any input from him on their relationship for the book?

GIVHAN: Their individual ambitions, aesthetic ideas and curiosity kind of propelled them forward in separate directions. I did reach out to Kanye after a lot of the reporting because he obviously is this thread that is woven throughout the book. And, ultimately, he elected not to engage.

But I was lucky enough to get access to an unpublished conversation that Virgil had had around, I think it was 2016-ish, where he talked at length about his working relationship with Kanye and sort of the differences between them and the similarities and the ways in which … Kanye inspired him and sort of the jet fuel that he got from that relationship.

More than anything, because Virgil’s personality was in so many ways kind of the opposite of Kanye’s, that for every door that Kanye was kind of pounding on, Virgil was able to politely sort of walk through.

AP: Why do you think his legacy continues to persist?

GIVHAN: For one, he had such an enormous output of work. I think there’s a lot of it to consider. Also, sadly, because his career was cut so short that there is this sense of someone who sort of stops speaking mid-sentence.

I’ve been thinking about how Virgil might have responded, how his creativity might have responded to this moment because so much shifted post-George Floyd that like this is another inflection point and it makes me wonder, “OK, how would he have responded today?” And with the person who said, “I’m not a rebel and I’m not a flame thrower,” would he have picked up some matches? I don’t know.