The election of socialist Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s mayor has breathed new life into Staten Island’s decades-old secession movement, creating a perfect case study of how political alienation drives communities toward independence. State Senator Andrew Lanza announced plans to “put the foot to the pedal” on secession legislation, while Assemblyman Sam Pirozzolo held a rally Friday, reading an independence declaration at the historic site where British soldiers first heard the Declaration of Independence on Staten Island.
This development reveals the strategic calculations behind modern secession movements. Lanza told the New York Post that Mamdani “could not be further out of sync with the values of communities on Staten Island,” adding that “this time around Democrats won’t want to stop [the borough’s secession] because it would make it even less likely [NYC] ever elects a Republican mayor again.”
The timing exposes a fascinating political dynamic. Staten Island’s 500,000 residents represent the city’s most conservative borough, consistently voting Republican in a city that just elected a self-described democratic socialist promising to freeze rent and make buses free. For Democratic Party leaders, losing Staten Island might actually strengthen their grip on city politics by removing the only borough that regularly opposes their agenda.
Staten Island’s aspirations for independence aren’t new. In 1993, 65 percent of residents approved a non-binding referendum to leave New York City, but the effort stalled when then-Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver refused to approve the required “home rule message” from the City Council. The borough has explored secession since the 1940s, driven by grievances over environmental injustices like the Fresh Kills landfill and political marginalization.
What makes this latest push significant is how it demonstrates the broader patterns driving what TNM has called the Era of Secession. Communities across America are discovering that when governing elites become completely disconnected from local values and needs, independence becomes the only viable solution. Staten Island’s renewed effort follows this exact template—a community realizing it has nothing in common with the distant capital that claims to represent it.
Lanza’s legislative approach offers tactical lessons for other independence movements. His proposal bypasses New York City officials entirely, requiring only state approval for Staten Island to vote on secession. This strategy recognizes that asking permission from the entity you’re trying to leave creates an obvious conflict of interest. City Councilman Frank Morano is preparing complementary legislation requiring the city to study the economic effects of independence, forcing honest assessment of separation costs.
The political mathematics work in Staten Island’s favor in ways that parallel Texas independence prospects. If Staten Island became independent, it would create New York State’s second-largest city, larger than Miami or Cleveland. The borough generates significant tax revenue while receiving proportionally less city investment—a dynamic Texas knows well in its relationship with Washington. More importantly, Staten Island’s departure would eliminate NYC’s most persistent political opposition, creating incentives for Democratic leaders to quietly support the move.
For Texas independence advocates, Staten Island’s renewed push offers several strategic insights. First, political catalysts matter—Mamdani’s socialist victory provided the perfect trigger for renewed secession energy. Second, framing independence as beneficial for both sides can neutralize opposition. Third, legal pathways that bypass hostile authorities create more realistic prospects for success.
The symbolic timing adds weight to Staten Island’s effort. Lanza noted that independence next year would align with America’s 250th anniversary, connecting their movement to the founding principles of self-determination. Pirozzolo’s choice to read the independence declaration at the site where British soldiers first heard the Declaration of Independence reinforces this historical continuity.
Staten Island’s case demonstrates how elite political overreach creates its own opposition. When a borough that values traditional governance finds itself ruled by a mayor promising socialist policies, the mismatch becomes unsustainable. The same dynamic drives Texas independence—a state with fundamentally different values being governed by federal authorities who view those values as obstacles to overcome.
The practical challenges remain substantial. Creating separate police, fire, and education departments requires significant investment. Legal hurdles include state approval and potential federal complications. But these obstacles pale compared to the fundamental issue: a community that no longer shares common ground with its governing authority.
What Staten Island’s lawmakers understand—and what Texas independence advocates have long argued—is that political problems require political solutions. When the distance between rulers and ruled becomes too great, when shared values disappear entirely, independence becomes not just preferable but inevitable. Staten Island’s renewed secession push following Mamdani’s victory proves this principle in action, offering both inspiration and instruction for communities everywhere seeking to govern themselves.
