The controversy centers on New York City’s property assessment roll and Mamdani’s proposed pied-à-terre tax, which targets certain high-value non-primary residences.
The database has attracted intense criticism because users can search property information, including ownership details and addresses. Critics argue that putting the information into an easily searchable format could make wealthy homeowners more vulnerable to harassment.
Galloway is now among those raising that concern.
“I’ve been doxed,” the liberal professor announced on the podcast. “I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Mayor Mamdani has decided to release a list of the 950,000 residences with addresses and names that might be eligible for his pied-à-terre tax.”
His co-host Kara Swisher agreed that the approach made her uncomfortable.
“I don’t love this,” co-host Kara Swisher agreed. “I can’t say I love this. It feels a little bit like doxing. Just tax them and get on with it is my feeling.”
That criticism is particularly notable because Galloway was not objecting to progressive taxation itself.
In fact, he made clear that he supports the concept of raising taxes on higher earners. His objection was the way the information was being presented and the potential consequences of publicly identifying property owners.
Galloway proceeded to read out the definition of doxing as “’publishing private identifying information to expose someone to public pressure or harm without their consent,’” and said that while he is a fan of the tax, he is not a fan of how the list has become a “wanted poster” for property owners.
“He’s taken a legitimate source of tax revenue, and he’s turning it into a wanted poster,” he said of Mamdani’s tax list. “The question I would have is, other than trying to identify and imply these people have done something wrong — and then, 18 months after a healthcare CEO was executed in the street, published the list — what is the upside here? Why is he doing this?”
That is a striking criticism coming from someone who describes himself as a progressive.
Galloway also argued that the policy could reinforce the very political narrative that conservatives have been making about progressive politics for years: that successful people are increasingly being treated as targets rather than contributors.
“He’s implying we’ve done something wrong because we’re successful,” Galloway later said. “New York is the last place you want to demonize success.”
He went even further, arguing that the controversy threatens one of New York’s central attractions: the idea that ambitious people can come to the city, succeed and be rewarded for their accomplishments.
“The reason people move to New York is they think, ‘I want to be successful on Broadway. I want to be successful in business. I want to be successful in the arts. No one’s going to get in my f—ing way if I’m really talented and work hard,’” he said. “We’re going to celebrate it. We’re not going to put a big R on your door and say you’ve done something wrong because you’re successful.”
There is, however, an important wrinkle in the controversy.
Mamdani’s administration disputes the characterization that the city created a special “tax list” targeting wealthy homeowners.
City officials told Fox News that New York has published property-tax rolls for decades and that state law requires the city to make the information public. The administration also stressed that the recently published roll includes properties throughout the city and is not itself a definitive list of homes that will ultimately pay the pied-à-terre surcharge.
The city says its Department of Finance will use the broader property roll to determine which properties actually meet the legal requirements for the surcharge.
Mamdani himself emphasized that distinction.
He said the published roll “is a reflection of all properties across New York City, not a reflection of those specifically that the pied-à-terre tax will be levied upon.”
That distinction matters. Critics may view the database as an unnecessary spotlight on wealthy homeowners, but city officials maintain that the underlying property information is not newly created or secretly assembled for the tax.
Still, Galloway’s criticism exposes a political problem for Mamdani.
Even supporters of progressive taxation can become uneasy when policies appear to single out successful people or make their personal property information easier for the public to identify.
And Galloway believes that is precisely what is happening.
He also warned that the controversy could damage the broader progressive movement by giving opponents an easy example of what they have long accused the left of doing.
“He’s not only playing into the worst fears about him, but he’s making it harder for all progressives,” he said. “I believe in a progressive tax structure. I believe we should raise tax rates. The Republicans, in order to create deficits and continue to transfer money from the poor to the rich, they argue that progressive tax structures are persecution. This plays exactly into that entire narrative.”
See the video below:
For conservatives, the irony is hard to miss.
A progressive professor who has defended higher taxes is now publicly warning that the implementation of one such policy can go too far.
Whether Mamdani’s database ultimately amounts to a meaningful security threat or simply represents the ordinary publication of public tax records remains a matter of dispute.
But politically, Galloway’s complaint has handed Mamdani’s critics a powerful talking point.
The question is no longer simply whether New York should tax expensive second homes.
It is whether the city can pursue that goal without creating the impression that wealth itself has become something deserving of public suspicion.
Galloway appears to believe Mamdani has crossed that line.
And coming from a progressive who says he supports the underlying tax policy, that criticism may be more damaging to the mayor than anything his conservative opponents could have said.
