NEW YORK — Police1’s breakdown of Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s public safety plans earlier in 2025 drew an immediate and wide-ranging response from readers. Hundreds of officers, deputies and retired members of law enforcement shared their perspectives on what Mamdani’s proposed changes may mean for the nation’s largest police department.
Mamdani, who plans to maintain NYPD staffing levels, expand civilian-led outreach efforts and create a Department of Community Safety, has emphasized a prevention-first approach to public safety — an approach he is expected to begin advancing once he takes office Jan. 1. The volume of feedback from Police1 readers following his November win shows strong interest — and strong opinions — about how these changes may work in practice.
With Mamdani set to take office Jan. 1, Police1 is taking a fresh look at reader concerns shared earlier this year following his election. Below are the major themes reflected in readers’ comments.
Concerns about civilian responders handling crisis or mental health calls
The most common concern centered on Mamdani’s proposal to shift many mental health, homelessness and crisis-related responses from the NYPD to civilian professionals. Many readers said these calls are among the most unpredictable and dangerous encounters officers face.
“Someone will get hurt and they’ll be calling back for police,” one commenter wrote.
Another added, “Reality is the cure for idealism. Idealism can get you killed in law enforcement.”
Several readers with long tenures in policing said mental health calls routinely escalate into violence. “Some of my toughest calls were with mental health subjects,” a 38-year veteran wrote.
Others questioned civilian safety and feasibility:
“You can’t do this without police — it’s impossible.”
“Civilians will not go to these calls without the police with them.”
One reader summarized the concern bluntly: “Sending civilians into at times violent confrontations… is dangerous and they will get hurt.”
Fears of staffing declines and officer departures
Another major point of concern earlier this year was the potential impact on staffing and retention. Many readers predicted that officers would leave the NYPD if responsibilities shift drastically or if oversight increases.
“My advice to all LEOs in NYC: beat the rush, send out your resumes,” one commenter wrote.
Others warned the department could face sharp attrition. “If NYPD is at 35,000 now, they’ll be at about 15,000 in six months,” one reader said.
Some also worried that fewer officers on the subways and fewer police responding to EDP calls would reduce deterrence. “Showing up after a crime has been committed is not a crime protection strategy,” one reader wrote.
Mixed views on civilianizing certain duties
Some commenters said their own departments successfully shifted non-enforcement roles to civilians. One retired officer described his agency’s model: “We civilianized many positions. By the time I retired, we had 800 sworn officers and 600 civilian employees. The department saved money and morale increased.”
Others said the concept works only in limited areas. “Only works if people are actually held accountable,” one commenter wrote.
Another asked what qualifications “preventive outreach agents” would need for the approach to succeed and suggested these encounters “might work” if police remained on scene.
Reservations about removing officers from homeless outreach teams
Mamdani’s plan to replace NYPD officers on PATH outreach teams with “transit ambassadors” prompted strong reactions.
“You’re going to get hurt,” one reader wrote. “It’s just a matter of when.”
Another added, “Wait until the first ‘ambassador’ gets stabbed or shot.”
Several readers said these situations often involve individuals in crisis who may be armed. “A social worker showing up to a domestic dispute… lives will be lost,” one commenter wrote.
Another said, “No one in their right mind would do this alone” without police involvement.
Political frustration expressed by some readers
A portion of responses focused less on specific proposals and more on political concerns. One commenter wrote, “Policing can’t be reshaped every time a new politician comes into office.”
Others voiced frustration at what they described as public pressure or political messaging affecting policing. “Politicians and the public always seem to know best … without actually asking the police,” one reader wrote.
Another said, “Officers will flee when he tries to implement these soft-on-crime programs.”
What comes next
Mamdani officially takes office Jan. 1, with major changes planned for how the city approaches public safety, outreach and prevention — bringing renewed attention to concerns officers voiced months earlier. While some readers expressed optimism about parts of his agenda, most emphasized the need for caution when shifting responsibilities away from trained law enforcement officers.
Police1 will continue to follow how these proposals develop — and how officers, mental health professionals and city agencies adapt as the new administration’s policies take shape.
Police1 reader comments
- At the end of the day, this is what the citizens voted for. If they want fewer law enforcement officers and civilians responding to domestic violence calls and similar incidents instead, then so be it. Those of us in law enforcement understand the risks and dangers involved and can only do our best to educate the public about those realities. However, there comes a point where we have to step back and accept the outcome. This is what the voters wanted, and elections have consequences. If these approaches fail, it may serve as a wake-up call for the rest of the nation.
- I work for a Sheriff’s Office in SW Florida. For a brief time, we had “Mental Health Professionals” respond with to mental health calls. We found the question of who was in charge. What these people didn’t say, unless directly ask, was that the deputies were solely responsible for any decisions made. They were there to advise. Their presumption was that we knew nothing about dealing with emotionally disturbed persons. In reality, any senior deputy had much more experience than any of these entry level professionals.
- Too often elected officials listen to their surrounding paid advocates, thus feeling like they have to respond to the discussed changes or movements. I would think this mayor has numerous larger obstacles that he should press on his cabinet members before living room quarter backing issues that he should and must gain full knowledge of where to start...especially when dealing with Law Enforcement management(s).
- This mayor is going to get people killed. Sadly it needs to happen before he realizes it’s the real world.
- This is a very dangerous prospect. Sending a laborer to do a job that requires a skilled laborer. The job may get done, but not to the same level of craftsmanship. This is what is happening in NYC. It will be counterproductive. They will send out these social workers, and they will not be able to get the job done. Then the professional officer will be called to clean up their mess.
- Good cops will be gone ASAP. A good citizen will suffer. Maturity. 4 years of college allows more time to grow and mature. That and adding to better report and communication skills.
- I agree.. in Iowa we carry. Our crime is very low. We help the police IF They are attacked. We don’t stand down. LEAVE NYC. MANY JOBS in red states.
- Mentally ill people are usually in some sort of cascading crisis when police are called. Ambassadors will indeed get hurt or killed. Police have, tasers, batons, pepper spray and ultimately firearms to end the event. Ambassadors on trains? Good luck with dealing with a mental health crisis in a confined space. Good intentions are often outweighed by reality.
- NYPD was fine! This guy will cause more law enforcement deaths as well as civilian casualties! He’s totally clueless and never should have been voted in! It only proves how short the memories of 9/21/01 are! Anyone in a position of authority: secret service, law enforcement, educators, professors, need to be terminated. How can they unbiasedly do their jobs when they are biased against anyone who debates issues they may not agree with!
- As a retired Police Officer(SJPD) who used to write articles for this magazine, I completely agree with the officers who have been quoted in this article regarding Mayor Momdami’s plans to reduce the amount of officers with the NYPD. Simply put, individuals in the communities, are not limited to just in New York, who suffer from Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and have psychotic features related to Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and others, and also suffer from Agnosognosia- not aware they are mentally ill. Along with Agnosognosia, they may be suffering from delusions and hallucinations causing command hallucinations, which make them believe they are: God, Satan, Martians, etc. They can be extremely dangerous. The civilians who are going to be in this unit may be subjected to those kinds of behaviors that place them in harm’s way. Under many circumstances, with the mentally ill population, they will have no concerns for their safety until they come across individuals suffering from those behaviors. That is why Police Officers must be involved to some degree to ensure their safety.
- He is going to destroy Law and Order in New York You can’t just give people money and think they will be right. NYPD officers should start looking elsewhere for the respect and admiration they deserve. They risk their life every day for a mayor who could care less for the American people or this country.
- This plan is absolutely delusional thinking. They should assign NY members of congress, the senate and local aldermen to be on these response teams, let them lead by example, not behind a microphone.
- I’m excited for these changes over there. New Yorkers voted for this. I want to see this in action. I mean, not here where I live, but for New Yorkers, I’m all in!
