Security has become a defining issue in New York City’s heated 2025 mayoral race, as threats, political posturing, and law enforcement resources intersect in ways that have drawn both public attention and controversy. The city’s front-runner, Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, now moves through the campaign trail under the watchful eyes of an NYPD security detail—a shift prompted by a spate of threats that have culminated in a high-profile criminal case. Meanwhile, his chief opponents have made their own choices about protection, each decision reflecting broader debates about public safety, policing, and the realities of running for office in the nation’s largest city.
The most dramatic development came earlier this month, when Jeremy Fistel, a 44-year-old man from Plano, Texas, was arrested and extradited to Queens, New York, to face charges of making terroristic threats against Mamdani. According to WPIX and the Queens District Attorney’s office, Fistel’s barrage of voice messages and emails—sent to Mamdani’s official state Assembly channels from June through late July 2025—were described by prosecutors as “increasingly alarming.” The content of the messages left little room for ambiguity: Fistel’s communications included hateful comments about Mamdani, his family, and Muslims, as well as explicit threats of violence.
“The defendant told the assemblyman to go back to Uganda before someone shoots him in the head, to keep an eye on his house and family, to watch his back every second until he leaves America,” Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz told the court, as reported by WPIX. Katz added, “We take threats of violence against any office holder extremely seriously.” The prosecution underscored the gravity of the situation, noting that Fistel could face up to 60 years in jail if convicted on all charges.
For Mamdani, the threats were not merely abstract dangers. Back in the spring, his campaign had already hired private security in response to mounting concerns. But as the threats escalated and became the subject of a criminal investigation, the NYPD stepped in. As of September 2025, Mamdani is accompanied by an official NYPD security detail—a team of two officers who travel with him and, at times, drive him to campaign events. The department’s public information office clarified that mayoral candidates “do not typically receive security details,” but made an exception when “a significant threat assessment against a certain candidate” warranted it. They declined to say which other candidates, if any, were receiving similar protection this year.
The case against Fistel has gripped the city’s political circles and raised uncomfortable questions about the risks faced by public officials and those aspiring to higher office. According to prosecutors, Mamdani’s staff reported the threatening messages to law enforcement in June, setting off an investigation that led to Fistel’s September arrest in Texas and subsequent extradition to Queens. In court, Fistel’s defense attorney argued that the messages, though “unpleasant,” amounted to free speech rather than criminal threats. “Nobody is arguing what he did was proper… it’s unpleasant… but it’s free speech,” the attorney said, as quoted by WPIX.
While Mamdani’s need for security has become a matter of public record, his main rivals have taken markedly different stances. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee—who also ran in the 2021 mayoral race—has made a point of publicly declining an NYPD detail. Sliwa, a longtime advocate for police reform and the founder of the Guardian Angels, has argued that there simply aren’t enough officers for regular patrols, let alone for candidate protection. “Major party candidates are entitled to it,” Sliwa acknowledged last week, “but I still am not using a detail as the party’s nominee this year.” His stance is both a political statement and a personal conviction, setting him apart in a contest where security has become a flashpoint.
Former governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani, has also opted out of NYPD protection. According to campaign spokesperson Rich Azzopardi, Cuomo has received threats during the campaign but has not requested a detail. Azzopardi declined to comment on whether private security is ever used by the campaign, maintaining a veil of discretion around their protocols. Cuomo’s decision not to seek NYPD protection, despite the threats, underscores the sensitive calculus candidates must make between personal safety, public perception, and campaign strategy.
For Mayor Eric Adams, who is seeking reelection as an independent but currently trails Mamdani, Cuomo, and Sliwa in the polls, the situation is somewhat different. As the incumbent mayor, Adams is accompanied by an NYPD detail as a matter of course—a standard security measure for the city’s chief executive. Yet Adams’s presence in the race adds another layer to the security debate, as his campaign navigates the dual roles of incumbent and contender in a volatile political environment.
The NYPD’s approach to candidate security is, by design, opaque. The department rarely comments on the specifics of its threat assessments or the criteria it uses to determine who receives protection. Campaigns themselves are generally reluctant to discuss their security protocols, citing both operational concerns and the desire to avoid drawing further attention to potential risks. Still, the high-profile threats against Mamdani and the subsequent police response have thrust these issues into the public eye, prompting renewed scrutiny of how New York City balances the safety of its political figures with the broader demands on its police force.
The legal proceedings against Fistel are ongoing, but the case has already cast a long shadow over the mayoral race. Prosecutors have read out the content of the calls and emails in open court, revealing a pattern of hate-fueled rhetoric and explicit threats of violence. The fact that Fistel’s brother lives in Queens, as noted by his defense attorney, has only heightened local interest in the case and its implications for candidate safety.
For voters, the security arrangements of the city’s leading candidates are more than a matter of logistics—they are a reflection of the broader anxieties and divisions shaping New York’s political landscape. The choices made by Mamdani, Sliwa, Cuomo, and Adams each carry their own message, whether about the adequacy of police resources, the realities of public life, or the costs of seeking office in an era of heightened polarization.
As the November election approaches, the question of security—who gets it, who needs it, and at what cost—remains a potent undercurrent in a race already defined by sharp contrasts and high stakes. The threats against Mamdani have forced the city to confront uncomfortable truths about the dangers faced by those who step into the public arena, and the responses of his rivals have ensured that the debate over candidate protection is far from settled. For now, the campaign trail is as much about vigilance as it is about vision, and the outcome may well hinge on how New York’s would-be leaders navigate both.
