Hochul, James Claim To Stand Against Trump, But Critics Say They Undermine Freedoms

New York’s Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James are positioning themselves as champions of New Yorkers’ rights against the upcoming Trump administration, yet their own policies suggest otherwise. At a press conference, both leaders spoke of defending state residents from any Trump policies that they say could endanger freedoms. However, critics argue that their actions in office show a pattern of restricting New Yorkers’ rights.

Hochul unveiled her “Empire State Freedom Initiative” with promises to resist potential federal policies on immigration, labor and LGBTQ+ rights. But her actions during the pandemic—supporting strict lockdowns, mask mandates and other restrictions—are remembered by many as infringements on personal freedoms. Hochul also considered state surveillance measures to enforce pandemic compliance, raising concerns over government intrusion.

James, known for her relentless pursuit of Trump, emphasized her commitment to protecting New Yorkers from federal overreach, vowing to “fight back.” However, her ongoing legal battles against Trump have led to accusations of political bias. Critics argue that her actions show a willingness to bypass fair treatment for the sake of targeting Trump, rather than focusing on broader public interests.

Republicans in New York have not held back in expressing their disapproval. GOP chair Ed Cox criticized Hochul and James’ claims, suggesting their own policies contradict their public stance on defending rights. Cox called the press conference a “stunt,” arguing that their selective support of freedoms shows their true priorities.

Some New Yorkers are left questioning whether Hochul and James’ opposition to Trump is based on genuine concern for rights or political rivalry. Many see their past actions as indicative of leaders more focused on controlling state affairs than protecting citizens’ liberties. As they prepare to push back against Trump, Hochul and James are under scrutiny over their actual commitment to individual freedoms.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR