Non-Profit’s Plot To Instruct Non-Citizens How to Vote for Mamdani Uncovered
A nonprofit organization in New York City has been caught on camera advising a supposed noncitizen to illegally vote in November’s mayoral election for Zohran Mamdani.
According to footage released by O’Keefe Media Group (OMG), an undercover journalist posing as an unregistered immigrant approached the nonprofit’s director, asking how to cast a ballot—and who to vote for.The director allegedly explained how the journalist could navigate the system to vote despite not being a citizen and hinted at which candidate to choose, saying he should vote for the one whose name starts with “M.”
James O’Keefe, founder of the undercover investigative journalism organization, posted the video to X, with the caption: “La Jornada Executive Director Pedro Rodriguez Tells Undercover OMG Journalist Posing as an Unregistered Migrant to ‘Vote for the Guy That Starts with ‘M’ – Despite 501(c)(3) Regulation Prohibiting Political Activity by Tax-Exempt Organizations. Rodriguez Acknowledges Knowing the Individual Is ‘Not Registered’ Before Advising him How to Vote – a Potential Violation of Federal & State Election Laws.”It’s illegal to vote in New York City elections as a non-citizen, but the voter ID mechanisms are not particularly strong, either.
The video shows the director of the nonprofit “La Jornada” – which boasts a focus on “assisting migrants with their paperwork and legal needs” – talking to the journalist posing as the immigrant.Mike Casey, the correspondent, told Rodriguez, “Yes, I’m an immigrant. They sent me here to vote. I was recommended to come here to find information to vote. I was given two, dos locations. Forgive me, I am, no Espanol.”
Rodriguez responded, “No, this is perfect for me,” before asking the undercover journalist when he registered to vote.“I did not, I didn’t sign anything. They just told me to come here to vote,” Casey said.
“You’re not registered? Okay,” the director says. OMG reported that even though the journalist posing as the unregistered immigrant was not in a legal voting status, he was nonetheless instructed to go vote at a local community college.When O’Keefe and his team later confronted Rodriguez, the nonprofit’s director, he denied ever instructing the undercover journalist to vote for Mamdani — even though the reporter had clearly posed as an illegal immigrant in the recorded exchange.
Mamdani, a self-described “democratic socialist,” is already under fire after fares for city buses increased this week, though he promised free buses for all residents during his campaign.New York City transit riders began paying higher fares this week after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority implemented a long-planned increase, raising the base fare for buses and subways from $2.90 to $3.
Reduced fares rose to $1.50, while express bus fares increased to $7.25, Newsweek reported.
The fare hike took effect shortly after Zohran Mamdani assumed office as mayor, drawing criticism online from residents who pointed to his campaign pledge to make city buses free.
Critics argued the increase highlights a gap between campaign rhetoric and the financial realities of governing the nation’s largest city, the report said.While the mayor does not directly control MTA fare decisions, the timing of the increase has renewed debate over whether progressive transit promises are achievable without new taxes or additional public subsidies. The MTA board approved the fare hike last year as part of its regular budget cycle, citing rising operating costs and inflation.After Mamdani took office, he said: “Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you’ll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle—because we will make buses fast and free.”Although the fare increase was approved before Mamdani took office and rate increases are determined by the MTA Board, social media users still criticized the rise in costs and highlighted Mamdani’s campaign promise, Newsweek pointed out.
“Mamdani promised us a free ride, but all we got is a higher fare,” one X user wrote, per the outlet.“Bus and Subway fares in NYC are jumping to $3 as of today. The good mayor promised free. Hoodwinked!” said another.
Another X user wrote that Mamdani “has been in office for just weeks” and “the fare increase was set in September.”
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
