Zohran Mamdani, the progressive New York assemblyman now running for mayor, has built his campaign around a striking promise: free childcare, from six weeks old to kindergarten, for every family in the city.

The pledge has electrified parents drained by soaring costs. It has also triggered warnings about feasibility, funding, and government overreach. As the race intensifies, Mr. Mamdani’s plan has become a defining issue — and a test case for how American politics will handle a crisis affecting nearly every working family.

“I think the heart of this debate is the difference between affordable childcare and universal childcare,” the president and CEO of the Partnership for New York, Kathryn Wylde, tells the New York Sun. 

“Certainly, the cost of childcare is a key contributor to the affordability crisis, but local government would be hard-pressed to offer free childcare to everyone, regardless of their need. Entitlements of this nature have been the responsibility of the federal government, which has a far greater ability to fund them.”

Ms. Wylde predicted that state and local governments will soon face hard choices amid federal cuts to healthcare, housing, and food programs. 

“Enhancing the affordability and accessibility of childcare should be a priority,” she continued. “But within reasonable cost parameters.”

Fiscal Strain and Ideological Fault Lines

The most immediate question is cost. Analysts estimate a birth-to-5 universal childcare program could require at least $5 billion annually — forcing New York to either raise taxes, cut programs, or both.

It wouldn’t be the first time City Hall tackled childcare. A former mayor, Bill de Blasio, launched Universal Pre-K in 2014–15, offering free, full-day preschool for 4-year-olds. Backed by $340 million in state funds and proposed tax hikes on high earners, the program enrolled 65,000 children in its first year, adding 3,000 classrooms and 2,000 teachers. 

With annual costs of nearly $300 million, the program was widely regarded as a success, boosting access for low-income families, improving early learning, and easing financial strain for all parents.

Mr. De Blasio later pushed “3-K for All,” extending care to 3-year-olds. Funding shortfalls, however, forced Mayor Adams to reallocate $568 million away from the program in 2022.

Critics see lessons in those struggles. 

A senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Angela Rachidi, tells the Sun that “universal childcare does not have a good track record.” She cites Quebec’s subsidized system of the late 1990s, which raised maternal labor participation but correlated in some studies with higher anxiety, weaker motor and social skills, more strained family relationships, and declining maternal mental health.

“It shifts costs from middle and high income families with children to childless individuals and lower middle income families,” Ms. Rachidi said. “And the outcomes associated with universal childcare are not good. I don’t think universal childcare is sustainable over the long term due to cost and poor child outcomes.”

Other opponents argue that a universal system would displace private providers and undervalue informal care, such as that provided by grandparents.

Surveys reflect a diversity of parental preferences, suggesting that one-size-fits-all policies may not align with families’ needs. In 2019, 51 percent of mothers with children under 18 said full-time work was ideal. By October 2020, that figure had dropped to 44 percent, while the proportion of mothers preferring part-time work remained steady at 30 percent. 

The share preferring not to work at all rose to 27 from 19 percent. Experts say the caregiving pressures that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic drove many to value flexibility over rigid arrangements.

Underlying these critiques is a broader concern: whether government should extend its reach into one of the most personal spheres of family life. Some warn that universal childcare could bureaucratize early childhood education the way public schools have — with rigid rules, uneven quality, and spiraling costs.

Mr. Mamdani’s pledge is also confusing and vague, according to experts like a professor of public affairs at Arizona State University, Chris Herbst.

“What exactly is being offered on a universal basis?” Mr. Herbst pondered to the Sun. “Is it financial assistance that parents can use for private providers? Or direct city-run services? Will it be means-tested? Will parents have to be working? Will subsidies taper off with income? These are not just technicalities; they are critical design choices.”

Mr. Herbst also flagged unanswered questions on the provider side. Would subsidies extend to home-based care, relatives, babysitters, and religious programs? Would providers face new quality benchmarks? Without details, he said, it’s impossible to judge the policy’s scope or fairness.

The Appeal: A Crisis Parents Can’t Ignore

For all the warnings, Mr. Mamdani’s pitch resonates because the math is brutal.

Center-based care for an infant in New York City now averages $26,000 annually — requiring a household income of $334,000 to be affordable, according to the city comptroller. Infant care runs $2,900 to $4,000 a month, while toddler care still averages $2,500 — more than rent for many families.

Parents report delaying having a second child, draining their savings, or leaving the workforce entirely. Mr. Mamdani’s refrain — that no New Yorker should pay more for daycare than for college — hits home as a lifeline, not just a progressive talking point.

An advocacy group, New Yorkers United for Child Care, has sketched a roadmap for a phased-in program. Their five-year plan, endorsed by State Senator Jessica Ramos and Comptroller Brad Lander, carries a $12.7 billion annual price tag — about 6 percent of the state budget. Backers argue the investment would pay off through higher workforce participation, reduced social spending, and more substantial tax revenues.

Public opinion underscores the urgency. A June 2025 Associated Press-NORC poll found that a large majority of Americans view childcare costs as a “major problem.” In New York, Mr. Mamdani’s rise suggests the issue could prove decisive in November.

“The entire point of our tax system is to raise money to invest in priorities that benefit all of us and child care is a perfect example of the type of public good that this system is set up to invest in,” the senior media relations manager at the National Women’s Law Center, Sydney Petersen, tells the Sun. “The status quo clearly is not working: families are paying too much for childcare, and at the same time, early educators aren’t making a living wage.”

Trump’s Takeaways

If Mr. Mamdani’s campaign reveals anything, it’s that childcare has shifted from a local headache to a national political fault line. His universal plan may buckle under budget realities, but the message travels: Families everywhere face the same squeeze of affordability, access, and workforce shortages.

Republicans have embraced a different strategy. This year, Congress overhauled childcare tax policy by expanding the Child and Dependent Care Credit, boosting dependent-care FSAs, and reviving the employer childcare credit.

States and institutions are innovating, too. New Mexico has made childcare free for most families with incomes under 400 percent of the poverty line, while also increasing educator pay. The state is already reporting a decline in child poverty. The Army National Guard added free weekend care for service members on drill days to aid retention.

Mr. Herbst sees promise in broader efforts:

“The benefits associated with universal childcare are potentially vast because childcare is what’s called a ‘two-generation’ service, producing economic benefits for parents and their kids, both today and in the future.”

Others disagree: “I wouldn’t take any lessons,” Ms. Rachidi said. “Promises of no-cost services are popular until people are asked to pay for them.”

What would help? 

“Reduce regulations on providers to lower costs,” Ms. Rachidi continued. “Make part-time work more accessible so parents can accommodate their preferred care situations.”