Robert De Niro, a lifelong New Yorker and part-time moral compass for the nation, has reportedly begun making quiet plans to leave New York City after the official rise of Mayor Mamdani. The actor, once one of the mayor’s most enthusiastic celebrity supporters, now says the situation has become “financially impossible” after learning that the policies he applauded may actually apply to him.
“I didn’t think it would go this far,” De Niro said, speaking with the same intensity he once reserved for interrogating fictional criminals. “He wants to take all of my savings. They say I’m wealthy, but I haven’t worked in some time. My savings is all I have.”
For decades, De Niro positioned himself as a cultural fixture of New York—an artist deeply tied to the city’s identity, politics, and values. He publicly backed progressive candidates, criticized capitalism in interviews, and championed the idea that the wealthy had a moral obligation to give more.
That message resonated strongly during Mamdani’s mayoral campaign, which centered on aggressive wealth redistribution, new taxes on high earners, and a promise to “reclaim excess resources for the public good.” De Niro was not just a supporter—he was a believer.
At rallies, De Niro praised Mamdani as “the future of New York,” applauding his willingness to “finally hold the wealthy accountable.” He dismissed critics as “fear-mongers” and insisted that anyone opposing the plan was simply unwilling to share.
What De Niro did not anticipate, according to people close to him, was discovering that “the wealthy” included Robert De Niro.
“The mood shifted fast,” said a longtime friend. “Once the policy details started coming out, Bob went from enthusiastic to confused to alarmed in about three days.”
Sources say the turning point came when De Niro reviewed a preliminary breakdown of proposed taxes targeting high-value assets, long-term savings, and what the mayor’s office described as “idle accumulated wealth.”
“That phrase—idle accumulated wealth—really stuck with him,” said one associate. “He kept saying, ‘That’s not idle. I earned that.’”
De Niro’s comments quickly drew attention online, where critics wasted no time pointing out the irony. Many noted that Mamdani’s platform had been clear from the beginning, often summarized in blunt, easy-to-understand terms.
“He literally ran on taxing people like you,” one viral post read. “This wasn’t a bait-and-switch.”
Another user wrote, “Welcome to the ‘find out’ stage.”
Despite the backlash, De Niro insists he is not abandoning his principles—just reassessing their practical limits.
“I still believe in fairness,” he said. “I just think there has to be balance. You can’t punish people for success forever.”
Political observers say this reaction is far from unique. Throughout history, radical economic proposals have enjoyed strong support among elites—right up until those elites realize the policies are not symbolic.
“There’s always a moment when slogans turn into spreadsheets,” said one analyst. “That’s when things get uncomfortable.”
Behind the scenes, De Niro has reportedly begun exploring relocation options, focusing on states with lower taxes and fewer “ideological experiments,” as one advisor put it. While no final decision has been made, insiders say the actor is increasingly resigned to the idea that New York no longer wants him—at least not his money.
“He’s conflicted,” said a source familiar with the discussions. “This is the city he loves. But love only goes so far when the government is looking at your savings account like a public utility.”
Mayor Mamdani responded to reports of De Niro’s possible exit with measured indifference.
“No one is being singled out,” the mayor said. “These policies are about equity. If someone believes in collective responsibility, that belief shouldn’t depend on their personal comfort.”
Privately, aides suggest City Hall expected this type of reaction from wealthy supporters once campaign rhetoric became governing reality.
“People like the idea of sacrifice,” one aide said. “They just prefer it to be theoretical.”
The situation has reportedly unsettled other high-profile figures who publicly endorsed Mamdani. Several are said to be consulting financial advisors, while others have gone conspicuously silent after months of loud political advocacy.
De Niro, however, remains the most visible symbol of the shift.
“It’s not that he regrets supporting Mamdani,” said a longtime associate. “It’s more that he regrets not reading the fine print.”
Critics argue the episode highlights a broader pattern in modern politics, where celebrity activism often stops at personal inconvenience.
“It’s easy to demand change when the cost is abstract,” said one commentator. “It’s harder when the invoice arrives with your name on it.”
Still, De Niro maintains he has been misunderstood.
“I’m not against helping people,” he said. “But there has to be a line. A reasonable line. A line that doesn’t erase everything I worked for.”
Whether De Niro ultimately leaves New York remains uncertain. Some believe he may attempt to negotiate exemptions or quietly restructure his finances. Others think the move is inevitable.
“If he stays,” one observer noted, “he has to live with the policies he supported. If he leaves, he has to live with the hypocrisy.”
For now, De Niro appears caught between two identities: the outspoken progressive who demanded accountability from the wealthy, and the aging star staring at his bank statements with growing concern.
New York, meanwhile, continues on its path, seemingly unfazed by the possibility of losing one of its most famous residents. As one local resident put it, watching the debate unfold, “Celebrities come and go. Taxes are forever.”
If De Niro does leave, the city will likely survive just fine. But his departure may stand as a cautionary tale—one that reminds supporters of sweeping change that enthusiasm is easy, consequences are not, and eventually, everyone reaches the part where ideals meet reality.
