He’s zoning out.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani promised Friday to veto a bill creating a “buffer zone” around schools for protests because he worries it’ll stifle demonstrations against ICE or in support of Palestinian rights. 

The move would be the first veto of Mamdani’s tenure, likely killing the bill sponsored by Eric Dinowitz (D-Bronx) — which passed the City Council 30-19, just shy of a veto-proof majority.

Jewish groups and lawmakers, including City Council Speaker Julie Menin, championed the legislation — along with a related bill for houses of worship — arguing it’d quickly provide valuable protections for students intimidated by antisemitic protests.

But Mamdani argued the bill defined educational institutions too broadly, leading to potential First Amendment issues for New Yorkers protesting his pet issues.

“As the bill is written, everywhere from universities to museums to teaching hospitals could face restrictions,” Mamdani said in a statement.

“This could impact workers protesting ICE, or college students demanding their school divest from fossil fuels or demonstrating in support of Palestinian rights.”

The potential law was similar to another bill, which passed the same day last month, requiring the NYPD to detail its plans for erecting no-protest zones around synagogues and other houses of worship during demonstrations.

But the religious buffer zone bill sailed through the council on the same day with an overwhelming majority, 44-5.

Both bills received varying degrees of skepticism from Mamdani and his lefty comrades, with the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America launching a phone bank campaign to drum up support to try to kill both bills in March.

After the bills passed, Mamdani called Jewish groups to back him in vetoing both bills, but none bit, a source told The Post.

A swath of Jewish groups, including the UJA-Federation of New York and the Anti-Defamation League, quickly condemned Mamdani’s planned veto.

“At a time when Jewish and other communities across our city are facing heightened threats, this legislation represented a crucial step toward ensuring that every school and community institution can be better protected,” a statement from the groups read. 

“Measures like these importantly safeguard institutions against real and growing threats while maintaining people’s right to protest. Actions often speak louder than words. This veto is a profound failure of City Hall to demonstrate to all New Yorkers that our safety is a priority.”

Bronx Councilman Eric Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, said City Hall officials didn’t raise the mayor’s stated concerns during discussions over the legislation.

“This was a plan to prevent harassment,” he told The Post in an interview Friday. “Whether you are an elementary school or a high school, you should know there is a plan to protect you from being grabbed or having racial epithets hurled at you.”

The bill drew support from a wide swath of New Yorkers, even progressives such as the Rev. Al Sharpton.

“Protesting is a fundamental right but our schools and religious institutions must be protected as well,” Sharpton posted on X, sharing Dinowitz’s statement responding to the veto.

“We want to make sure that every child in every neighborhood is protected.”

Dinowitz said council members are talking about mounting an attempt to override the veto.

Mamdani’s predecessor Eric Adams regularly vetoed bills, only to have them overridden by the City Council. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio never issued a veto during his eight years in office.

Menin was noncommittal about the next steps as she defended the bill.

“Ensuring students can enter and exit their schools without fear of harassment or intimidation should not be controversial,” said Menin. “This bill simply requires the NYPD to clearly outline how it will ensure safe access when there are threats of obstruction or physical injury, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”

During an unrelated event Friday, Mamdani said that he will not veto the buffer zone bill for religious institutions.

“The final version of the legislation, as it was passed, was narrower in scope and in effect, this was legislation that would require the NYPD to write down the policies they have in responding to protests and houses of worship,” he said. “At the final time of its passage, it does not have those constitutional concerns, and though I disagree with its framing of all protests as a security concern, I don’t have those concerns any longer.”