Mamdani's NYC primary win sparks surge in anti-Muslim posts, advocates say
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Anti-Muslim online posts targeting New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani have surged since his Democratic primary upset this week, including death threats and comments comparing his candidacy to the September 11, 2001 attacks, advocates said on Friday.
There were at least 127 violent hate-related reports mentioning Mamdani or his campaign in the day after polls closed, said CAIR Action, an arm of the Council on American Islamic Relations advocacy group, which logs such incidents.
That marks a five-fold increase over a daily average of such reports tracked earlier this month, CAIR Action said in a statement.
Overall, it noted about 6,200 online posts that mentioned some form of Islamophobic slur or hostility in that day long time-frame.
Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist and a 33-year-old state lawmaker, declared victory in Tuesday's primary after former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded defeat.
Born in Uganda to Indian parents, Mamdani would be the city's first Muslim and Indian American mayor if he wins the November general election.
"We call on public officials of every party - including those whose allies are amplifying these smears - to unequivocally condemn Islamophobia," said Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR Action.
The advocacy group said its hate monitoring system includes its own scraping and analysis of posts, online submissions by the public and notifications from law enforcement. About 62% of the anti-Muslim posts against Mamdani originated on X, CAIR Action said.
People close to Republican President Donald Trump, including one of his sons, are among those spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric, advocates said.
Donald Trump Jr, the president's son, wrote on X on Wednesday that "New York City has fallen" while sharing a post that said New Yorkers had "voted for" 9/11. Also on Wednesday, Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted an AI-generated picture of the Statue of Liberty draped in a burqa.
President Trump has pursued domestic policies that rights advocates have described as anti-Muslim, including banning travel from some predominantly Muslim or Arab countries in his first term and attempting to deport pro-Palestinian students in his current term.
The White House, which did not respond to a request for comment, has denied claims of discrimination against Muslims. Trump and his allies have said they oppose Mamdani and others due to what they call the Democrats' "radical left" ideology.
The New York City Police Department said earlier this month its hate crime unit was probing anti-Muslim threats against Mamdani.
Manjusha Kulkarni, co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate, which documents hate against Asian Americans, and CAIR said attacks against Mamdani mirrored those endured by other South Asian and Muslim political figures, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
Republicans have called Mamdani antisemitic, citing his pro-Palestinian advocacy and his criticism of Israel's military assault on Gaza after an attack by Hamas militants in October 2023.
Mamdani has condemned antisemitism and has the backing of New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is Jewish. Lander also ran in the Democratic primary.
Rights advocates have noted rising antisemitism and Islamophobia since the start of the Israel-Gaza war, with fatal U.S. incidents including the shooting of two Israeli embassy staff in Washington and the stabbing of a Muslim child in Illinois.
Mamdani and other Pro-Palestinian advocates, including some Jewish groups, said their criticism of Israel is wrongly conflated with antisemitism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump on a high after 'tremendous' wins at home and abroad
Donald Trump's week began with an on-air expletive as he lost his cool over his mounting frustrations with Iran and Israel's shaky ended with a beaming US president holding court at the White House - not once, but twice - as he celebrated a series of significant political victories at home and was in a triumphant mood, answering questions for more than an hour at a news conference that turned into a meandering boast of his a look at four big wins from this week, as well as a reminder of some things that didn't go entirely the president's way. 1. An 'unbelievable' strike and a ceasefire The successful US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on 21 June was followed just three days later by Trump's announcement of a "complete and total" ceasefire in what he termed the "12-day war" between Israel and Iran. It had a rocky start. Not long before the announcement, Iran fired off ballistic missiles at a US airbase in Qatar, sparking fears of a wider war across the Persian Gulf. Even after the ceasefire, things seemed tenuous. Both sides were quickly accused of breaking it, prompting an angry, expletive-laden tirade to reporters on the White House lawn. By his own admission, Trump only narrowly managed to convince Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off further attacks on Iran. But ultimately the ceasefire held, allowing the president to proudly claim that his military gamble of an "unbelievable" strike on Iran worked, and point to evidence that he is a "peacemaker" - a sorely needed win as peace continues to elude him in both Gaza and Ukraine. Hegseth talks up strikes in Iran in push for public approval 2. Nato's commitment to 'Daddy' Trump was on his way to the Netherlands for the Nato summit when he got a text from Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, lavishing praise on him for the strikes on Iran - texts the president was more than happy to make his whirlwind visit to the summit, US allies committed to 5% defence spending, something the president had repeatedly and vocally called during a joint press conference, Rutte referred to Trump as "Daddy", a reference to the president being able to broker a ceasefire between Israel and has seemed to embrace the moniker. "I think he likes me. If he doesn't...I'll come back and hit him hard," Trump said at a news conference, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio laughing beside him. "He did it very affectionately." Soon after, the White House posted various videos of a victorious-looking Trump with the caption "daddy's home". Trump takes victory lap at Nato - but questions remain 3. A 'giant win' at the Supreme Court Trump's week ended on a high note with the news that the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will curb judges' power to block his orders nationwide. While the ruling stems from a case regarding Trump's ability to end birthright citizenship for children of some immigrants, it has sweeping implications. It will be harder for lower courts to challenge Trump's domestic agenda through what Attorney General Pam Bondi described as an "endless barrage" of injunctions. At an impromptu news conference, the president hailed the ruling as a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law". The decision allows him to pursue a number of other policy items that had been thwarted by injunctions, including freezing funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" that stand in the way of his mass deportation drive, suspending refugee resettlement, and preventing tax money being used to fund gender surgeries. The president smiled and cracked jokes, inviting reporters to ask more and more questions, as his aides - including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt - sat smiling beside him. "This was a tremendous win, and we've had tremendous wins," he said at the end. "But this was a tremendous win today." Court ruling expands Trump's power - he intends to use it 4. A peace deal in Africa Some potential worries for the White House The week hasn't been all victories and roses for Trump. The president's biggest legislative priority - a massive tax bill he's dubbed the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" - has hit some roadblocks. Trump has repeatedly urged lawmakers to get it on to his desk to sign into law by 4 July, Independence Day in the US. But earlier this week, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough said that certain provisions violated Senate rules, throwing billions of dollars of cuts into doubt."This is part of the process. This part is part of the workings of the United States Senate," Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week. "But the president is adamant about seeing this bill on his desk here at the White House by Independence Day." And while Trump has hailed the ceasefires in Iran - as well as those in central Africa and last month between Pakistan and India - as victories, he has so far faltered on two of his biggest promises for peace: in Gaza and Ukraine."We're working on that one," Trump said of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine at Friday's news conference, where he did not mention the end of US military involvement in Iran is not guaranteed. During the news conference, Trump was asked by the BBC if he would consider bombing Iran again if he believed they were re-starting their nuclear programme. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he responded.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
REVEALED: America's most powerful judges who protect the Constitution locked in a toxic, secret battle...
A fiery dispute between two of America's most powerful judges was on public display on Friday as the Supreme Court handed down a bombshell opinion on birthright citizenship. The nine justices who sit on the court frequently tout that relationships between them, despite deep ideological divides, are cordial. But as they wrestle with issues that have left the US bitterly divided, not all of the spats between them fall directly along their political party lines - hinting that they might just not like each other on a personal level. The justices' secret personal feuds have seemingly become so fraught that they are counting down the days until the SCOTUS summer recess - which will be a welcome respite from both work and colleagues, according to Chief Justice John Roberts. This week, the court's liberal wing erupted in spectacular fashion against the six-judge conservative alliance during the biggest ruling of the year thus far. Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 53, ripped into liberal dissenter Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's arguments in her 6-3 majority opinion in a major birthright citizenship case, with comments that come close to mocking her intellectual rival. Writing for the conservative majority of the court, Barrett hit back at both Jackson and fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor who dissented. Barrett's scorched earth reply took aim at Jackson mostly, spending 900 words to repeatedly rip into the Biden appointee and the court's most junior member. At one point, Barrett's comments came close to mocking her intellectual rival. She wrote: 'Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Barrett accused Jackson of mounting a 'startling line of attack', which in her view was no 'tethered to any doctrine whatsoever'. Some lines resemble jabs from a political debate. 'Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands 'universal adherence,' at least where the Executive is concerned,' goes one. In perhaps the most sneering comment, Barrett writes: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Jackson had issued ominous warnings in her own blistering dissent. 'Disaster looms,' she said. 'What I mean by this is that our rights-based legal system can only function properly if the Executive, and everyone else, is always bound by law. 'Today's decision is a seismic shock to that foundational norm. Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception—a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,' she wrote. 'What is more, to me, requiring courts themselves to provide the dagger (by giving their imprimatur to the Executive Branch's intermittent lawlessness) makes a mockery of the Judiciary's solemn duty to safeguard the rule of law,' she added. Jackson, 71, cited a ruling about the 'accretion of dangerous power, and wrote that the Court has 'cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution—right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints.' She warned of a 'rule-of-kings governing system' compared to a 'rule of law regime.' 'At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Jackson even began the opening section of her argument by dispensing with the traditional saying that she 'respectfully' dissents. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote. So did Sotomayor, who wrote simply, 'I dissent.' The decisions handed down this week have continued a trend of the liberal judges in the court often losing rulings in the most impactful cases. Sotomayor dissented in the court's 6-3 decision that public school parents must be allowed to take their kids out of lessons involving LGBT books. In her dissent, she warned of a nightmare for schools, saying the ensuing 'chaos' and 'self-censorship' would threaten to 'end American public education as we know it'. She said: 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' It is not always as clean cut however, with a decision issued on Friday that endorsed a multibillion dollar fund to expand telephone and broadband services being passed through by a coalition of three conservatives and three liberals. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a 'misbegotten tax' on consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the ruling, wrote that Congress had provided ample guidance and constraints on the Federal Communications Commission operation of the fund. 'We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred,' wrote Kagan, who was joined by her two fellow liberal justices, as well as conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three conservative justices - Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. The birthright citizenship ruling was hailed by President Donald Trump on Friday, who told reporters: 'This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we're very happy about. This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it's all about.' Basking in his victory during an impromptu appearance in the White House briefing room, the president vowed to push through 'many' more of his policies after the court win, including curbs to birthright citizenship. The president said he would 'promptly file' to advance policies that have previously been blocked by judges. He said: 'This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.' Friday's case stemmed from an executive order Trump signed as soon as he took office that ended birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of Trump's order purporting to end birthright citizenship and left open a legal path to challenge it.
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Starmer must find it in himself to be a true leader
Prime ministerial authority can end with a spectacular tyre-shredding blowout, à la Liz Truss, or more usually a slow puncture. The latter begins with a series of stumbles, which early on are judged forgivable, but as time passes become less so. Once a prime minister is designated 'accident prone' recovery, in the eyes of the electorate, and his or her party, becomes steadily less likely. Irritation evolves into disillusionment, and disillusionment into contempt. From then on, defeat at the ballot box, or a pre-emptive strike from the men in grey suits, is a matter of time. Sir Keir Starmer has not careered off the motorway trailing smoking rubber, like Ms Truss. But his every appearance is now accompanied by an ominous hiss. Labour's inaugural year was never going to be easy, given the legacy of the Conservative era, but the first anniversary of its general election win this coming Friday will be unusually downbeat. Following a series of unforced errors, typified by this week's humiliating climbdown on welfare reform in the face of a mass uprising by Labour MPs, this government is already looking distinctly ragged. And responsibility for its sorry state must ultimately lie with the prime minister. By his failure to plan for power, by his lapses of judgment, by his lack of grip, Sir Keir has created this mess. • A year on, is the Starmer project doomed or can he claw it back? The Labour leader was never going to be loved for his charisma. His selling point was lawyerly sobriety, his prosecutor's punctiliousness. Yet successive fiascos tell a different tale. Depriving pensioners of winter fuel payments, raising employers' national insurance, ditching the Rwanda scheme while not replacing it with a small boats deterrent, understating the harm of grooming gangs: these were the results of Sir Keir's failure to devise detailed plans for the economy and migration in opposition, to devise a coherent narrative explaining difficult choices, and to practise basic politics in spotting approaching danger. Labour rebels, scenting blood, are looking for a scalp in Downing Street. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is the ideal prize for unreconstructed statists; or perhaps Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff, whose brutal but effective silencing of Labour's left before the election inevitably made him enemies. The case against Ms Reeves, to whom Sir Keir appears to have ceded total control over economic policy, is more plausible than that against Mr McSweeney. Her national insurance hike dealt a huge blow to growth, while her winter fuel and working-age health benefits cuts appeared more the result of panic than part of a detailed strategy for reining in a bloated state. • Meet Brian Leishman, the leftwinger holding Keir Starmer's feet to the fire Yet, the chief culprit for Labour's malaise must be Sir Keir. Great prime ministers ultimately delegate to no one in central areas of policy like welfare reform, which must continue if the public finances are to be rescued. Equally, a leader who ignores his backbenchers, especially after a landslide has produced hordes of naive and ambitious new ones, is asking for trouble. In an interview marking his first year, Sir Keir admitted to presentational errors. But the problem runs deeper. This government increasingly comes across as inept: kneejerk rather than strategic in policy implementation, subject to panic and surrender at the first whiff of cordite. Some £4.5 billion has been shaved off its wafer-thin fiscal headroom by the welfare retreat. Autumn tax rises loom; bond markets grow sceptical; deeper unpopularity beckons. Sir Keir handled Donald Trump well, and mended ties with Europe, but he will live or die on the domestic battlefield. Wage growth is forecast to stagnate; Reform would be the biggest party in an election tomorrow. To survive, Sir Keir must become a dominating personality not a bureaucrat, gripping policy, punishing failure, espousing a vision. He must become what he has never truly reconciled himself to being: a politician. If not, there's always someone else willing to have a go.
