Mamdani faces flurry of anti-Muslim attacks following NYC primary victory
The attacks have primarily come from the right, with Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) calling for Mamdani to be denaturalized and deported and President Trump even chiming in on Tuesday referencing false claims that Mamdani entered the country illegally.
But Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) also faced backlash in recent days for a comment she made claiming Mamdani had called for 'global jihad,' which her communications director said was a misstatement and for which she has apologized.
Experts said comments referencing the religion of Muslim political figures isn't anything new but has expanded its reach over time.
'That's the decades-long pattern,' said Corey Saylor, the research and advocacy director for the Center on American-Islamic Relations. 'What's new in the last couple of weeks is figures with mainstream reach using some of the most vile possible stereotypes.'
Mussab Ali, a Muslim Democratic candidate running for mayor in Jersey City, N.J., just over the Hudson River from New York, said he's been disappointed that more Democrats haven't publicly pushed back against the comments Mamdani has received.
'I don't think we expected Republicans to even push back at all at this point,' he said. 'But I think the fact that Democrats have not been more vocal in holding the line and having Mamdani's back, I think, is very telling.'
As Mamdani rose in the polls in the primary and pulled off a shocking upset win over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to become the Democratic nominee, he received a wide range of attacks for his political positions, identifying as a democratic socialist.
But a handful of right-wing figures have made personal attacks on Mamdani, directly or indirectly referencing his religion. If elected, Mamdani would be the first Muslim mayor of New York City.
Some of the comments have come from right-wing media figures, connecting the 9/11 attacks to Mamdani's religion and potential election.
Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk wrote last Tuesday that a 'group of Muslims' killed more than 2,750 people on 9/11 and 'Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.' Right-wing activist Laura Loomer, who has a history of anti-Muslim sentiments and is also a Trump ally, said New York City is 'about to see 9/11 2.0' given Mamdani's nomination.
Staunchly conservative members of Congress have also made comments leaning into Mamdani's identity as a person rather than his politics.
Ogles, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, called for Mamdani to face denaturalization proceedings and be deported, dubbing him 'little muhammad' in an apparent reference to the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
And Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), another member of the caucus, went after Mamdani for a video in which he was seen eating biryani, a rice dish, with his hands.
'Civilized people in America don't eat like this,' he said in a post on X. 'If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World.'
Saylor said the comments mirror a pattern that members of both parties have engaged in. He referred to former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) saying that the U.S. could 'take out' Islamic holy sites if al-Qaeda launched a nuclear attack on the country and the Obama administration restarting its Countering Violent Extremism Initiative that heavily targeted Muslim Americans.
Saylor said the rhetoric has remained the same, but the rise of social media has given it even more attention. He argued the closeness that figures like Loomer have to the White House 'suggests that kind of vile rhetoric has greater access to the highest levels of power in our country than it did a decade ago.'
Ali, the mayoral candidate in Jersey City, said the best way to combat these types of comments is to continue electing Muslim political candidates. He said many people in the country don't know any Muslims personally because they make up a small minority, so depictions on television are their only picture of them.
'It's not the idea that people should be elected because they're Muslim,' he said. 'But once you get into power, once you get into office, I think it makes it less acceptable for people to tolerate racial slurs or these religious slurs, because people [say], 'Look, this is someone who I respect. This is someone who is in power. This is somebody that I know.''
While Trump himself hasn't made the same kind of comments as some of his allies, he has targeted Mamdani personally and hinted that the administration may look into his legal status.
Trump said during a press conference on Tuesday that 'a lot of people are saying' Mamdani entered the country illegally and 'we're going to look at everything.'
Mamdani legally immigrated to the U.S. as a young child with his family after first growing up in Uganda.
Trump also suggested Mamdani may be arrested if he tries to interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents trying to conduct operations to deport people.
Mamdani responded that Trump's words were a 'message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: if you speak up, they will come for you.'
Preston Nouri, the director of government affairs for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said using this type of messaging as a political tool has been common since 2001, but he was surprised by the extent of the 'hatred and genuine vitriol.'
'They're calling into question citizenship, his motives, trying to say that he's an actual terrorist or something like that,' Nouri said. 'It's quite frankly disgusting when he ran on a platform of trying to support all New Yorkers.'
He argued Mamdani proved his ability to have widespread appeal and interest in representing the coalition he put together. In the primary, Mamdani performed well with groups like young voters and those with a college degree, but he also outperformed expectations with other groups, winning some mixed Black-Hispanic neighborhoods and wealthy older white areas.
But the criticisms of Mamdani haven't just come from the right.
Gillibrand stirred a significant reaction for comments she made last week calling on Mamdani to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' which has been a lightning rod throughout the war between Israel and Hamas. Activists disagree on the meaning of the phrase, with various groups deciphering it in different ways, from it being a broader call for peaceful resistance against Israeli occupation to promoting violence against Jews.
Mamdani has avoided denouncing it, saying it has different meanings to different people.
But Gillibrand also claimed Mamdani made references to 'global jihad,' which religious extremists have used to refer to conducting violent attacks against those not aligned with their beliefs. Mamdani hasn't made references to this.
A spokesperson for Gillibrand said after her remarks that she misspoke, and she called Mamdani to apologize on Monday for the comment and her tone.
Ani Zonnevald, the president of Muslims for Progressive Values, said Gillibrand's apology 'really goes a long way.'
'It does matter, particularly after you've said such mean things about someone and for Gillibrand to correct herself the way she did, I think it's a huge plus,' she said.
Zonnevald attributed grassroots pushback to helping lead to Gillibrand's apology.
'Violence starts with hate speech. And this is what it is. It's hate speech, and the fact that we have our government officials doubling down on hate speech is really appalling, but that's where we are at this moment,' she said. 'We really have to count on the masses, the American population, to step forward and to say, this is unacceptable.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration News: House Passes Sweeping Bill to Fulfill President's Domestic Agenda
Pinned The House on Thursday narrowly passed a sweeping bill to extend tax cuts and slash social safety net programs, capping Republicans' chaotic monthslong slog to overcome deep rifts within their party and deliver President Trump's domestic agenda. The final vote, 218 to 214, was mostly along party lines and came after Speaker Mike Johnson spent a frenzied day and night toiling to quell resistance in his ranks that threatened until the very end to derail the president's marquee legislation. With all but two Republicans in favor and Democrats uniformly opposed, the action cleared the bill for Mr. Trump's signature, meeting the July 4 deadline he had demanded. The legislation extends tax cuts enacted in 2017 that had been scheduled to expire at the end of the year, while adding new ones Mr. Trump promised during this campaign, on some tips and overtime pay, at a total cost of $4.5 trillion. It also increases funding for defense and border security and cuts nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, with more reductions to food assistance for the poor and other government aid. And it phases out clean-energy tax credits passed under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that Mr. Trump and conservative Republicans have long decried. Also included is a $5 trillion increase in the debt limit, a measure that Republicans are typically unwilling to support but that was necessary to avert a federal default later this year. The bill's final passage was a major victory for congressional Republicans and for Mr. Trump, who celebrated in a Thursday night speech in Des Moines, Iowa, meant to kick off a yearlong celebration of the 250th anniversary of the country's founding. 'With this bill,' Mr. Trump said, 'every major promise I've made to the people of Iowa in 2024 became a promise kept.' Mr. Trump plans to sign what he has frequently referred to as his 'big, beautiful bill' on Friday. G.O.P. lawmakers who had feuded bitterly over the legislation ultimately united almost unanimously behind it, fearing the political consequences of allowing a tax increase and of crossing a president who demands unflagging loyalty and was pressuring them to fall into line. 'If you're for a secure border, safer communities and a strong military, this bill is for you,' Mr. Johnson said, extolling the bill ahead of the final vote. 'If you're for common-sense fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit, this bill is for you. If you're for fairer and lower taxes, bigger paychecks, affordable gas and groceries and restoring dignity to hard work, this is the bill for you.' But it also was a major political gamble for the party that will leave vulnerable lawmakers open to sharp attacks ahead of next year's midterm elections. Many economists have estimated that its greatest benefits would go to the wealthiest Americans, who would see the most generous tax cuts. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that cuts to Medicaid, including the imposition of a strict work requirement, could leave 11.8 million more people without health insurance by 2034. The office, studying earlier versions of the bill, had also warned of large benefit losses in food stamps, which will also have new work requirements, threatening to leave millions without benefits. At the same time, contrary to Republican claims that it cut deficits, the budget office reported the measure would swell the already soaring national debt by at least $3.4 trillion over a decade. Polls show that the bill is deeply unpopular, and Democrats have roundly denounced it as a move to slash critical government programs to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They have repeatedly accused Republicans of being so much in Mr. Trump's thrall that they embraced a bill that would harm their own constituents, with cuts to programs that the president had vowed to protect. In an impassioned closing speech on the House floor that stretched for more than eight and a half hours, breaking the chamber's record and delaying a final vote well into the afternoon, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, assailed the measure as a 'disgusting abomination' that would hurt Americans. In what amounted to a last gasp of Democratic opposition to the bill, Mr. Jeffries spent much of his time reading testimonials from Americans who said they relied on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and other government help and worried that cuts would upend their lives. He made a point of highlighting that several of the letters came from people who live in Republican congressional districts that are among the Democrats' top targets for the midterm elections. 'This bill is an all-out assault on the health care of the people of the United States of America, hardworking American taxpayers,' Mr. Jeffries said. 'These are the people we should be standing up, to work hard to lift up. But instead, they're victims of this legislation.' In the messy, monthslong process of pushing through a bill that divided their party, Republicans in both the House and Senate made it clear that they, too, were uncomfortable with parts of it, criticizing its flaws before most of them ultimately banded together to pass it. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, who cast the deciding vote for the bill in her chamber after cutting a series of deals to insulate her constituents from its harshest cuts, said just moments after she had backed the bill that she did not like it. 'This has been an awful process — a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution,' Ms. Murkowski said in a statement earlier this week, in which she urged the House to reopen and improve it. As if to underscore the political risks of the bill — and the intense pressure Republicans faced from Mr. Trump to embrace it — Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced during Senate debate on it that he would not seek re-election next year. He went on to savage the bill as a disaster for Medicaid that would betray the president's promises to protect the program. The announcement from Mr. Tillis, whom Mr. Trump had threatened with a primary challenge after he expressed opposition to the bill, was a harsh reminder for Republicans of the consequences of crossing the president on the measure. Because of the slim Republican majorities in both chambers, ideological rifts within the party were frequently magnified as Mr. Johnson and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, tried to muscle the legislation through the House and Senate. They succeeded only after protracted negotiations, several seemingly insurmountable setbacks and parliamentary gymnastics. The House devolved into paralysis on Wednesday and into Thursday morning in the hours before the final action, as a handful of Republicans withheld their votes to bring up the measure. Mr. Trump, who had met with recalcitrant Republicans throughout the day Wednesday to pressure them to support the measure, weighed in with angry posts on social media, threatening any defectors. 'MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' he wrote. In the end, Mr. Johnson pulled off a victory, the latest in a series of instances in which he has faced resistance in his own party to a major legislative priority — only to pull out a narrow win with the help of considerable pressure from Mr. Trump. The bill squeaked through the Senate by the narrowest of margins on Tuesday. But the changes that senators made to cobble together support for it exacerbated party divides that have plagued G.O.P. efforts to advance Mr. Trump's agenda since the beginning. Fiscal conservatives demanded even deeper cuts to rein in the deficit, while more mainstream lawmakers whose seats are at risk were wary of the biggest cuts to popular government programs. One member of each faction voted against the bill on Thursday: Representative Thomas Massie, a fiscal hawk from a deep-red district in Kentucky who had railed against the high cost of the bill, and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate from a battleground district in suburban Pennsylvania that Democrats won in the 2024 presidential election, who had expressed concern about the Medicaid, SNAP and other safety net cuts. Mr. Trump and party leaders refused to reopen the bill for changes, a time-consuming process that would have blown through the president's chosen timetable and prolonged negotiations on the package for weeks or months, potentially killing the entire enterprise. Ultimately, the fiscal conservatives who had railed the most strongly against the bill followed a familiar pattern of caving and supporting it. Conservatives have repeatedly refused to back major legislation because of its potential impact on federal deficits, only to back down under pressure from Mr. Trump. After the House gave final approval on Thursday, the president waved off questions about the fractious process, telling reporters on his way to Iowa that it was 'very easy' to sway Republican holdouts. He equivocated on whether conservatives won any concessions outside the bill in last-minute talks. 'What I did is we talked about how good the bill is,' he said. Image Democratic representatives assailed the Republican bill on the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday before raising a number of procedural roadblocks on the House floor. Credit... Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, one such holdout, alluded to deals that he and others cut with Mr. Trump. Mr. Harris, the chairman of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, said that lawmakers were swayed by talk of 'executive actions' and other steps he and his administration could take to change the way the law would be carried out. 'We came to significant agreements with the administration that changed the entire package, both inside and outside the bill, significantly.' Mr. Harris said after the final vote. (Once enacted, the legislation itself cannot be changed except by an act of Congress.) Moments after the bill passed, some Freedom Caucus members were already raising the possibility of trying to push through another big policy bill later in the year under special rules that shield fiscal measures from a filibuster, allowing them to pass by a simple majority vote. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a Freedom Caucus member and one of the Republican holdouts who ultimately voted to pass the bill, said Mr. Trump and White House officials assured him on Wednesday they could use 'another reconciliation package or two,' and executive orders, 'to fix some of the broken appropriations process,' including additional changes to Medicaid, as well as to Medicare. 'I got comfortable with what the administration can do to ameliorate those areas where it got worse,' after the bill was passed by the Senate, Mr. Roy added. Emboldened by the G.O.P. rifts, Democrats have made a point of projecting a united front while they railed against the bill and ramped up pressure on vulnerable Republicans. They condemned Republicans who had warned that many of their constituents rely on Medicaid and cautioned their party's leaders not to try to balance the federal budget at the expense of the much-needed health care program. 'We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations,' wrote Representative David Valadao of California, one of the most endangered Republicans, and 11 other G.O.P. lawmakers in an April letter to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jeffries highlighted such statements during his remarks, appealing to Republicans to reject the bill. 'Join us, join us, join us!' he shouted at one point, turning to the G.O.P. side of the chamber. 'All we need are four,' he added, alluding to the number of Republican defections that would defeat the measure. But as the Democratic leader well knew, the Republicans who had spoken out had flipped their positions on the bill overnight. When the final vote came, every signatory to the letter voted yes. Reporting was contributed by Catie Edmondson , Tony Romm , Andrew Duehren , Chris Cameron and Tyler Pager .
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Melania Trump Copies Husband's Signature Dance in 4th of July Celebration
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. First lady Melania Trump appeared to mimic her husband's iconic 'Trump dance' on the White House balcony on Friday evening from which the couple watched an Independence Day fireworks display over the nation's capital. Newsweek contacted the White House for comment via online inquiry form on Saturday outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters Following his November 2024 presidential election victory, numerous videos of Trump performing his dance, which saw him shaking his hips while alternately punching each of his fists out, went viral on social media. The dance was often accompanied by the hit "YMCA," which developed into an unofficial Trump anthem. What To Know Trump stood next to his wife on the White House balcony while watching a fireworks display held to celebrate the 249th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence on Friday. At one point, while "YMCA" was played through a speaker, Trump broke into his signature dance while wearing a white 'Make America Great Again' hat. To cheers from the assembled crowd, Melania then appeared to mimic her husband's dance, though, unlike him, she kept her palms outstretched rather than scrunched up in a fist. A clip of Melania dancing was posted on X, formerly Twitter, by Fox News, where it received more than 16,900 views and 174 likes from other users. File photo: Donald and Melania Trump watch the Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks from the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2025. File photo: Donald and Melania Trump watch the Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks from the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP/GETTY Friday also saw Trump sign his landmark 'Big Beautiful Bill' into law after it was narrowly approved by the House on Thursday. The legislation includes significant tax cuts, increased funding for the military and border control, and a tightening of eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps. Speaking to crowds on Friday at the White House, Trump said: "This bill includes the largest tax cut in American history, the largest spending cut in American history, the largest border security investment in American history. "We're adding things like the biggest tax cut in the history of our country, a child tax credit," the president said. "So many things are being added that we wouldn't even have time to discuss them when we were doing it." Over the past few months, the Trump dance has been replicated by sporting figures including UFC and WWE fighters. What People Are Saying On X, Monica Crowley, a Trump supporter who currently serves as chief of protocol of the United States, wrote: "Not the first lady @MELANIATRUMP doing the Trump YMCA dance." She added fire, face with tears of joy and American flag emoji. Political commentator Nick Sortor wrote: "NOW: President Donald Trump and Melania do the Trump dance on the balcony as the Marine band plays to commemorate Independence Day. "So thankful these two are living in the White House!" he added. What Happens Next The likelihood is that the Trump dance will continue to be performed going forward both by the president himself and those who think it is iconic and/or wish to demonstrate support.
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Head of NATO Thinks President Trump ‘Deserves All the Praise'
There is no doubt that President Trump has had an electrifying effect on NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded after World War II to act as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. In theory, its member nations — 32 of them now, including most European countries, Canada, Turkey and the United States — are bound by a pledge of common defense: The alliance's most famous provision, known as Article 5, states that an attack on one member country would obligate the response of all. In practice, however, the United States is by far the most important member. For the 76 years of NATO's existence, America has provided the troops, intelligence, logistics and nuclear arsenal that makes the alliance work. Trump, however, has long been a NATO skeptic. He has excoriated NATO as a financial drain on the United States, and it was reported that several times during his first term he even privately threatened to withdraw from it. Lately he has demanded that NATO nations pay much more for their own defense and has questioned whether the United States would come to Europe's aid if Russia invaded a member country. Mark Rutte is the man who has been tasked with keeping Trump happy while setting up NATO for a new, more dangerous era in which Russia has expansionist ambitions, the United States is seen as less reliable and Europe is woefully underprepared to fight its own battles. He became NATO's secretary general late last year after 14 years of serving as prime minister of the Netherlands, where his longevity as a right-of-center leader earned him the nickname Teflon Mark. I recently met Rutte at NATO headquarters in Brussels after a pivotal summit at which NATO members pledged to spend 5 percent of their G.D.P. on defense by 2035, up from the required 2 percent now. It's a number that Trump demanded, and Rutte delivered. But the biggest headlines out of the summit were actually about Rutte's relationship with Trump. Before the summit, Trump posted on Truth Social a highly complimentary private text message that Rutte sent him about the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. And then, during the meeting, Rutte joked that Trump acted as a 'daddy' to misbehaving Middle Eastern nations, which Trump clearly loved — Trump's fund-raising committee even started selling 'Daddy' T-shirts. For some observers, this all was evidence that Rutte is willing to do whatever it takes to keep Trump happy, even though the United States is reportedly considering moving thousands of troops out of Europe and, just after I spoke to Rutte, announced that it is halting more weapons shipments to Ukraine. Whatever his motivations, what was clear to me in our conversation is that Rutte is not interested in alienating the American president. Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon | iHeart | NYT Audio App Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
