Zohran Mamdani continues to dodge questions about 'globalize the intifada'
By Rachel del Guidice
Published July 15, 2025
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani continued to dodge questions on Monday about the phrase, "Globalize the intifada," which is widely seen as a call for violence against Jewish people.
During an event with a New York City musicians' union celebrating its endorsement of Mamdani, the Democratic Party's nominee for mayor avoided answering questions about the controversial rhetoric and whether he supports such language.
WNYC's Elizabeth Kim asked Mamdani about a reported upcoming meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., this week.
She then asked about whether he had "regret" over how he handled a question about the "globalize the intifada" phrase during a recent interview. Mamdani declined to condemn the rhetoric during an interview last month with The Bulwark podcast.
JAMES CARVILLE WARNS MAMDANI TO KEEP 'GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA' PHRASE 'OUT YOUR MOUTH'
Responding to Kim on Monday, the New York State assemblymember said, "I can't speak to the media coverage of it. I can tell you that I'm looking forward to that meeting with Congressman Jeffries."
Mamdani continued, "And in the conversations that I've had with him, they have come back to be the urgent issue of affordability and the way in which the challenge that we are presented with is reminiscent of that, that was faced by the greatest mayor in our city's history, Fiorello La Guardia. A challenge of taking on anti-immigrant animus and standing up for working people across the city and Congressmen Jeffries, the New York delegation."
During a June interview on ABC, after Mamdani won the Democratic mayoral nomination in a political upset, Jeffries said, "Globalizing the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrase, and he's going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward."
'GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA' PHRASE STIRS TENSIONS ON NYC CAMPAIGN TRAIL AS MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT RAGES
In his response to Kim on Monday, Mamdani also took a swipe at President Donald Trump .
Mamdani said that Jeffries and New York lawmakers "have been on the front lines of facing the twin crisis of fighting back against the Trump administration and the legislation that that same administration just ushered through which would steal food from the hungry, take health care from Americans, and continue in what is one of the largest wealth transfers from working class people across this country to the very Americans who already have more than they know what to do with."
Journalist Tom Elliott remarked in a post on X that shortly after Kim's question and Mamdani's response, the event ended. In his post on X, Elliott said, "After struggling to explain his reluctance to denounce 'globalize the intifada,' Zohran Mamdani's staffers pull a Biden & abruptly end his presser: 'I think we're done here.'"
The self-avowed democratic socialist has dodged similar questions about the "globalize the intifada" phrase.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Last month, "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker asked Mamdani to condemn the rhetoric three times during an interview, but Mamdani refused. Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/media/zohran-mamdani-continues-dodge-questions-about-globalize-intifada
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Difference Between Gerrymandering and Redistricting
Organizations and individuals gather outside the Supreme Court as gerrymandering cases are argued on Tuesday, March 26, 2019. Credit - Aurora Samperio—Getty Images Texas Republicans are poised to consider new districts in a special session after President Donald Trump called for the state to redraw its congressional map to allow for the GOP to pick up seats in the midterm elections in 2026. Trump told reporters that there are several states in which he believes Republicans can redraw districts in order to pick up seats in Congress and keep a narrow majority. 'Texas would be the biggest one,' he said on July 16. 'Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats.' Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put redistricting on his special session agenda for Monday. The issue is firmly on the minds of Texas Republicans and Democrats, alike. Abbott said his decision was in light of a letter he received from the Department of Justice earlier this month. The letter alleges that four of the current districts were racial gerrymanders that violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, thus opening the door for redistricting as a whole to be decided. Typically, states redraw their congressional district maps every ten years to accommodate shifts in population. But in many states, lawmakers have taken to changing the lines whenever they see it as politically advantageous to help their party gain an advantage." The fact that Trump and Texas Republicans are currently weighing their options of redistricting in the middle of a decade is non-traditional, but not completely unheard of. But the move has, unsurprisingly, raised concerns and discussions about gerrymandering. Read More: To End Gerrymandering, Change How We Elect Congress California Gov. Gavin Newsom of the Democratic Party has vowed to retaliate by redistricting his own state's 52 seats to pick up more Democratic representation. 'Trump said he's going to steal five Congressional seats in Texas and gerrymander his way into a 2026 win. Well, two can play that game,' Newsom said via X on July 15. 'Special sessions. Special elections. Ballot initiatives. New laws. It's all on the table when democracy is on the line.' Beyond any potential retaliation, Republicans risk a lot in redistricting, says Jay Dow, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri. 'If you cut [the margins] too thin, you can really put your own party in danger,' Dow notes. 'If you make those margins too thin and you have a bad year, you can end up losing four or five seats instead of gaining them.' This can be referred to as a 'dummymander.' Ismar Volić, a professor at Wellesley College who has done research on how mathematics can equalize redistricting, argues that Trump's attitude towards redistricting points to how 'okay everyone is' with partisan gerrymandering. 'The courts say this is politics as usual,' he says. 'Anyone who cares about some kind of fairness, representation, or competitiveness in our democracy would think it's terrible that the President is so open about it. But it's not illegal.' Here is what you need to know about redistricting and gerrymandering, and the difference. What is redistricting? Redistricting is a process of drawing the borders of districts for which representatives are elected. As states grow, they often do not grow evenly, and thus redistricting allows for states to represent population growth and racial diversity in their cities—according to the Constitution, all districts in a state must have equal population. 'We reapportion the House seats in response to the census, and so every 10 years we do the census, and that changes the number of House seats. Some states get more, some states get fewer because of internal shifts in population,' explains Dow. 'Now, the legislature will have to draw the boundaries of these districts to reflect that.' Often, this can reflect people moving from rural areas to urban areas, or from state to state. For example, as a result of the 2020 Census, Florida gained a seat in the House, while states including California and Illinois lost a seat. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution What is gerrymandering? According to Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, gerrymandering is a "pejorative" for a kind of redistricting that favors a political party, or in some cases, looks to disenfranchise a group of people. There are two principle ways that a legislature can gerrymander for partisan purposes, says Briffault. Packing and cracking. 'With packing, you put as many of the voters of the other party into one district. Instead of the voters being equally spread around so they get an influence on a lot of places, they are in one district,' Briffault says. Whereas with cracking, those creating maps would split a voting bloc—be that a specific party affiliation or a certain demographic—across multiple districts to dilute voting power, making it difficult for them to elect their preferred candidates. Briffault says in a scenario where Republicans would try to use cracking in a district with a lot of Democrats, they could 'carve it up into multiple districts and make [Democrats] the minority in several other districts, so that they're dispersed and they're never going to be the dominant force in any one district.' There are several tells, Briffault says, that a district has been gerrymandered. But it tends to be a hard legal battle as it's not always clear-cut. In fact, courts will often disagree on whether a district has been gerrymandered. First, Briffault says that if the process is done entirely by one party with no input from another party, it is more likely to be gerrymandering. If it is done mid-cycle, rather than based on new population data, then that's another warning sign. Lastly, experts recommend looking to the shape of the states. Districts drawn with 'odd shapes' to capture some 'small group' is also 'evidence of gerrymandering,' according to Briffault. Recognizing the difference between partisan and racial gerrymandering Experts emphasize the difference in legality between partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court ruled in the 2019 case 'Rucho v. Common Cause' that partisan gerrymandering is not subject to a federal court review, because they present non-'justiciable' political questions that lie outside of the court's jurisdiction. 'In a handful of states, there are limits on gerrymandering, or there are special procedures for redistricting that make gerrymandering more difficult, but as a matter of federal law, the Supreme Court said it's not unconstitutional,' Briffault says. Volić calls this court case a 'watershed' moment in redistricting. As such, people trying to detect partisan gerrymandering can 'only rely on' state supreme court or state judicial systems. He argues these judicial systems are 'often faulty because they have been appointed by state legislature,' the same body that is likely working on the redistricting. In terms of racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has said that this can be challenged. Dow points to the 2023 Supreme Court decision that claimed Alabama's redistricting was not 'simply a partisan gerrymander' by Republicans but actually a 'racial gerrymander,' and those district lines were subject to revision. Though Black Alabamians accounted for around 30% of the state at the time, they could only elect one of their preferred candidates in the state's seven districts, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. When the Republican-controlled legislature failed to create a second district in which the Black population had a fair shot, a federal court created one, which eventually led to the state's election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures. Although acknowledging the difference, Volić says the line between 'partisan' and 'racial' gerrymandering tends to be 'thin,' and in order for courts to tell states that they need to redistrict fairly, 'you have to argue that the line has been crossed.' In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Carolina Republicans, arguing that what a lower court said was a racial gerrymander that diluted the African American vote was, in fact, a partisan gerrymander. Just this past week, the Florida Supreme Court, which is dominated by appointees hand-picked by the state's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, upheld a congressional district map that eliminated a majority-Black district in north Florida, which DeSantis had chopped up following the 2020 census, dispersing the Black population into four different majority white districts. Volić says the last 20 years have been 'terrible for gerrymandering,' though he points to some progress, such as efforts to place redistricting in the hands of independent commissions and the role of mathematicians in recent years to create congressional maps that 'rationally' create districts 'detached from politics and partisanship.' The issue is convincing legislatures to give up their power, and to do so in a timely manner, even if the courts have ruled that a district has been unfairly gerrymandered. The judicial system is 'tectonically slow moving,' Volić says, and while parties argue it at the court level, the U.S. continues to "conduct elections in these terrible maps." 'Even if the final outcome is favorable to minorities or whoever is being disenfranchised, the damage has already been done in many ways,' Volić argues. 'This is a system that's very conducive to taking power away in a nefarious way.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump posts fake AI-video showing Obama being arrested with ‘YMCA' and meme turned hate symbol
President Donald Trump reposted a video on Truth Social that showed a fake, artificially rendered scene of former President Barack Obama being arrested. The July 20 post on social was a TikTok video by an account named "neo8171," with a montage of Democratic elected officials saying "no one is above the law." While it is unclear where the clips were from, Democrats have used that phrase when talking about Trump's criminal cases, including an arrest in Georgia and a felony conviction in New York. The video then shows Pepe the Frog, a popular internet meme that was added to a hate symbol database during the 2016 election. As "YMCA" starts to play, the video shows Trump and Obama sitting in the Oval Office, and an artificially rendered scene shows FBI agents dragging Obama out of his chair and cuffing his hands behind his back. The fake video then shows Obama in an orange jumpsuit in jail. A representative for Obama declined to comment about the fake AI video. Trump and Pepe the Frog: 2016 campaign turned meme political. Then it became a hate symbol #ArrestObama trends on Truth Social after Tulsi Gabbard claims On July 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a press release saying she had evidence that the Obama administration after the 2016 election produced "politicized intelligence that was used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump's victory." In 2020, a Republican-led, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee backed the conclusion of the intelligence agencies that found Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump. Trump had long said the investigation into his campaign was a hoax. Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee Rep. Jim Himes, D-Connecticut, said Gabbard's new claim is a "dangerous lie," while speaking on CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," on July 20. He said Gabbard is using a "sleight of hand" by focusing on intelligence about Russia's failed voting infrastructure manipulation rather than Russia's meddling to discredit Trump's 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Appearing on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," Gabbard said she intended to send her findings to the Department of Justice and the FBI for criminal referral. Trump also shared excerpts from Gabbard's interviews to Truth Social. 'As is always the case, President Trump was right about the Obama-Biden administration's clear involvement in the greatest witch hunt in American history and the genesis of the decade-long hoax saga that tore our nation apart and undermined the will of the people," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an emailed statement. "The President and his entire administration are committed to unearthing wrongdoing and holding any individual accountable for this gross abuse of power and blatant conspiracy against President Trump and his supporters.' Pepe the Frog became political, then hate symbol, during 2016 election The frog doodle in clown accessories that flashes in the video is known as Pepe the Frog, and its appearance in Trump's social media posts has sparked interest before. Pepe the Frog started as a character from a comic series, "Boy's Club" by Matt Furie in 2005, according to Know Your Meme. While the somewhat sad-looking frog did not have racist or antisemitic origins, its proliferation through the internet as a meme led to its adaptation into something of a symbol for single men who felt they were on the social outskirts, Know Your Meme editor Brad Kim told the New York Times in 2016. But Kim said it became political when Trump shared a Trump-ified version of Pepe in October 2015. "Pepe plugged into the ideology of the alt-right because it was a reaction against the people they call 'normies,'" Kim told the New York Times. "Pepe had been a symbol of the disenfranchised, social outcasts. It was Trump's natural audience." In 2016, the Anti-Defamation League added Pepe the Frog to its list of hate symbols, though the organization notes many uses of this meme are still not rooted in bigotry or hate. "The number of 'alt right' Pepe memes has grown, a tendency exacerbated by the controversial and contentious 2016 presidential election," Pepe's ADL page states. "However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context." Contributing: Kevin Johnson, Kristine Phillips, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump posts video of Obama being arrested on Truth Social. It is fake
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota lawmaker to resign after being convicted of felony burglary
A Minnesota state senator convicted of burglary for breaking into her estranged stepmother's house plans to resign by early August, her lawyer said Monday. Democratic state Sen. Nicole Mitchell has faced calls from fellow Minnesota lawmakers for her immediate resignation since her conviction on Friday. The jury deliberated for three hours before finding her guilty of first-degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. The 51-year-old lawmaker needs two weeks to wrap up her legislative duties and secure health insurance for her son by the time of her Aug. 4 resignation, her lawyer wrote in the statement. Mitchell represents a Democratic-leaning suburban district outside the Twin Cities in a closely divided state Senate. After the verdict last week, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy Mitchell said that Mitchell told colleagues that she planned to resign if convicted, 'and I expect her to follow through on that pledge.' Senate Republic Leader Mark Johnson released a statement Monday pushing for Mitchell to resign immediately instead of waiting two weeks. 'Senator Mitchell was convicted of two felonies; she doesn't get to give the Senate two weeks' notice,' he wrote in a statement Monday. 'The only reason Mitchell is still in office is because Democrats needed her vote to pass their agenda and refused to hold her accountable during session.' Mitchell was arrested on April 22, 2024, and told police that she broke into her stepmother's home because the stepmother refused to give her items like her late father's ashes and other belongings. Mitchell's father and stepmother Carol Mitchell had been married for 40 years. Later on the stand, the lawmaker backtracked her statement and said she had not intended to take anything and wanted to check on the well-being of her stepmother, who has Alzheimer's disease.
