&w=3840&q=100)
Zohran Mamdani met an illustrator on Hinge, then married her. Who is Rama Duwaji?
Zohran Mamdani's victory in the Democratic primary for NYC mayor brought his wife, Rama Duwaji, into the spotlight. The 27-year-old Syrian-American artist is known for her bold political artwork. She met Mamdani on the dating app, Hinge, following which the duo tied the knot in early 2025 read more
For months, Rama Duwaji kept a low profile — a quiet figure in the background of one of New York's most closely watched political campaigns. But that changed on Tuesday night. As Zohran Mamdani declared victory in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, all eyes turned to his wife.
The 33-year-old state assemblyman shocked many by defeating former governor Andrew Cuomo, securing more than 43 per cent of the vote compared to Cuomo's 36 per cent, in one of the biggest political upsets in decades, the Wall Street Journal reported.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
During his victory speech in Queens, Mamdani didn't miss the chance to honour the person who'd quietly supported him through it all. 'I must thank my incredible wife. Rama, thank you,' he said warmly, kissing her hand as the crowd applauded. Duwaji, 27, beamed by his side, sharing that she 'couldn't possibly be prouder' of her husband's achievement.
New York mayoral candidate, State Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-NY) kisses the hand of his wife Rama Duwaji as they celebrate during an election night gathering. AFP
If Mamdani unseats incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and Republican opponent Curtis Sliwa in November, he would become New York City's first Muslim mayor — and Duwaji, its First Lady.
Here's what we know about her.
A Syrian American artist with strong political opinions
Before stepping into the public spotlight through her husband's political win, Duwaji had carved out a space for herself in the world of art and activism.
Originally from Damascus, Syria, Duwaji moved to New York in 2021. According to her L'AiR Arts bio, she has graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University with a BFA in communication design. Today, she's known as a Syrian-American illustrator whose work focuses on identity, resistance, and injustice, often through a pro-Palestinian lens.
Her artwork doesn't shy away from making bold statements. One of her animations from May shows a young Palestinian girl holding an empty pot with the words 'Not a hunger crisis' across it. The scene then shifts to a group of people holding similar pots, overlaid with the words, 'It is deliberate starvation.'
Alongside the post, she wrote, 'As I was making this, Israel has been bombing Gaza nonstop with consecutive airstrikes,' and added a link to a nonprofit supporting refugees and displaced communities.
Duwaji has carved out a space for herself in the world of art and activism. She has collaborated with major global organisations, including The New Yorker, The Washington Post, BBC, Apple, Spotify, VICE, and the Tate Modern in London. Reuters
In an interview earlier this year, Duwaji was asked whether artists should speak out about global issues. Quoting singer Nina Simone, she said, 'An artist's duty as far as I'm concerned is to reflect the times.' She added, 'I believe everyone has a responsibility to speak out against injustice… Art has such an ability to spread it.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'I don't think everybody has to make political work,' she continued, 'but art is inherently political in how it's made, funded, and shared. Even creating art as a refuge from the horrors we see is political to me. It's a reaction to the world around us,' she told the AP.
Her work has reached far and wide. Duwaji has collaborated with major global organisations, including The New Yorker, The Washington Post, BBC, Apple, Spotify, VICE, and the Tate Modern in London.
She also shares much of her work on Instagram, where she has over 1 lakh followers. Her posts often feature striking illustrations that call out Israeli state violence and criticise US policies around the conflict.
From a dating app to wedding vows: Their love story
Rama Duwaji and Zohran Mamdani's story is as modern as it gets — it started with a swipe.
'I met my wife on Hinge, so there is still hope in those dating apps,' Mamdani joked during an episode of The Bulwark podcast, laughing.
While the couple hasn't shared exactly when they matched, Mamdani posted a photo on Instagram in April 2022, taken by Duwaji, hinting that their relationship was already blossoming then.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
By October 2024, the pair appeared to be engaged — Mamdani shared a photo of Duwaji with a ring emoji and the hashtag '#hardlaunch,' along with the caption, 'Light of my life.' Friends and followers quickly flooded the post with congratulatory messages.
Earlier this year, the couple made it official with a civil ceremony at the New York City Clerk's Office, a place Mamdani called his favourite building in the city.
'The outside is just so beautiful and reminiscent of a different New York City, and the inside is in many ways public goods personified,' he told Interview Magazine. 'All of these New Yorkers getting married at the same time at different ages and at different times in their lives, it's very beautiful.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The two marked the moment with a poetic black-and-white photo that showed them in a New York City subway car, dressed simply, bouquet in hand, surrounded by unbothered commuters.
Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's wife Rama Duwaji is a Syrian-born illustrator and animator based out of Brooklyn, NYC. Instagram/@zohrankmamdani
They later held a private nikkah (Islamic wedding ceremony) in Dubai, where Duwaji's family is based.
But their relationship hasn't been all smooth sailing. During his campaign, Mamdani spoke out about the online abuse Duwaji received.
'Rama isn't just my wife. She's an incredible artist who deserves to be known on her own terms,' he wrote on social media. 'You can critique my views, but not my family.'
Through it all, she's stood by his side — quietly powerful, and now, unmistakably part of the public conversation.
With input from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17 minutes ago
- First Post
US Supreme Court upholds key preventive care provision in Obamacare
The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare read more The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Congress cut off? White House limits intel sharing after Iran strikes report leak
The White House is restricting congressional access to classified information after a leak revealed details of US military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. This leak, exposing a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, has sparked outrage and prompted immediate action. The Trump administration will limit intelligence shared on CAPNET, raising concerns about transparency. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Congressional Access to Classified Info Curtailed Classified Channels to Congress Now More Restricted Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Speaker Johnson Blames Congress Without Proof The Leak's Origin Still Unclear FBI Launches Investigation FAQs The White House is tightening its grip on classified information shared with Congress after a leaked report revealed the early damage assessments of recent US military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, as per NBC News leak, which exposed a Defense Intelligence Agency finding that Iran's nuclear capabilities may have only been set back by three to six months, has drawn sharp rebuke from both the administration and lawmakers, and now prompted swift action to restrict access to such kind of information, according to the READ: Supreme Court rules in favor of Donald Trump's birthright citizenship proposal The Trump administration will now limit what intelligence appears on CAPNET, the classified communications network used to share sensitive materials with Congress, as reported by NBC News. It's a move that immediately raised concerns about transparency and oversight, especially from Democratic members of Congress, according to the Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that, 'The administration should immediately undo this decision," adding, 'They seem not to want to see the facts to get out. Just Trump's version of the facts, which we know is often false," as quoted by NBC News READ: Pete Hegseth sparks buzz by renaming USNS Harvey Milk after World War II hero Oscar V. Peterson Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson, expressed anger over the leaked reporting of the Defense Intelligence Agency's early assessment of the US strikes on Iran, saying, 'There was a leak, and we're trying to get down to the bottom of that. It's dangerous and ridiculous that happened. We're going to solve that problem, and we'll keep the coordination,' as quoted in the NBC News report. When he was asked if he thought the leak came from Congress, the speaker responded, saying, 'That's my suspicion,' as quoted in the though the Trump administration's crackdown and Johnson's suspicions are on Congress, it's not actually known if the leak came from a member of Congress, as reported by NBC to the report, lawmakers had access to the early assessment about the strikes from the Defense Intelligence Agency and were able to view it in a secure location in the Capitol, known as a SCIF, and then the assessment was sent to leadership through these official the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News, 'I am told by the FBI the leak already is being investigated, and it absolutely should be because this was a top secret intelligence analysis that very few people in the United States government had access to see,' as quoted by The Hill a secure network the executive branch uses to send classified information to no proof yet. Speaker Johnson suspects it, but investigations are still underway.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
32 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US SC limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump weclomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24per cent of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52per cent opposed it. Among Democrats, 5per cent supported ending it, with 84per cent opposed. Among Republicans, 43per cent supported ending it, with 24per cent opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
