
NYC's 'communist' mayoral hopeful refuses to condemn lightning rod phrase during painful on-air interview
New York City mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani repeatedly refused to condemn the phrase 'globalize the intifada' in a painful on-air interview.
Mamdani, 33, a self-described socialist who won the Democratic primary for the mayorship last week, dodged the question several times when grilled by NBC's Kristen Welker over his views on the inflammatory phrase.
'Globalize the intifada' is considered by many to be a call for violence against Israeli and Jewish people around the world, and has often been heard chanted at anti-Israel protests in the US, including Mamdani's own rallies.
In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Mamdani repeatedly said he was not comfortable 'banning' the phrase, which was not what Welker asked, leading the exasperated interviewer to ask: 'Why not just condemn it?'
'That's not language that I use,' Mamdani said.
'The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights.
'And ultimately, that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians as well.'
Mamdani has faced growing backlash following his surprise win in the Democratic primary, compounded by his plans to raise taxes on 'whiter neighborhoods', defund the police, and open government-run grocery stores.
In the interview with Welker, she brought up Mamdani's past refusal to condemn 'globalize the intifada' on several other media appearances.
When asked earlier this month on The Bulwark podcast about the phrase, he said he saw it as one that captured 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.'
After Mamdani dodged Welker's first question about the phrase, she asked him again: 'But do you actually condemn it?
'I think that's the question and the outstanding issue that a number of people, both of the Jewish faith and beyond, have. Do you condemn that phrase, 'globalize the intifada,' which a lot of people hear as a call to violence against Jews?' Welker asked.
Mamdani responded: 'I've heard from many Jewish New Yorkers who have shared their concerns with me, especially in light of the horrific attacks that we saw in Washington, D.C. and in Boulder, Colorado about this moment of antisemitism in our country and in our city.
'And I've heard those fears, and I've had those conversations. And ultimately, they are part and parcel of why, in my campaign, I've put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%.'
Exploiting the Museum and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to sanitize 'globalize the intifada' is outrageous and especially offensive to survivors. Since 1987 Jews have been attacked and murdered under its banner. All leaders must condemn its use and the abuse of history. pic.twitter.com/SBviaMNLCM
— US Holocaust Museum (@HolocaustMuseum) June 18, 2025
Mamdani also claimed that the word 'intifada' has been 'used by the Holocaust Museum when translating the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising into Arabic', a remark that led to a blistering rebuke from The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
In an X post, the museum wrote: 'Exploiting the Museum and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to sanitize 'globalize the intifada' is outrageous and especially offensive to survivors. Since 1987 Jews have been attacked and murdered under its banner. All leaders must condemn its use and the abuse of history.'
Mamdani referred to President Trump's detention of pro-Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil as an example of how he doesn't 'believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech.'
'And we have to root out that bigotry, and ultimately we do that through the actions. And that is the mayor I will be, one that protects Jewish New Yorkers and lives up to that commitment through the work that I do.'
Welker asked again: 'But very quickly for the people who care about the language and who feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it?'
Although he was not asked about banning the phrase, Mamdani repeated his belief that he does not think that as mayor he should discuss 'what language I believe is permissible or impermissible.'
'Ultimately, it's not language that I use. It's language I understand there are concerns about. And what I will do is showcase my vision for this city through my words and my actions.'
The car-crash interview responses came as Mamdani has faced growing pressure to condemn the phrase, with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand slamming the mayoral hopeful in an interview on Thursday.
Speaking to WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer on Thursday, Gillibrand said the phrase calls for the 'slaughter of the jews', and said she finds Mamdani 'alarming.'
Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries also spoke out against Mamdani this week, telling ABC's This Week that the phrase is 'not acceptable.'
The 33-year-old has faced mounting questions about his experience since he gained traction and ultimately won the Democratic primary, with his only public service work coming as a state assemblyman.
In the state assembly, Mamdani promoted few bills, and his legislative record includes co-sponsoring bills requiring prisons to house inmates based on their self-declared gender, preventing law enforcement from asking about a perp's immigration status, and forcing small businesses to make their product packaging eco-friendly.
Mamdani has described himself as 'Trump's worst nightmare', and his far-left policy platform sharply divided the nation as he gained traction in the mayor's race.
He says he wants to raise taxes on the top one percent of New York earners - something the mayor does not have the authority to do - and make a number of city services free including childcare and buses.
The city assemblyman has also proposed spending $65 million on transgender care, including for minors, freezing rent on rent-stabilized apartments, and creating city-owned grocery stores.
He has also advocated for defunding the city's police department, defended pro- Palestine slogans like 'globalize the intifada' - which critics say is an anti-Semitic call for the destruction of Israel - and said he would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Elon Musk swears vengeance in last-ditch effort to KILL Trump's big bill and demands new political party
Ex-Trump ally billionaire Elon Musk is once more sounding off against the president's signature budget bill currently making its way through Congress. Musk called out Republicans over their refusal to pass legislation that he seems as sufficiently conservative via a post on X Monday afternoon, as GOP Senators voted on various amendments to Trump's budget package. A full Senate vote on the budget bill is expected either late Monday evening or early Tuesday morning, as President Trump has been pushing Congress to get it to his desk by July 4th. The Senate version of Trump's bill is estimated to add between 3.3 billion and 4.5 billion to the national debt. 'It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record Five Trillion Dollars that we live in a one-party country – the Porky Pig Party!!' Musk wrote on X. 'Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,' Musk added. A few minutes later, Musk also called out several House Republicans who are a part of the conservative 'Freedom Caucus,' for their votes to pass the House version of the bill. 'How can you call yourself the Freedom Caucus if you vote for a Debt Slavery bill with the biggest debt ceiling increase in history? @RepAndyHarrisMD @chiproytx,' Musk wrote, addressing the two GOP lawmakers directly. Musk then escalated his attacks further, pledging to oust Republicans from Congress who vote for the bill. He said that any GOP lawmakers who 'campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history' while adding they 'should hang their head in shame!' Elon Musk via X Elon Musk via X Elon Musk via X Musk, the world's richest man now worth over $400 billion, founded the AmericaPAC super pac in 2024. AmericaPAC raised over $260 million last year, and spent it in support of Republicans, many of whom ran in swing districts. Over $88 million went to directly supporting Trump. Musk was rewarded handsomely for his efforts, and spent nearly four months in Trump's White House as a 'special government employee' leading the Department of Government efficiency (DOGE). In that role, he pinpointed many areas where the federal government could make budget cuts, but in Musk's eyes much of that work will be for nothing if the government doesn't curb its record high spending levels. Some libertarian-minded Republicans have previously taken Musk's side in the GOP budget fight. New additions to the the national debt were have been a non-starter for the likes of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who notes that he does want to see the 2017 tax cuts made permanent. Paul also described the current $5 trillion in new debt that the budget bill would add as 'Biden spending levels.' 'This will be the largest increase in the debt ceiling ever in our history. We've never raised the debt ceiling without meeting the target. You can say it doesn't directly add to the debt but if you reach the ceiling you'll meet that. We won't discuss it for a year or two. I think it is a terrible idea to do this' Paul told Fox News earlier in June. Paul has also contrasted the pending package with the funds anticipated to be saved by spending cuts pushed for by DOGE. 'That's more than all the DOGE cuts that we found so far. So, the increase in spending put into this bill exceeds the DOGE cuts. When you look just at the border wall, they have $46.5 billion for the border wall,' Paul said on Face the Nation earlier this month. Utah GOP Senator Mike Lee is another Senate Republican who hasn't fully supported President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' of a spending package which is currently being voted on in the U.S. Senate after being passed by the House of Representatives back in May. Lee and Musk previously joined forces to describe the bill as 'debt slavery' in a back and forth exchange on X.


Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
Coal used to make steel gets break in Trump's tax bill
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - Coal used to make steel got a break in the latest version of President Donald Trump's tax bill, a subsidy that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars over 10 years for a fuel that is mostly exported to countries including China. In April, Trump signed executive orders that directed Chris Wright, the energy secretary and former fracking CEO, to determine whether metallurgical, or met, coal is a "critical mineral" which he did in May. In the latest version of Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill that the Senate released over the weekend, met coal can claim an advanced manufacturing production tax credit, available for critical minerals, that would pay 2.5% of costs for the fuel. Sonia Aggarwal, CEO of Energy Innovation, a non-profit group, called allowing met coal to get the credit insane, as it could harm efforts to move to fuels that are less carbon-intensive. The subsidy would "send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to China to subsidize dirty steel," Aggarwal said in a post on X. Robbie Orvis, a director of analysis at Energy Innovation, estimated that the credit could be worth $300 million to met coal producers sending coal to China over ten years and said the subsidy could help China compete with U.S.-made steel. Giving met coal the critical mineral classification, typically reserved for minerals needed for high-tech defense systems, could also set the table for Trump's use of emergency powers to raise production. Conor Bernstein, a spokesperson for the National Mining Association, said the bill supports U.S. jobs, manufacturing and the economy. "Providing incentives to spur steel-making coal production accomplishes each of those objectives." The Metallurgical Coal Producers Association of West Virginia did not immediately respond to requests for comment about how the tax credit would benefit producers. West Virginia, one of the top U.S. mining states, has suffered several met coal layoffs in recent months hitting hundreds of miners. In local media, Ben Beakes, the president of the West Virginia met coal association, has blamed the layoffs on inflation.


Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
June 30 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges. During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, opens new tab curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits. Both judges asked U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect. Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday. In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday. The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide. But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions. William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. "They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said. Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out. Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then. "Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing. Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10. Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order. "It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.