Mother JonesModify

2025-06-25 22:00:18

Last night, with Zohran Mamdani on the verge of an extraordinary political upset in the New York City Democratic primary for mayor, the mood outside the candidate’s watch party in Queens was one of stunned glee. Few had expected such a swift and decisive victory for the young socialist state assemblymember over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who by around 10:30 p.m. had already called Mamdani to concede.

The city was in the midst of a historic heat wave—temperatures earlier that day had topped 100 degrees and did not relent much into the night. Because the campaign was turning away supporters—and press—that had not made the list, a cheerful crowd began to form outside the rooftop bar in Long Island City where Mamdani was scheduled to speak. Most were young, and some had come out in their DIY Mamdani merch. A local group of cyclists, seeing that early results favored Mamdani, had diverted their weekly ride to the bar. One member, who gave his name as Joe, told me that Mamdani had spoken at a memorial event for a cyclist who had been killed in a hit-and-run leaving one of the group’s rides. “He’s a man of the people,” Joe said. “I want someone who’s gonna walk the streets of Manhattan rather than assault the people of Manhattan.”

A little after 11 p.m., fellow mayoral candidate and New York City comptroller Brad Lander—who had co-endorsed Mamdani in the last weeks of the race—emerged from a car to welcoming cheers and made his way into the party. A livestream of the speeches had been set up outside of the bar, where spectators were spilling into the street.

Many supporters had hoped against hope that Mamdani would prevail, and their surprise was evident, particularly at a moment of Democratic malaise. Varsha Suresh, who is one of Mamdani’s constituents in Queens, had made her way to the party to bask in the results. “It’s incredible to come here and just feed off of this energy in this time where it’s so difficult to even think of something positive in the United States—that New York can lead the way in showing how a new future is possible,” she said.

Mamdani’s campaign, with its nimble social media presence, won over large swaths of young voters. About 385,000 New Yorkers voted early in this Democratic primary—almost 200,000 more than in 2021—with voters aged 25 to 34 making up the largest share of the turnout, according to Gothamist.

“He activated so many Gen Z voters. People who I had no idea cared about politics were suddenly posting [on social media] about Zohran,” Elena Gonzalez, a 26-year-old who works in the entertainment industry, told me. She knew a number of new residents that Mamdani’s campaign had convinced to register to vote for the first time.

As the night stretched on, the crowd began to grow restless—and hot. A volunteer made rounds with a pitcher of water and a stack of plastic cups. The speeches began around midnight, with remarks from Mamdani’s campaign manager, US Rep. Nydia Velázquez, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. When Mamdani finally took the stage, cheers reached a fever pitch. He pulled Lander onto the stage, as well as his wife and parents (who are the filmmaker Mira Nair and Columbia professor Mahmood Mamdani).

Mamdani, perhaps aware that he may face a competitive general election in November, remained on message. “Today, eight months after launching this campaign with the vision of a city that every New Yorker could afford, we have won,” Mamdani said. “A life of dignity should not be reserved for a fortunate few. It should be one that city government guarantees for each and every New Yorker.”

And ultimately, it was this unrelenting focus on affordability that resonated most with voters. That it is prohibitively expensive is a defining factor of life in New York City. “As a person of color living in New York City under the age of 30—with all my dreams of being able to afford to live here—him winning makes me feel like that’s actually possible,” Suresh told me.

2025-06-25 18:00:00

Just a few months ago, pro-Palestinian college students around the country were getting arrested and detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But some are now challenging their detentions in court—and getting released. 

Last week, Columbia University student activist Mahmoud Khalil, the first known pro-Palestinian activist arrested by ICE under the Trump administration, was let out of a Louisiana prison on bail by a federal judge who called his detainment unconstitutional. That decision followed the release of another previously detained student activist from Columbia: Mohsen Mahdawi.

In April, Mahdawi was scheduled for an immigration interview to obtain US citizenship. But after watching what happened to Khalil, Mahdawi knew he could be handing himself over to federal agents just by showing up. “I had conflicted feelings,” he says of appearing at the immigration office. “Is this an actual interview for my citizenship that I’d been waiting for for over a year? Or is it a trap?”

Soon after Mahdawi took an oath of allegiance to the US, ICE officers surrounded and arrested him, and the Department of Homeland Security accused him of jeopardizing the country’s foreign policy interests. But Mahdawi was prepared. Through his lawyers, he quickly sued the administration over his detainment and was released on bail a couple of weeks later. He says he believes he was detained “to intimidate other students, to make an example of me.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Mahdawi sits down with host Al Letson to discuss his arrest, the accusations that Columbia’s pro-Palestinian protests made Jewish students feel unsafe on campus, and the troubling images that linger from his time growing up in a refugee camp in the West Bank.

Find More To The Story on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app, and don’t forget to subscribe.

This interview was edited for length and clarity. More To The Story transcripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors. Please be aware that the official record for More To The Story is the audio.

Al Letson: You went through a really traumatic experience. I want to kind of unpack all of it. So let’s just start from the beginning. Weeks before your arrest by ICE and April, you had a feeling that something might happen when you showed up for your citizenship interview. What tipped you off?

Mohsen Mahdawi: So, Mahmoud Khalil, who is my fellow student and a friend from Columbia, he was detained on March 8th. The night Mahmoud was detained, my phone was ringing over and over and over after 3:00 A.M. It was a Saturday, so usually it takes Saturdays to meditate. And generally speaking, I ignore phone calls or when people are reaching out to me, but when I saw that my phone was basically exploding with messages and phone calls, I decided to answer. And that’s when I picked up the news that Mahmoud was detained.
And there was fear and intimidation and serious concern in the student body, everybody was encouraging me to leave the city. But at that time, I said the best course of action would be sheltering in place because most likely if I get outside of the building where I was staying, I would be also caught, kidnapped, and taken to Louisiana. And that what sets the feeling for the interview. So the moment I received the interview, I had conflicted feelings. Is this an actual interview for my citizenship that I’d been waiting for over than a year, or is it a trap?

I imagine when you got the notice that you had this interview and all of this is going on, that it feels like this can’t be a coincidence.

That’s exactly right. And I saw also what ICE agents have done with other students. For example, two students from Columbia, one PhD, and one undergrad who’s in Barnard, they went to their own apartments and dorms, and ICE agents were activated there.

The first thing I’ve done when I received this, I emailed the legal team who I was working with, and they said, “We need to wait on this.” And they too were kind of confused. “Yeah, it might be a trap, it might be a legitimate interview.” But we knew that by that time because President Trump in January, he declared that pro-Palestine students would be deported, and there was a vicious attack by the extreme pro-war, pro-Israel groups that were calling for our deportation. And they actually launched a campaign against me starting in late January, about two months before Mahmoud was arrested.

What was the mood like on campus prior to Trump’s election? Did you ever think something like this would happen, i.e., them coming to take student protesters and basically deport them all because they were just exercising their first amendment rights to free speech?

The general sense was not there to be honest with you. I did not imagine that this is coming up and I hear the threats and the promises that is being delivered by Trump. And actually, some of my friends said, “You should speed up your citizenship interview because what if he comes into presidency and then he starts deporting people?” And I thought, “Well, I can’t see it happening for students with visas, but I am a green card holder. I’ve been in this country for 10 years. I’ve seen it through ups and downs. I’ve seen the first Trump’s administration policies and way of action. I have not seen anything like this.” So it was a very low possibility on my end, but I did not see it coming this way.

What did you do to try and prevent your detainment when you had a feeling that this might be coming down the road?

A number of things. What I did, actually, this is something I learned from Palestine because I was born and raised in a refugee camp living under the apartheid system of Israel and under occupation. So I knew the best thing to do is to limit my contact, to not create routines, to not be in public spaces and to shelter in a place where nobody else except a very, very tight trusted circle. And in fact, I was sheltering in a place for a long time, for over more than 20 days I was in the same spot, I did not leave the apartment.

I also tried to reach out to Columbia to engage the senior administration telling them that, “You have encouraged us to free speech and academic freedom, all what we do here.” So I tried to engage Columbia University as well in the conversation to provide protection to me and to move me from off campus, which is I was living basically nearby campus, but on the street. If I walk outside of the building, ICE agents could detain me.

Do you feel like there was a change in the administration of Columbia or do you feel like this is kind of always who they were since you started there?

I would say that there is a betrayal to the principles and values of the university because when it came to Ukraine, for example, I was at Columbia and I saw the statements that came out from the senior administration. They even lit Law Library, which is the most significant building if you’ve been on campus, they lit it with the Ukrainian flag and they made very strong statements. They encouraged the students to speak up and they provided resources to Ukrainian students. And keep in mind, I lost many family members after October 7th, and other Palestinian students also lost family members.

When people say the protests you were a part of at Columbia were anti-Semitic and made Jewish students feel unsafe, how do you respond to that?

I would say this is a false accusation. It’s part of this whole agenda of gaslighting American people and capitalizing on the trauma that the Jewish people have from the anti-Semitism in Europe, and they’re pointing the wrong directions. There are many reasons why this can be easily refuted. First of all, I have many partners who are Israelis who see the injustice, who stand against it, and who want to see peace and justice in the region. So they cannot be anti-Semitic. They call them self-hating Jews sometimes, but they cannot be called anti-Semitic, Israelis and Jews.
The second part, I have actually wrote a paper, a long paper, over 60 pages, about envisioning a peaceful resolution in the Middle East, especially between Palestinians and Israelis. Add to all of this, I’m a person who is empathetic. I understand and I empathize with the pain and the trauma of all people. And my empathy, as I mentioned in many different interviews, extends beyond the Palestinians, my people. It extends to the Israelis and to the Jewish people. And my whole project, my whole vision, is centered on basically alleviating and relieving the suffering and the pain of the children who are innocent of any guilt. The children who deserve to live free of trauma, free of pain, free of suffering.
And I am also a Buddhist practitioner. I believe in nonviolence, I believe in empathy, I believe in alleviating suffering. So the accusations of anti-Semitism, it’s a textbook tactic to basically create more intimidation and fear and to blind people from seeing the truth. The truth is very clear, that there is a genocide in Palestine and there is an apartheid in Palestine, and America is funding it.

So going back to the process that you were going through, what’s going through your head on the morning of the citizenship interview?

I would say on the night before the citizenship interview, I actually was meditating the night before. And by that time, keep in mind I have prepared well before the interview, not only for the questions that I would be asked for the citizenship about the constitution of this country, but also I prepared that this might be a very strong possibility. So I reached out to my representatives, to the senators and the congresswoman, to house representatives, to my community tight circle. And they said, “Just keep it confidential, but this is a possibility.” I did interviews with some media telling them, “I’m a peacemaker, I’m a person who’s advocating for ending the conflict and for justice. And this is my story because if I get detained, I may not have a voice anymore.”

And I also prepared with an intelligent team of lawyers who were so prepared that at the moment I get captured or detained or with the accurate names, kidnapped, because that’s what happened, they would be able to file on the spot to prevent my transfer from here to another place. So this is all before the day off, I was thinking, “How can I be comfortable during detainment?” So what I did is I chose the suit and the shirt that are most flexible and breathable. Instead of using formal shoes that would be difficult on my feet, I chose a sneaker, a white slip-in sneaker, and I ensured that I would be comfortable, so I was hydrating and trying to just be ready for that moment.

I think it’s really important to say just really clearly for the listeners that before this interview, you didn’t come to this country without documents. You have a green card, you were documented, you were here legally, all of this stuff that happened to you should not have happened under the rule of law.

That’s exactly right. And also, I’m like if one might say a perfect immigrant. I worked in this country, I paid taxes, I learned about the laws and respected the laws, never committed a crime. And I went to the top institutions to learn basically Western education and that is what has opened my world. So to make this exception and to want to basically silence me, that’s what they wanted, and to intimidate other students, make an example of me, is really a great violation I would say, to what we have seen in this country, even to the rule of law.

Can you tell me about the arrest itself? In the back of your mind, and maybe not even the back of your mind, in the forefront of your mind, you knew that this was a possibility. So you’re heading to the interview that’s been set up with immigration. Talk me through the arrest. How did it all happen?

We entered the USCIS office, which is the immigration where my interview should take place. It was myself, the lawyer, and a friend of mine. After we arrived, within less than 10 minutes, the lobby had nobody, everybody was processed and left the office except us, just three people sitting in the lobby. And it gets so quiet to the point I looked at my lawyer and my friend, they said, “The calm before the storm.” Well, the interview took place, I answered everything as I should, and I answered the questions. And there was this moment, actually after I was quizzed on the test, before you become a citizen, you have to study 100 questions about this country and the institution.

So I answered them correctly and the agent who was interviewing me, he said, “Would you be willing to take the Pledge of Allegiance to protect and defend the constitution of this country?” And I said, “This is why I’m here, because I believe in the principles of this country. Of course, I will.” And he asked me to sign a document. So I signed the document and he said, “Just give me a few seconds.” He opened the back door and all the sudden DHS agents stormed the office and they say, “You’re under arrest.” They isolate me from my lawyer, they don’t show me any paperwork, and I give them my hands. I didn’t want to be handcuffed to my back, so I give them my hands and I say, “I’m a peaceful man. I’m not going to resist.”

And I have to give them credit because they did not make the cuffs too tight on my hands and I noticed that they were gentle. And this is something special to Vermont, that generally speaking, even if you deal with ICE agents or with police in Vermont, the culture is a little bit different. And that is when basically I was taken out directly into an unmarked SUV and that’s the moment when I was very calm. I was able to be so aware of my surrounding and I saw somebody with a phone recording and that’s when I saw him, I wanted to send a message, and I gave the V sign and I smiled.

One of the things that really struck me was something that you had talked about before, which is the revelation while being detained about following the footsteps of your family members and your elders. Can you kind of talk me through that?

I thought that I was off the hook the moment I left Palestine, and off the hook means that I’m not no longer subjected to systems of injustice and being detained unjustly and being put in prison and being persecuted just for speaking up for justice and for truth. So over the years, after my family was exiled into the West Bank into a refugee camp, my grandfather was arrested unjustly and put in prison. My father and my uncles, and recently also over the past two decades, my cousins. So when I was detained and put in a cell in a prison that was seven by 12, this is the dimension of it, I really started thinking of how did they feel my family? And I felt connected to them. And it was ironic that this is happening in the United States in a place where I first knew the experience of freedom.

I never knew what freedom is before coming to the United States. Now I am being detained for speaking about my first-hand experience, the pain, the loss, the trauma that I felt in the refugee camp. And there was this very strong image actually because there is routines in the prison. So the guard would come with a flashlight at night and they would check regularly. And how would they check? They would shine the light through the squared window in the door. And one night while I’m laying in the bunk bed, the light was so strong in my eyes, it flashed in my eyes, and with it I had a memory flashing of my uncle Abed who had permanent red eyes from the torture in Israeli prisons, and that’s when I started connecting this whole image with my uncle, with my cousins, and with my father and my grandfather.

When you were younger, you experienced some violent incidents growing up in the West Bank. Can you tell me about those and how they shaped your worldview?

So, as a child, just living in a refugee camp is a level of suffering, very tight place, almost 61 acres with about 10,000 people. You have no space to play, no space to study except in refugee schools. And it’s a very difficult experience. Add to this, the very traumatic experience during the Second Intifada. And as a child, I saw my best friend who was actually a Black Palestinian, 12 years old, his name is Hameda, was shot by an Israeli soldier and killed in front of my eyes. We were playing basketball before and basketball without having actually a basket in the street. We just like shooting over kind of an edge, and if it lands 90 degrees, we consider it that we scored. Very innocent kid. Oh, his life was taken in a second and I felt that burn inside of me. That is unjust. He shouldn’t have been killed. He’s an innocent kid.

Also, I lost my uncle September 12th, 2001 after September 11, and that’s actually was my 11th birthday. Instead of my uncle celebrating my birthday, I walked in his funeral and I saw him with blood on his beard, blood on his body. He was shot twice in the head and once in the shoulder. And for a child, this is a traumatic experience to lose somebody who you look up to. And after that, this series continues. I lost two cousins, I was shot in my leg when I was 15 years old, and the trauma of the explosions, the shooting, seeing people body parts just torn apart all over the place and skin sticking on walls where I had to peel it with my little hands when I was 12 years old, to put their bodies in plastic bags. That’s all very strong images, trauma that can live with us forever, and I feel very blessed that I was able to process this trauma and to heal from it.

Here in America, America provided me, and Vermont provided me, with the space to reprocess and to feel a little bit safe and to be able to heal from this. So those experiences you feel at rest in your stomach, you feel a rage at the beginning and anger when you see them. This is something weird to say. I’m grateful for this path of suffering because without pain and suffering, I would not understand what healing and joy is. Without this path of loss and the trauma, I may not have that strong sense of empathy to alleviate stress and the trauma. And seeing what’s happening now in the West Bank and in Gaza and even what’s happening in Iran and in Israel, it makes me just empathize with children who are going through this. Wars are not an answer to making peace.

After this long journey and everything that you’ve gone through here in the United States, do you still want to be a US citizen?

I think the United States is in a very critical stage of its life. The country is in danger. I see that. And I’m not alone. It’s every other American who is concerned about equality, was concerned about democracy. It’s a struggle for humanity. And what’s going to happen in America is going to affect the rest of the humanity. So do I want to be a citizen? I am in solidarity with people here. We’ll see what’s going to happen.

I hear you. That’s not a clear answer though. So are you saying that, listen, I wouldn’t blame you for feeling differently after everything that you’ve gone through. This is not a trick question. I’m just curious that after everything you’ve gone through, would go into Canada be better? And so I just imagine that there’s got to be this feeling of like, “Where do I call home?”

What’s the alternative? The alternative is putting my life under risk to go under apartheid system that might assassinate me, that might imprison me, that might shoot me, to live in a West Bank under the Israeli terrorist settlers who are living there and attacking Palestinian communities every day. So this is the only home actually that I’ve known when it comes to being safe and loved. And yes, I want to be a citizen in this country.

When I look at the history of this country and I think of Martin Luther King, he was imprisoned, he was treated badly, he was spied on, he was attacked. John Lewis, he was hit with a bat and he continued to be persecuted and he was imprisoned, but they did not give up on the principles, because the principles are good principles, to be honest with you. The issue is the application of those principles. What makes America great really is this diversity and this continuous momentum for struggle. And it’s a struggle some people think for racial equality. No, it’s a struggle for humanity. We all now are yearning for this equality for humanity to be seen, to be respected, and to have our freedom and our rights, and we are in this together.

2025-06-25 18:00:00

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

People in affluent countries around the world are willing to tax themselves to address climate change and ease poverty.

That idea defies conventional political wisdom, which typically holds that people hate taxes. It emerged in a survey of 40,680 people in 20 nations that found strong support for a carbon tax that would transfer wealth from the worst polluters to people in developing nations. Most of them support such policies even if it takes money out of their own pocket. 

Adrian Fabre, lead author of the study published in Nature, wasn’t surprised by the results. He studies public attitudes toward climate policy at the International Center for Research on Environment and Development in Paris, and said this is the latest in a long line of studies showing that climate-related economic policies enjoy greater support, on the whole, than people assume.

This study asked people how they’d feel about a global carbon tax: The larger an individual’s contribution to climate change, the more they’d pay. In exchange, everyone in the world would receive about $30 per month. “People with a carbon footprint larger than the world average would financially lose, and those with a carbon footprint lower than the world average would win,” Fabre said.

The survey included 12 high-income countries and eight “middle-income” countries like Mexico, India, and Ukraine. The researchers surveyed at least 1,465 people in each nation over several weeks in May 2024. Japan showed the highest support, with 94 percent of respondents backing the idea of linking policies that combat inequality and climate change. 

That said, the policy was least popular in the United States, where the average person is responsible for about 18 tons of CO2 a year. About half of Americans surveyed supported the tax. (Three in 4 Biden voters favored the idea. Among Trump voters, just 26 percent did. In contrast, support ran as high as 75 percent across the European Union, where per-capita emissions are 10 tons.

“We found that people in high-income countries are willing to let go of some purchasing power if they can be sure that it solves climate change and global poverty,” Fabre said. Americans would end up foregoing about $85 a month, according to the study. 

That’s not to say such policies would remain popular once enacted. Canada learned this lesson with its tax-and-dividend scheme, which levied a tax on fossil fuels and returned nearly all of that money to households—most of which ended up receiving more money in dividends than they lost to the tax. People supported the plan when the government adopted it in 2019. But support slid as fuel prices rose, and the government scrapped it earlier this year amid pressure from voters and the fossil fuel industry.

“What matters ultimately is not the actual objective benefits that people receive,” said Matto Mildenberger, “but the perceived benefits that they think they are receiving.” 

Mildenberger studies the political drivers of policy inaction at the University of California-Santa Barbara. In Canada’s case, the higher prices people paid at the gas pump weighed more heavily in their mind than the rebate they received later—especially when opponents of such a tax told them they were losing money. “One of the most critical factors in my mind that generates friction for these policies is interest group mobilization against them,” Mildenberger said.

Regardless of whether carbon pricing is the answer to the world’s climate woes, the fact that people are more supportive of climate policies that also fight poverty is telling, he said. 

“Inequality-reducing policies are a political winner, and integrating economic policy with climate policy will make climate policies more popular,” he said. “The public rewards policies that are like chewing gum and walking at the same time.” The question now is whether governments are listening. 

2025-06-25 12:32:54

It didn’t take long for conservatives to lose their minds after Zohran Mamdani’s apparent upset over Andrew Cuomo in the Tuesday night Democratic primary in the New York City mayoral race.

Why? He’s a 33-year-old democratic socialist who has promised free buses and free child care, and to freeze the rent. But the fact that seems to most trigger some on the right is that he is Muslim, and would be the first Muslim ever elected the city’s mayor if he wins in November.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Laura Loomer, and Charlie Kirk were among the right-wingers who fired off Islamophobic smears about Mamdani and Muslim New Yorkers to their millions of followers after Cuomo’s surprising concession. The posts come days after reports that Mamdani has faced threats and attacks prompting an investigation by the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force.

Stefanik, who has teased a potential run for governor of New York, called Mamdani “antisemitic, jihadist, Communist” in a post on her personal account on X, which has 1 million followers. (Mamdani has denied allegations of antisemitism and is not a Communist or jihadist, which refers to a Muslim extremist who supports terrorism.) Addressing her post to Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), who did not endorse a candidate in the race, Stefanik wrote: “You own this dangerous insanity and are incapable of defeating it.”

Loomer, a conspiracy theorist and informal adviser to Trump who has described herself as a “proud Islamophobe,” fired off a torrent of baseless allegations about Mamdani to her 1.7 million followers on X. “There will be another 9/11 in NYC and [Mamdani] will be to blame,” Loomer wrote in one post. “New Yorkers forgot all about the victims of 9/11 killed by Muslims. Now a Muslim Communist will be the mayor of New York City. Get out while you can,” she wrote in another. “He is literally supported by terrorists,” Loomer baselessly claimed in a different post. “NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0” (The 9/11 attackers were members of the Islamic extremist terror group Al-Qaeda.)

“If the Muslim Brotherhood would have been designated as a terroist [sic] org, [Mamdani] could have been prevented from running for office,” Loomer wrote. “Get ready for Muslims to start committing jihad all over New York.”

Loomer and Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, also targeted Mamdani for his prior stances calling to defund the police. Like Loomer, Kirk—who has more than 5 million followers on X—showed the depths of his bigotry: “24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11,” he wrote. “Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.”

Spokespeople for Mamdani, the mayor’s office, Hochul’s office, the NYPD, and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the posts.

Disgraced ex-congressman George Santos also called Mamdani a “jihadist sympathizer” in a post urging New Yorkers to re-elect Mayor Eric Adams—a Democrat who will be running as an Independent—in November. Santos will have no chance to vote himself, given that he reports to prison a month from Wednesday to serve an 87-month sentence for wire fraud and identity theft.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate for mayor, did not directly attack or reference Mamdani’s faith, but called him “extreme” and “radical.”

Ed Cox, chairman of the New York Republican Party, said in a statement that Mamdani’s victory “is the most alarming signal of how far left and out of touch the Democratic Party has become,” adding, “with Mamdani as the Democratic nominee, anti-Semitism is now dangerously close to having official status in City Hall.”

Earlier this year, Mamdani told my colleague Serena Lin that as a Muslim and a socialist, he is “no stranger to bad PR.” Indeed, he has been consistently accused of antisemitism, despite the fact that he has rejected those accusations, pledged to stand up for Jewish New Yorkers, and has said he believes “that Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights.” Mamdani also alleged earlier this month that a mailer proposed by a super-PAC supporting Cuomo’s campaign was Islamophobic for altering the appearance of his beard to look longer and darker than it is.

Corey Saylor, research and advocacy director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement provided to Mother Jones that the attacks “represent the same Islamophobic playbook from the same bigots we see almost any time a Muslim runs for public office. New Yorkers, who were more interested in picking a candidate who they felt would best serve their city, delivered a monumental win over such hateful tactics.”

The New York Times reported Tuesday night that Trump’s allies are preparing to turn Mamdani into a national target, particularly leading up to the midterm elections next year. If the comments some of them unleashed Tuesday night are any indication, expect the GOP to continue to show that there is no bottom.

Update, June 25: This post was updated with additional comments, including from a representative for CAIR.

2025-06-25 11:08:49

It would be an understatement to say that Zohran Mamdani was a bit of an unknown when he began his campaign for mayor of New York City. As recently as January, the democratic socialist state assembly member from Astoria, Queens, was polling at just 1 percent in some polls. But now Mamdani is poised to make history.

Mamdani held a commanding lead over former three-term Gov. Andrew Cuomo after the first round of voters were counted on Tuesday. The race won’t officially be over until the ranked-choice votes are tabulated next week, but Cuomo himself seemed to concede there was too much ground to make up, saying, “Tonight is his night. He deserved it. He won.” The result, if it holds, is a seismic event not just for the city but for the Democratic Party, making the 33-year-old the clear frontrunner heading into November.

As I explained in a story this week, and on a recent episode of Reveal, the mayoral race was the first really big primary since everything fell apart for the party last November, and it was unfolding in a city where Democratic support collapsed—at least at the presidential level. In neighborhoods like Corona, Queens, Donald Trump carried precincts he’d previously gotten just a quarter of the vote. Mamdani leaned into this uncertainty about the party’s direction. He soft-launched his mayoral campaign just a few days after Trump’s victory, with a series of man-on-the-street interviews in diverse outer-borough neighborhoods that had swung sharply toward the president. 

It was a glimpse of the race to come—a camera-ready, ubiquitous candidate zeroing in on a core message of affordability. Anyone could name his core policy proposals: free buses, free child care, and a rent freeze. This sticky economic message allowed him to broaden his appeal beyond the lefty enclaves along the East River where democratic socialists have thrived and tap into broader dissatisfaction with the state of the city among a wide range of voters. As he told my colleague Serena Lin in a profile in March:

“The directness of our politics requires no translation. Our campaign is driven by a belief that, while there may not be an ideological majority in New York City, there is a majority of New Yorkers who feel left behind by the economic policies of this mayor and by politics today.”

It helped that Mamdani was everywhere. At Knicks games. On podcasts. Last Friday night, he walked the entire length of Manhattan. Stuck in Albany for the legislative session, Mamdani confronted Trump’s deportation czar at the state capitol over the Trump administration’s detention of former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil.

In a party divided over how to push back against Trump and what fights to pick, Mamdani offered a clear sense of direction.

Cuomo, by contrast, ran like the damaged goods he was. The former governor, who resigned his office in 2021 after a state attorney general’s office investigation found he had sexually harassed 11 women (charges he denied), pitched himself as the savior of a declining and scary New York. His own campaign launch video—which clocked in at more than 17 minutes—warned of graffiti, migrants, and “mentally ill” people on the subway. It was the case for Christopher Nolan’s Batman—with Bruce Wayne’s money lined up behind him. Some of the richest people in the city, and across the country, pumped tens of millions of dollars into super-PACs that sought to cast Mamdani as too radical for the city. But while Cuomo entered the race as the favorite, he never really picked up much new support. He was largely missing on the campaign trail, dogged by questions about his residency and past scandals.

The implicit and sometimes explicit case for Cuomo was that progressives had led the city and the party astray. But he—and the donors and editorial writers who stood behind him—were in denial about what Democrats in the city were looking for. In the battle between a generational political talent and a creep from the suburbs they just threw out in disgrace, well, maybe it shouldn’t have come as so much a shock that voters went with the new guy.

If Mamdani clinches the Democratic nomination, he’ll be the clear favorite heading into a general election that includes Republican Curtis Sliwa and current Mayor Eric Adams. But there’s still one big variable left. Cuomo—the founder of the “Women’s Equality Party” back in the day—has already secured his own ballot line to run on in November (the “Fight and Deliver” party), and still could take advantage of the city’s lack of a sore-loser law. In which case, buckle up for Round Two.

2025-06-25 03:21:11

The below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial.

It was hard for me to ponder Donald Trump’s attack on Iran without thinking of this:

In the immediate aftermath of the US bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities, a careful evaluation of the mission and its purported success was impossible because Trump and his team lie.

We can surely state—as have Democratic and Republican critics of the strike—that the assault violated both the Constitution, which hands Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which compels the president to obtain specific authorization from Congress before launching a military strike (unless the United States is attacked) and which, unfortunately, has often been breached by Republican and Democratic presidents.

We can also acknowledge there’s no way to judge the full results of a military action so quickly. Even if the US knocked out these nuclear sites, we can’t know what the consequences will be. “Cry ‘havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war,” Shakespeare wrote. The 2003 invasion of Iraq looked like a success until it didn’t—and years of chaos and civil war ensued that consumed the lives of about 4,500 American troops and an estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan routed the Taliban and dismantled the support system for al-Qaeda. But then came 20 years of fighting—and the loss of about 2,500 American soldiers and the spending of $2.3 trillion. For what? Throwing a strong first punch doesn’t always end the matter in war. There’s an old military saying: The enemy gets a vote.

As of now, the bombing raid has not yielded a larger war. But the dust has yet to settle. Iran has many avenues of retaliation available. Its counter may come soon, or in a while, or never at all. On Monday, it lobbed missiles at a US military base in Qatar and caused no reported injuries, in what was considered a just-for-show response. A few hours later, Trump issued a social media post announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. But the New York Times reported that a spokesperson for the Israeli military declined to confirm—or even comment on—Trump’s statement. The newspaper noted, “this is all a fluid and unclear situation.” (On Tuesday, Trump criticized both Israel and Iran for actions that were inconsistent with the ceasefire, as the fragile truce appeared to be holding.)

However this shakes out, one reasonable expectation is that the raid will convince Iran that now more than ever it needs a nuclear weapon. Or perhaps a large cache of biological and chemical weapons—and an armada of advanced drones to deliver them. Or that it should answer with asymmetrical warfare—that is, acts of terrorism. There likely will be uncertainty on this front for some time. Don’t break out the champagne yet. (For a good preliminary and skeptical look at the US attack, check out this day-after thread posted by Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert.)

Moreover, we can’t believe anything Trump and his crew say about the strike. In announcing the attack, Trump declared Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and fully obliterated.” But the next morning, Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the nuclear facilities had sustained “extremely severe damage and destruction.” That’s not annihilation. And other senior administration officials that day conceded that they did not yet have a read on what was left or even the whereabouts of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. It was possible that Iran had moved enriched uranium and crucial equipment prior to the bombing raid. (Iran reportedly had no bomb-grade uranium but possessed uranium enriched far more than necessary for civilian use.)

The Trump gang even pulled out an old, discredited playbook: misrepresenting or ignoring intelligence. The intelligence community had been clear on Iran’s nuclear program. In March, it released its annual threat assessment, which stated: “We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, during congressional testimony that month, said the same.

But that conclusion did not matter. Trump, who has often boasted that with his big brain he’s smarter than the generals and the analysts, didn’t feel compelled to even bother to claim that there was new intelligence that supported the case for attacking Iran. He just disregarded this assessment and pulled the trigger.

The morning after the attack, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked what fresh intelligence had been acquired since the March report that showed Iran was now developing nuclear weapons and, thus, posed a pressing threat. He responded, “The president has made it very clear that he’s looked at all the intelligence and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat.” In other words, there was no new intelligence. The president had tossed aside the intelligence community’s finding, and the administration didn’t care how this looked.

On Meet the Press, Vice President JD Vance was pushed on this point, as well. Asked if he and Trump trusted the intelligence community and its assessments, he replied, “Of course, we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.” He was saying that Trump went to war on a hunch.

Maybe Vance realized this sounded ridiculous, for he added that the administration had gathered intelligence that the Iranians were “stonewalling” the ongoing negotiations. He did not elaborate. Yet on Friday, the day before the attack, the White House said it supported the ongoing European talks with Tehran, and earlier in the week Trump indicated he would give negotiations two weeks. It’s hard to believe that intel came in that indicated Iran was suddenly slow-walking the talks and, therefore, a strike had to be launched right away.

There was even double-talk about regime change—the bugaboo of the MAGA right with its association with so-called “forever wars.” Following the raid, Secretary of State Marco Rubio proclaimed, “This wasn’t a regime change move.” And Vance said, “Our view has been very clear that we don’t want a regime change.” But then Trump shot out a social media post:

It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!

So who knows? Trump Sycophant No. 1 Lindsey Graham quickly jumped on this with a post that said, “President Trump is spot on with his desire to make Iran great again by changing the regime.” With this coy reference to regime change, Trump was undermining his top officials and suggesting to Iran (and the world) that these assurances meant nothing.

After the attack, House Speaker Mike Johnson released a statement saying, “The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.” It actually was a clear reminder of the opposite. Trump had indicated he was willing to give diplomacy a chance. Then he didn’t. He said the targets were completely destroyed. Maybe not. His team insisted the attack was not part of a war of regime change. He signaled it might be. How should other nations in the future—friends or foes—regard his statements? How should we? If Iran were now willing to engage in diplomacy, how could it cut a deal with a man whose word (or social media posts) means nothing? A major victim of this attack is American credibility.

“In war,” Aeschylus said, “truth is the first casualty.” Trump long ago killed the truth. Lies and disinformation are his most treasured weapons. Consequently, he paved the path to this war with erratic statements, disingenuousness, and dishonesty. Whatever the impact of the attacks on Iran’s nuclear program—we can’t believe what Trump will say about this—his deployment of such a toxic mix is unlikely to make the world a safer place.