Mamdani, and the Rot in the American Left

      On Janurary 1st, 2026, Zohran Mamdani as the newly elected New York City mayor began his work by annuling and revoking the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism that was signed by executive order by his predecessor, now-former mayor Eric Adams. This is strange for a multitude of reasons if one merely reads headlines or just the major themes, and that’s intentional.

     Mamdani for the past year(2025) has been portraying himself as a communist/democratic socialist. Advocating for rent control, free transit, government run grocery stores, universal childcare, a raise on minimum wage to $30 by 2030, all to be paid for by ‘taxing the rich’. Again all classic leftist talking points that seem rosy and well meaning, which many youngfolk in America, especially university educated folk, are falling for. Mamdani also openly supported LGBT issues and ‘snacturary’ policies. He also routinely forgrounds his own identity as democratic socialist, which always works well on the youngfolk demographic he seems to identify with. All are classic leftist moves that actually make him pretty effective at growing his support base. However, it is important to note, especially for those with a keen eye, that he de-emphasized and downplayed his history, without denouncing it. Yet, one’s actions can easily be explained by their history, since you’d think a guy who’d been advocating for rent control and government run grocery stores would start by working on that, not revoking protections for the Jewish Community.

     In 2013, Zohran Mamdani founded a cell of Students for Justice in Palestine at Bowdoin college. This is where he has been quoted as stating the palestinian cause was ‘central to my(Mamdani) identity’(Jewish Telegraph). In 2023, as a New York assemply member, Mamdani authored the ‘Not On Our Dime’ Act, which penalised New York registered charities for financial activity connected with Israel(Combat Antisemitism Movement). During his campaign, he quietly declined to co-sponsor New York’s annual International Holocaust Remembrance Day and Israeli Independence Day resolutions(Politico). The fact he downplayed his antisemitic behavior is deceptive, especially for a guy who said his palestinian activism was ‘centeral’ to his identity. Behind his smug face and friendly attitude, is a deeper antisemitic Islamist agenda that many oblivious and still well meaning voters did not catch. Not that I agree with the fact that those who voted for him were leftists, but that their intentions were hijacked for a far darker agenda.

       Given his record above, it is notable that among Mamdani’s first actions was issuing a sweeping executive order that revoked a range of his predecessor’s orders, including several related to the Jewish community. The following was pulled directly from the New York City government website.

• Mamdani EO1 (01/01/2026) revoked all mayoral executive orders issued on or after September 26, 2024 and were still in effect on December 31, 2025.

• Of particular relevance to this discussion, Mamdani  EO1’s blanket revocation encompassed:

• Adams EO 51(05/13/2025)  - MAYOR’S OFFICE TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM

• Forms the NYC Office to Combat Antisemitsm.

• Adams EO 52(06/08/2025)  - DEFINING ANTISEMITISM

• Adopts the IHRA Definition of antisemtism.

• Adams EO 60(12/02/2025)  - PROCUREMENT AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS RELATING TO ISRAEL AND ISRAELI CITIZENS

• Directs NYC agencies to ensure city contracting and investment decisions do not discriminate against Israel and Israli citizens. Discourages BDS.

• Adams EO 61(12/02/2025)  - PROTECTING NEW YORKERS’ RIGHTS TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

• Reaffirms New Yorkers’ right to worship, speak, and protest, while directing the NYPD to protect access to houses of worship and public safety.

• It is important to note that the Office to Combat Antisemitism was restructured under Mamdani EO 2(01/01/2026), however, at the time of writing, he has yet to reconfirm Adam’s-era director Moshe Davis or appoint a new director. 

• In the last days of the Adams administration, the Office to Combat Antisemitism under Adam’s-era director Moshe Davis released one final report warning that antisemtism was becoming increasingly normalized across public life.(nyc.gov) 

     There’s a lot to unpack here and every single one of these executive orders impact the Jewish community in a different way. Adams’ EO 51 formed a mayoral office dedicated to combating antisemtism. The then-newly formed office was tasked with forming an interagency task force with the Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes, New York City Police Department, New York City Commission on Human Rights being major players of this task force. Act as a liaison office between the City Government and the Jewish Community. Lastly, per the text of the order, this office will make recommendations to the Mayor in relation to public education efforts aimed at combating antisemitism, tracking of criminal and civil enforcement related to antisemitic hate crimes and/or discriminatory behavior, reviewing curricula and agency communications for bias, and the development of policies and initiatives to combat antisemitism. This is huge for numerous reasons. The formation of this office in May of 2025 singaled that Adams’ Administration were taking antsemitism seriously enough to give it the attention of an entire office. An interagency task force is a significant amount of city resources, so to order the formation of such a task force also signals the severity of the issue of antisemitic hate crimes and importantly the attention the mayoral government was willing to give it. It’s one thing for one to openly condemn antisemitism, it's a whole other thing to form an office, that will act as a liaison office between government and community, and form an entire interagency task force to it. EO 52 adopts the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. This is important because it gives the interagency task force mentioned a useful tool in determining antisemitism. Major Jewish organizations like UJA-Federation, American Jewish Congress - New York, and the Anti-Defamation League praised these orders, openly welcoming these new actions as a much needed escalation to an issue that has exploded all over NYC.

     Now, I must pause here since you may be wondering, “Hang on a minute, why does antisemitism get a full working definition and not say anti-Asian Hate?” Which yes, you have a right to be confused. Consider this, imagine for a minute you had a cup, with a clear liquid which you’ve been told is acidic but you do not know how acidic. Say you use universal pH paper and not your finger because that’s the smart thing to do and well, the pH paper turns an interesting color but you can’t determine what the particular hue manifested is telling you. So to interpret results, you use a chart that has reference color squares with noted corresponding pH. The IHRA definition acts as the chart, though not for mysterious clear fluids but for antisemitism. Like pH paper and charts, IHRA is a baseline litmus — not a be-all and end-all, that’s what legal precedent and criminal investigations are for. Even with this in mind, you’re probably still wondering, “Why a full blown definition with 11 examples?” Which also, yeah, that is fair. That said, the issue lies with how antisemitism has expressed itself through history. This isn’t a hierarchy of suffering; it’s a classification problem. Anti-Black, Anti-First Nations, and Anti-Asian hate, all vile, have evolved in their 400+ year histories, but their core framing often remains within a more stable lane—primarily race, indigeneity, or nationality.  However, for antisemtism, or more accurately Jew-Hate, in its storied 2500 year history, has manifested itself in a multitude of ways and in an unusually multi-framed manner. This was best summerized by the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.

        “In the past Jews were hated for their religion, then for their race. Today they are hated for their nation state.” –Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

     Because Jews have experienced hate from numerous vectors, there is no ‘one form’ of antisemtism. Even if one were to attempt to condense 2500 years of hate and their manifestations into one neat description, it will end up being a vague expression, open to interpretation. An expression open to interpretation is too loose to be a standard, it becomes a matter of subjective moral judgment. This is why the IHRA definition is formatted as one neat definition with 11 accompanying examples of antisemitism. 

     Some have decried that the IHRA definition is somehow ‘pro-Israel’, yet, if you were to read the definition and its 11 examples, Israel is mentioned, mostly in passing and a majority address antisemitic conduct, not anti-Israel critism. When it does mention Israel is in regards to double standards, Holocaust inversion, denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, and holding all Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel(Try blaming any random person for a government’s actions. It won’t get you far). That’s antisemitic conduct being discussed, not ordinary criticism. Like how pH paper pH paper can be thrown off by strongly colored solutions, the IHRA definition as a standard could be misused; that doesn’t negate the need for a shared reference point. Don’t take my word for it, ask the American Jewish Committee.

    Considering the above. It is no wonder EO 52 was heavily praised by the Jewish Community in New York, it gave a standard that the Office to Combat Antisemitism, law enforcement, the district attorney and other government agencies could use to determine if certain conduct was antisemitic, with the IHRA’s 11 examples being quite nifty because if conduct neatly falls under these examples, one now has a case of antisemitism.

     EO 60 by Adams’ Administration basically directs NYC agencies to ensure city contracting and investment decisions do not discriminate against Israel and Israeli citizens. This order is grounded in NYC Charter §1110, NYC Administrative Code §6-129.1, and Pension Fiduciary Duties—i.e. you don’t deny contracts or make investment decisions on prohibited discriminatory grounds just because a bidder is Israeli or does business with Israelis. The goal of this executive order was to counter calls to Boycot, Diversest, and Sanction (BDS) Israel. BDS itself can be pitched as nonviolent pressure. The problem is that in practice, BDS advocacy often sits in the same activist ecosystems where antisemitic rhetoric and harassment are tolerated—or outright encouraged—and where anti-Israel messaging can slide into collective blame, demonization, or denial of Jewish self-determination. That is the context EO60 was designed to resist in city contracting and investment decisions.

   EO 61, issued alongside EO 60, was issued not long after a high profile protest outside Park East Synagouge in November of 2025. Grounded in the First Amendment, the FACE Act, and New York State penal laws about intimidation of disruption at religious services, this executive order reaffirms the rights of all New Yorkers their freedom of religion. In addition, this order directs the NYPD to evaluate new policies regarding buffer zones around houses of worship, extra restrictions during publicly scheduled religious services, and limits during non-religious activities to protect participants’ speech/assembly rights. This order was primarily framed as a reaffirmation in First Amendment religious freedom, and a public safety order. For Jewish Communities, EO 60 and EO 61 work in different ways. EO 60 protects Jewish/Israeli-owned businesses along with businesses and vendors doing business with Israel from unfair treatment by government agencies, which to clarify one doesn’t have to be pro-Israel and still treat Jewish and Israeli business owners and vendors with the same dignity you would anybody else. EO 61 directs the NYPD to protect all who go to synagogue from harassment on their way and/or at their place of worship—an issue documented in multiple incidents city-wide.  So to sum up, EO 51 forms an office dedicated to combating antisemitism, EO 52 give that office and all other government agencies a standard by which to test if conduct is antisemitic, EO 60 prevents government agencies from discriminating against vendors due to their connections with Israel, and EO 61 directs the NYPD to investigate new policies that protect people going to synagogue. Mamdani, in practice, revoked EO 52, EO 60, and EO 61.

     By revoking EO 52, EO 60, and EO 61, here’s what happens. No EO 52, no IHRA definition, the Office to Combat Antisemitism and their law enforcement partners are crippled. Without a working standard, enforcement becomes inconsistent, case-by-case, and too easy to politicize. It’s like being told you can’t use pH paper, so you’re left guessing—or doing something dangerously stupid—to figure out what you’re dealing with. No EO 60, there’s no explicit guidance. Leaving procurement boards vulnerable to pressure campaigns that seep into contracting decisions under the guise of ‘policy’—even when the result is discriminatory. No EO 61, there’s no directive to formalize and tighten those protective policies—so enforcement becomes uneven and reactive. This doesn’t just affect Jews. Christians, Mormons, and other persons of faith will feel it too. One can’t build a policy regime that shrugs at harassment of one faith community and expect it to hold the line for the others. A society that makes exceptions for Jew-hate eventually makes exceptions for everything.

     It’s quite telling that among his first actions, Mamdani revoked these protections for the Jewish Community. These protections, mind you, were all in place to counter SJP style tactics used to intimidate the Jewish community especially. Under his promises of rent control and free transit, his central identity still seems to be pro-Palestinainism, just as he said all those years ago at Bowdoin College. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and floats like a duck, it’s a flippin duck.

     Zohran Mamdani is a leftist, however he ran on the Democratic ticket in the 2025 NYC mayoral election, with Andrew Cuomo, an actual Democrat, running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary. This is key, since in our binary American system, as it stands in 2026, anyone right of center is a Republican, and anyone left of center is a Democrat. But this isn’t well representative of who’s on a political spectrum in reality. On the Right, you have moderate conservatives like Marco Rubio, JD Vance, and Erika Kirk, and you also have extremists like Nick Fuentes. The same occurs on the Left, where moderate Democrats like Ritchie Torres, John Fetterman, and Andrew Cuomo, and extremist leftists like Rashida Tlaib and Zohran Mamdani. Consider Torres for example, who, as House member for the State of New York, is a pro-Israel progressive. He worked across the aisle with Mike Lawler(R-N.Y.) and introduced the COLUMBIA Act, which would have allowed for better monitoring of campus antisemitism and reporting requirements. He along with other moderate Democrates worked with house members from across the aisle to pass legislation on immigration reform in Janurary of 2025. Even with strong personal commitments, Torres is willing to routinely work with people from across the alsie to find common ground and get work done, and in most cases not letting personal agenda get in the way of things. Torres acts like a moderate not because of his opinions but because of his willingness to find common ground with opponents. Mamdani on the other hand, seems to have let his mask slip immediately after being sworn in, with his actions seemingly informed by his previous pattern of extremist advocacy. Dropping EO 52, 60 and 61, isn’t simply him ‘cleaning the slate’ as he had framed it. He is cleaning the slate indiscriminately, seemingly without considering which of the previous administration’s EOs may have been useful to him. Mamdani is also enabling the very sort of extremist advocacy he had participated in back in his days at Bowdoin College. On the campaign trail, Mamdani looked like a coalition builder for socialism, behind the mask was the college kid still promoting an extremist ideology and Jew-Hatred.

     This is why we have the odd state of affairs where Torres and Mamdani, who couldn’t be more different in the way they acted, somehow lumped in the same bucket called Democrat. The once great party of Truman and Kennedy now finds itself containeding moderates and extremist leftists —factions with fundamentally incompatible instincts. This is no clearer than how major Democrat figures reacted to Mamdani’s actions. The aforementioned Torres, within days of Mamdani revoking the executive orders, released a post on his Instagram account where he explains what the IHRA definition is and argues why revoking it is a bad idea. Jay Jacobs, Chair of the New York State Democratic Party, publicly critisized Mamdani’s actions repealing the antisemitism and anti-BDS related orders(New York Post). This criticism was not coming from across the aisle, but from within the party — from people whom one might expect to be ‘fellow Democrats’.

       What do you get from this? Well several things. Firstly, Mamdani is a product of the current campus extremist activity and is an example of what happens when so-called ‘campus activists’ end up in power. Secondly, every vote counts. If you’re registered to vote, do not simply read a candidate's well polished manifesto, look into the guy, find the public record and their previous actions, not just their manifesto. Thirdly, campuses are a battleground just as much as the halls of power are. Campuses are often where future leaders are formed. If we don’t sort out our campus extremism problems, and moderate voices are routinely shut up, that is a societal disaster waiting to happen. Lastly, Mamdani’s rise is not a good omen for anyone who’d hoped that the antisemitism explosion from October 7th will subside. His actions have opened the door for antisemitism to become stronger in the City of New York and now serve as a template for how one could easily try to hijack political vehicles to get power and do real damage. 

     The fight against antisemitism is no longer a short fight as many, myself included, initially thought. It’s now become a series of battles that’ll continue to escalate. However, as I finish this piece I will finish with these words from USMC Commandant General Smith to Marines at Camp Pendelton. 

       “...The next fight is coming. Trust me, it’s coming. Across battlefields, our character has never wavered. Just as the nature of war, the clash of wills and the test of fortitude, the demand for discipline remains the same.” 

– General Eric M. Smith, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps

    The fight is already here. It came the moment we forgot the extremist threat that crashed an airliner into the North Tower, in New York City.

E.L.