Zohran Mamdani's Citizenship
Edited on November 04, 2025 at 10:36 AM
NEW YORK, NY — Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic Socialist and leading candidate for Mayor of New York City, has become the subject of an intense political and legal pressure campaign that has placed the very legitimacy of his U.S. citizenship on the public stage. Since his surprise primary victory, the progressive candidate has faced accusations ranging from concealing support for terrorism to financial impropriety, drawing the direct attention and scorn of the White House.
The controversies surrounding the Uganda-born, naturalized citizen are multi-layered, mixing hard-line political rhetoric, substantiated financial questions, and legal allegations that, to date, remain unproven in court.
Allegation of Concealment of Material Support
The claim against Mamdani centers on a Republican Congressman’s formal request for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate him for potentially procuring citizenship through "willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism." The key evidence cited by critics is a line from a 2017 rap song by Mamdani, who performed as "Mr. Cardamom," which included the phrase "my love to the Holy Land Five." The Holy Land Five were executives of a foundation convicted of illegally funding Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Despite the political gravity of the accusation, the legal standing remains unsubstantiated. There is no public evidence or finding of fact that Mamdani ever provided financial or material support to any terrorist group as of yet. The claim is a political interpretation of a rap lyric. Furthermore, the DOJ has not publicly announced the opening of a formal investigation into Mamdani's citizenship, nor has it filed a civil lawsuit for denaturalization as of yet. Legal experts maintain that citizenship revocation is exceedingly rare and requires a high legal bar that has not been met by the evidence presented.
The "Globalize the Intifada" Controversy
Mamdani has also faced intense political pressure to condemn the political slogan "globalize the intifada." While many critics, including major Jewish organizations, interpret this phrase as a call for violence, Mamdani has defended the language used by activists as expressing a "desperate desire for equality and equal rights" and a cry against occupation. Although he stated he would discourage the use of the term due to the fear it causes, his refusal to issue an unequivocal condemnation has been used by opponents to fuel the narrative that he harbors radical sentiments. Legal analysis holds that this political speech, even when controversial, does not constitute grounds for revoking citizenship.
Material Support for Terrorism? (18 U.S.C. §2339B)
The government can revoke citizenship if it proves a naturalized citizen concealed or lied about having given “material support” to a terrorist group during the naturalization process. Critics argue:
The slogan “Globalize the Intifada” directly references the Intifada — a series of violent uprisings against Israel during which U.S.-designated terrorist groups like Hamas played leading roles.
Publicly promoting or defending that slogan could be construed as endorsing the tactics and objectives of those groups.
If Mamdani expressed or acted in support of such groups before 2018 (when he naturalized), and failed to disclose it on his N-400 citizenship form, that would constitute concealment or misrepresentation, which is one of the few legal bases for denaturalization under 8 U.S.C. §1451(a).
So, the legal path critics suggest is:
The Intifada has been tied to terrorist activity.
“Globalize the Intifada” promotes that campaign worldwide.
Publicly supporting or refusing to condemn it could indicate sympathy or association with designated terrorist groups.
If he had prior connections and omitted them, it would be fraudulent procurement of citizenship.
That’s the chain of reasoning — though again, proof would be required.
Illegal Foreign Donations
Campaign finance records indicated that Mamdani's campaign accepted at least 170 donations from addresses outside the United States, which is a violation of U.S. election law. The campaign has stated it intends to return all improper foreign contributions, which reportedly total over $5,000 so far. Critics use this error to challenge the campaign's compliance and the integrity of its fundraising operations.
Ugandan Property Ownership
According to his official 2024 financial disclosure, Mamdani owns a 4-acre plot of land in Uganda, valued between $150,000 and $250,000, purchased in 2012. Opponents, including his primary rival, have accused him of hypocrisy, particularly in light of Uganda’s severe anti-LGBTQ+ laws. The criticism is that Mamdani, a proponent of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, should apply the same standard to his own foreign asset by divesting from property in a country with gross human rights violations.
"Elite" Background
Mamdani is the son of celebrated filmmaker Mira Nair and was raised in a privileged environment, including his mother’s multi-million dollar loft in Manhattan. Critics argue this background is inconsistent with his political identity as a Democratic Socialist who champions rent freezes and high taxes on the "richer and whiter" neighborhoods. Mamdani's supporters counter that his current residence in a rent-stabilized apartment in Queens aligns with his focus on housing affordability. Zohran Mamdani presents himself as the champion of working-class tenants—calling for rent freezes, higher taxes on the richest neighborhoods, and sweeping reforms of New York’s housing system. Yet the candidate resides in a one-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment in Astoria, Queens that he pays approximately $2,300 per month despite earning an Assembly salary of $142,000 and coming from a family of significant means.
The optics undermine his message: if a politician with his income and family background can access subsidized housing, what does that say about the fairness of the system he claims to reform? His supporters reply that he moved into the apartment years ago when his income was much lower, and that living in Queens rather than Manhattan aligns with his policy focus on outer-borough tenants. But that defence may ring hollow in the context of his broader campaign narrative of “people like us” battling entrenched wealth. For many voters, the question is: does he reform from within, or simply exploit the system he condemns?
Political Rhetoric: The "Communist" and "Anti-Enforcement" Labels
Mamdani's policy platform has been described by opponents, most notably the former U.S. President, as "communist," "socialist," and "bad news." Mamdani has openly stated that the "end goal" of his movement is "seizing the means of production"—a classic Marxist phrase. He uses this as a rhetorical device to describe his democratic-socialist platform aimed at expanding public power over housing, transit, and city taxes, which critics cite to label him a "communist lunatic."
Additionally, Mamdani’s vow to defy ICE enforcement and "stop masked" agents "from deporting our neighbors," while denouncing their tactics as akin to "two bit dictatorships," prompted the former U.S. President to publicly suggest that Mamdani should be arrested and potentially deported. Mamdani maintains this is part of his commitment to enforcing New York's sanctuary city policies and protecting immigrants.
Finally, a continuous political attack concerns a college application from 2009 where Mamdani, who is Indian Ugandan, checked boxes for both "Asian" and "Black or African American." Critics claimed this was a dishonest attempt to gain an advantage in college admissions (he was not accepted). Mamdani clarified he was simply attempting to capture the "fullness of [his] background" which did not fit neatly into standard U.S. racial categories.
It is important to discuss the Founding Fathers...
It is important to discuss the Founding Fathers when scrutinizing Zohran Mamdani because the controversies surrounding him involve the fundamental principles and structural safeguards they embedded in the U.S. political and legal system. Examining his case through their lens transforms a contemporary political debate into a critical discussion about the nation's bedrock constitutional values.
1. The Threat to Civic Virtue: Naturalization and Loyalty The Founders emphasized that citizenship required absolute, uncompromised loyalty to the United States. For naturalized citizens, the expectation was a complete severance of allegiance to the previous sovereign.
Policy & Quote: Naturalization required an oath to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty." The primary concern for the Founders was a citizen with "foreign bias."
Alexander Hamilton warned against admitting citizens too quickly, equating it to letting the "Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."
Application to Mamdani: The core accusation—that Mamdani may have lied by omission on his N-400 application and concealed support for a designated terrorist-linked group (the Holy Land Five)—would be viewed as a profound breach of that oath and a threat to national security. The Founding Fathers, who experienced treason during the Revolution, would regard any suggestion of material support for an enemy entity as potentially grounds for revocation, prioritizing the safety of the Republic over political speech.
2. The Danger of Foreign Meddling and Political Corruption The Founders were extremely wary of foreign influence in American politics, seeing it as the means by which other nations could manipulate the new republic.
Quote & Policy: George Washington, in his Farewell Address, forcefully cautioned against the dangers of "foreign influence in innumerable ways," and warned that political factions could become tools for foreign powers.
Application to Mamdani: The documented 170 illegal foreign donations to Mamdani's campaign, totaling over $5,000, would be interpreted as a direct and tangible threat to the integrity of the electoral process. For the Founders, who fought to establish a sovereign nation free of European meddling, this evidence of foreign funding would be a major ethical and legal red flag that demands severe scrutiny.
3. Attack on the Economic Order: Property Rights and "Communist" Rhetoric The Founders established the United States on the philosophy of Lockean liberalism, where the protection of private property was the essential purpose of government.
Quote & Policy: John Adams stated: "Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." James Madison warned that inequality in property ownership was a serious concern, but he also defined property as the rights of men "in their opinions, and the free communication of them...in their liberty of conscience...[and] in their faculties."
Application to Mamdani: Mamdani's stated "end goal" of "seizing the means of production"—a classic Marxist phrase—would be rejected outright. His democratic-socialist platform would be seen not as mere dissent, but as an ideological attack on the very foundation of the American economy and the natural right of property ownership that the Constitution was designed to protect. His "elite" background would add a layer of hypocrisy, suggesting a radical who has personally benefited from the wealth he seeks to dismantle.
4. Thomas Jefferson and the Modern Crisis of Immigration While Thomas Jefferson spoke of America as an "asylum" for the oppressed and favored liberal naturalization laws, his views would be completely different in the modern context of millions of unvetted, unassimilated arrivals straining city resources and infrastructure.
Jefferson's Intent: Jefferson encouraged immigration to settle the vast continent and provide population growth for the new nation, viewing it as a source of strength.
The Modern Reality: The sheer scale of contemporary, unauthorized migration—far exceeding any population shifts of the 1790s—would force Jefferson to apply a highly different practical standard. Jefferson was concerned with the preservation of a "temperate liberty" in the new Republic. He worried whether new immigrants would be prepared for the responsibilities of self-government, which he associated with rural land-owners.
Faced with a massive influx in New York City that Mamdani vows to protect by defying federal enforcement (ICE), Jefferson would see an immediate threat to the rule of law and the social and financial stability of the state. He would view Mamdani's pledge to "stop masked" federal agents as an unacceptable invitation to anarchy and a rejection of the national Constitution in favor of municipal overreach. The principle of the supremacy of federal law would outweigh any earlier ideal of open borders.
The documentation that Mamdani's campaign accepted 170 illegal foreign contributions raises an alarm that echoes the Founders' deepest fears about the survival of the republic. Referencing them elevates the issue beyond a campaign finance error to a matter of national sovereignty and electoral integrity.
Conclusion
The Founding Fathers provide the constitutional framework and philosophical baseline against which every contemporary political controversy must be measured. Their principles are the historical yardstick for determining the legitimacy of both the candidate and the scrutiny he faces.
