Bill Donohue

Privileged Background

Many politicians are chameleons who walk back their positions with alacrity, but it is not every day when someone comes along whose biography and stated policies smack of rank inauthenticity. Meet Zohran Mamdani.

He is the little-known 33 year old New York Assemblyman who beat former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the June Democratic mayoral primary. He stunned everyone, in and out of New York City. He won largely because young white people and Asians turned out to support him.

Ironically, the Muslim socialist, who promised the poor an array of freebies, lost the vote of lower income New Yorkers: they voted for Cuomo. He got his biggest support from young college-educated liberals, most of whom are white and affluent.

His donors include the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Its Unity & Justice Fund contributed $100,000 to New Yorkers for Lower Costs, the largest pro-Mamdani PAC. CAIR has terrorist ties and was named as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case; it provided over $12 million to Hamas.

To say Mamdani is a walking contradiction is an understatement. According to the standards of left-wing activists, Mamdani— who is one of them—is “filthy rich.” Born to a wealthy Indian family in Uganda, his family moved to South Africa when he was five years old. When he was seven, his family moved to the United States, finding a home in New York City.

Like most other rich New Yorkers, Mamdani did not attend the local public school. He spent his elementary school years at the Bank Street School for Children. It is not a school for the middle class, never mind the poor: Tuition is over $66,000 a year. He also did not attend the local public high school. Instead, he went to one of the most elite public schools in New York City.

In other words, for a man who is ideologically committed to the working class and the poor, his wealthy parents kept him far away from them. He never fraternized with the proletariat any more than Marx did (Marx never set foot in a factory in his entire life).

Radicals are very good at bashing anyone who even remotely fits the label “privileged.” That would be Mamdani. Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, accurately sums up his upbringing. “There is little room here for doubt that Zohran grew up in an environment that was affluent, privileged, and high status; but also strongly disdainful of Western values and most of what we think of as legitimate government.”

Political strategist Hank Sheinkopf is just as pointed, saying the would-be mayor “grew up with three silver spoons in his mouth.” Mamdani even admits that his parents provided him with a “privileged upbringing.” Indeed, he is such a product of nepotism that he proudly calls himself a “nepo baby.”

Mamdani hates capitalism, but he loves the lifestyle it affords. His parents’ net worth is estimated at between $2 million and $10 million. His mother, in particular, did very well milking the capitalist system.

Mira Nair is a product of privilege and a successful filmmaker. She sold her tony New York City loft in 2019 for $1.45 million. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a Marxist who holds a chaired professorship in African history and colonialism at Columbia University.

Most people have one marriage ceremony in their home country. Not Mamdani—he had ceremonies in three continents. He got engaged last year to Rama Duwaji, a Syrian artist from Brooklyn. The engagement party was in Dubai, where her parents live. Dubai is one of the world’s 20 richest cities ranked by millionaires. It is home to over 81,000 millionaires, and hundreds more whose wealth exceeds $100 million. No diversity at this engagement party.

Most American Muslims marry in their local mosque. Not Mamdani. In early 2025, he and Rama got married in a secular venue, at City Hall. A clerk presided.

In keeping with his privileged background, the couple more recently celebrated their marriage in his family’s uber-rich compound in the wealthiest area of Uganda. Though Mamdani is opposed to ICE agents wearing masks, he made sure there were plenty of masked security guards at his bash. He also made sure they carried military-style weapons, an odd choice for someone who wants to ban guns. The troops also employed a cellphone jamming system in the two-acre home that overlooks Lake Victoria. They made sure to keep this a closed-door party with no intruders.

Radical Politics

Mamdani’s parents wasted no time grooming him to be a hardcore leftist. His middle name is “Kwame,” in recognition to Kwame Nkrumah, the African dictator. Nkrumah was prime minister of Ghana in the 1950s, when it gained independence from Britain. He was such an admirer of the Soviet Gulag that he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize from the Soviet Union in 1962. A socialist, he did away with elections, naming himself “president for life.” This is Mamdani’s parents’ hero, whom they consider a “democratic” socialist.

Mamdani’s father, who is a Ugandan settler colonialist, has made his academic career attacking settler colonialism. His views are so extreme that he blames the United States, which he says is a settler colonialist state, for creating a model that has inspired many nationalist projects, including Nazi Germany, Israel and the Palestinians.

Zohran’s radical politics explains why he screamed, “Take it down,” when talking about a statue of Columbus in New York City. In fact, he flipped his middle finger at the statue. This is not something associated with liberals—it is the work of far-left wing activists. In point of fact, Mamdani wants nothing to do with liberals, which is why he despises Barack Obama. He is quite blunt about it. “Hasn’t Barack Obama shown that the lesser evil is still pretty damn evil?”

Nothing defines Mamdani’s radical politics more than his hatred of Israel. He says his opposition to Israel is “central to my identity.” He means it. “The struggle for Palestinian liberation is at the core of my politics and continues to be.” This is not something new. When he was at Bowdoin College, majoring in Africana Studies, he cofounded the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. He led the fight to boycott Israeli institutions, and still does today.

Once again, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. His father has called for a “Third Intifada,” meaning a third uprising against Israel. He has also written of his desire to destigmatize suicide bombings.

His mother said in 2013 that she refused to attend the Haifa International Film Festival, saying she would only visit Israel “when the walls come down.” She proceeded to support the Palestinian campaign for a cultural boycott of Israel. The filmmaker reportedly tried to have Gal Gadot disinvited from the Oscars because the actress has “openly and repeatedly expressed her support for Israel’s military actions.”

If Mamdani had his politics nurtured by his father and mother, his parents had their views nourished by Edward Said, one of the most prominent anti-Israeli intellectuals in the United States. They were best of friends.

A Columbia University professor, Said not only opposed the state of Israel, he was the number-one spokesman for the Palestinian cause in the United States. He was also a confidant of Yassir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. But Arafat, who sponsored terrorism, was later considered to be too moderate for Said: the two stopped talking once Arafat signed the Oslo Peace Accords.

It is due to circumstances like these that Zohran became the radical that he is. After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, in an unprovoked assault, the mayoral hopeful never once condemned the terrorists. Instead, he condemned Israel, accusing it of apartheid. Just as revealing are the views of Hadeeqa Malik, one of his prized former interns. She is known for characterizing her work as “all jihad.” She refers to herself as a “true believer” of Allah.

Mamdani has consistently accused Israel of “genocide.” He has also consistently refused to call out those who want to “globalize the intifada.” When pressed on this issue, he says he does not encourage use of this phrase, but he nonetheless refuses to condemn it. This does not satisfy critics like New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer. He says those who want to “globalize the intifada” are calling for “a wave of terror against the Jewish people.”

There is nothing moderate about Mamdani. His natural gait is a leftwing quick step, putting him in the company of history’s most destructive actors. Some say this is a reflection of his radical Islamic views. This is a shortsighted perspective—he has more in common with radical secularists than he does radical Muslims.

Religious Beliefs

President Joe Biden is at war with the teachings of the Catholic Church on many issues, especially those that deal with marriage, the family and sexuality. But he calls himself a “devout Catholic.” Similarly, Mamdani is at war with the teachings of Islam on many issues, especially those that deal with marriage, the family and sexuality. But he calls himself a “proud Muslim.”

Biden and Mamdani know that symbols matter. This explains why Biden always carries a set of rosary beads; it impresses his friends in the media. Similarly, when he wants to make a point, Mamdani adorns Muslim attire. He usually wears business clothes, but he is featured on his website wearing a white throbe, the collar-less lengthy one-piece gown favored by Muslim men. It impresses his friends in the media, as if that makes him authentic.

Biden at least attended Mass on a regular basis, but Mamdani’s record of being an observant Muslim is spotty. For example, when he celebrated Ramadan in 2018, he confessed that this was the first time he had done so in years. The timing is curious: the next year he announced his candidacy for office; in 2020 he was elected to the New York State Assembly. This gave him the appearance of an authentic Muslim. His wife is more honest—she does not wear the hijab.

Mamdani is described as being “discreet about his Shia Muslim identity.” Why discreet? Why is he selective about acknowledging it?

For example, his attendance at houses of worship has quickened in recent times, something that is advantageous to him in important circles. He now shows up at Jummah prayer, the Muslims’ congregational Friday service. He follows the Twelver branch of Shia Islam, the one that forms the basis of Iran’s Islamic Republic. Whether he believes that his religion’s teachings on marriage are just—polygamy is okay for men but not for women—is unknown. The media are sure not to ask him.

Mamdani’s mother may identify as Hindu, but that doesn’t mean much to New York’s Hindu population. They see her son as anti-Hindu, citing his strident denunciation of India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Mamdani has called him a “war criminal.” This explains why so many Hindus are raising money for his challengers. Not unexpectedly, Mamdani calls them “Hindu fascists.”

Mamdani may call himself a “proud Muslim,” but he sure isn’t proud of many key Islamic teachings. Practicing Muslims, at least in the United States, are very supportive of religious liberty. Yet a Nexis-Lexis search reveals that he has never addressed this subject.

This is astonishing, especially coming from someone who is not shy about commenting on virtually every other public issue. He is very protective of Islam, but a search of his remarks objecting to anti-Catholicism, or anti-Christian words or deeds, failed to turn up one comment. It’s fair to conclude that his interest in religious liberty is quite limited. Even worse, his interest in defending Islamic teachings on moral issues is abysmal.

Islam generally promotes the sanctity of human life; only in exceptional circumstances are abortions permitted after 120 days of pregnancy. Mamdani disagrees. He opposes any restrictions on abortion. That is why his voting record consistently receives a 100 percent score from Planned Parenthood. There is no abortion— for any reason and at any time of gestation—that he cannot support.

Islam depicts life as a gift from God. As such, it does not support suicide or attempts to end one’s life. Mamdani disagrees. As a state assemblyman he has voted for every “medical aid in dying,” or assisted suicide, bill. His embrace of an ethic of autonomy, which is a secular expression, overrides any interest in being faithful to the Islamic code.

Islam is even more specific about its teachings on sexuality. It abhors homosexuality. Mamdani disagrees. Whether consulting the Quran, or the sayings attributed to Muhammad, the hadith, Islam holds that homosexuality is sinful and deserving of punishment. Sexual relations are only permitted within the institution of marriage, and marriage is the exclusive province of a union between a man and a woman.

In May 2023, approximately 150 Muslim notables from across the nation signed a statement on sexuality that was a full-throated defense of what Muslims are expected to hold.

“We urge Muslim public figures to uphold the sanctity of our faith and refrain from making erroneous pronouncements on behalf of Islam. We reject any attempt to attribute positions to Islam concerning sexual and gender ethics that contravene well-established Islamic teachings. To be clear, we cannot overstate the detrimental spiritual consequences for those who intentionally reject, advocate the rejection of, or misrepresent the will of God, as in doing so they endanger their status as believers.”

There is little doubt that Mamdani intentionally rejects Islamic teachings on marriage, the family and sexuality.

He is a huge advocate of the radical LGBTQ cause. He supports transgender rights across the board and disagrees with the Islamic belief that there are only two sexes. He regularly attends gay events, including parades. In June, a video caption of the New York City Gay Pride parade read, “Zohran can be seen jumping up and down with joy while holding a transgender flag with a firm grip.”

Mamdani also advocates “comprehensive sex education” in the schools, which obviously means supporting the LGBTQ curricula. He wants it to be mandatory in all New York schools, making no allowance for private or parochial schools. He says it should include information about “reproductive health benefits,” which clearly does not apply to the unborn.

The Democratic Socialists of America are working with Mamdani to declare New York City a “sanctuary city for LGBTQIA+ people and their families.” What this will entail is anyone’s guess, though Mamdani has already pledged that he will spend $65 million in taxpayer money for sex-reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, chemical castration and genital mutilation for minors.

Like many radicals in western civilization, Mamdani believes there is a nexus between the sexual and the political. As Mamdani puts it, “Queer liberation means defund the police.” In other words, if gay and transgender persons are to be free, the political apparatus must change. This, in turn, means that those who protect the social order, namely the cops, must go. This is the stuff of revolution, not reform.

Economic Beliefs

When asked about his commitment to “democratic socialism,” Mamdani likes to hitch himself to Martin Luther King’s star. “I call myself a Democratic socialist, in many ways, inspired by the words of [Martin Luther King] from decades ago, who said, ‘Call it democracy or call it Democratic socialism: There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.'” However, what Mamdani means by democratic socialism is not analogous to what King meant.

In 1964, when King accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, he said the United States had much to learn from Scandinavian “democratic socialism.” The Scandinavian countries were essentially welfare state entities that featured a wide safety net. The government did not own the means of production, which is what socialism means.

King’s goal, as expressed in organizing the Poor People’s Campaign, was to secure an Economic Bill of Rights. It included proposals such as full employment, guaranteed income and affordable housing. That is not socialism. In fact, King had nothing to say about what Mamdani wants, which is a government takeover of the private sector.

Truth be told, “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron. Venezuela is a case in point.

Until recently, Venezuela was the richest country in South America. Now it is a basket case of poverty. This didn’t happen by mistake: the socialist agenda advanced by President Hugo Chavez in 2014, and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, was a recipe for disaster. The economic crash can’t be because of natural resources—Venezuela is awash with crude oil reserves. No, it is due to the evisceration of human resources, a function of socialist policies.

Islam is mostly agnostic on economic models, holding to the view that the laws of Allah are what count. Though it does not nominally embrace either capitalism or socialism, historically when Muslim economies have experienced growth, it has come by adherence to capitalist principles.

Guy Sorman is an editor and author of a book on Islam. He notes that “The Koran has only good words for successful businessmen. Entrepreneurs must pay a 2.5 percent tax, the zakat, to the community to support the general welfare, but otherwise can make money guilt-free. Private property is sacred, according to the Koran.”

Now contrast this view with that of Mamdani’s. He rails against capitalism, even to the point of blaming it for women being “undervalued, underpaid and overworked.” This would surely come as a shocker to millions of middle and upper-class women; they live a lifestyle that is the world’s envy. It would also come as a surprise to most South Asian women who have settled in New York City— it’s not just his mother who has done very well in a capitalist society.

Mamdani takes a page straight out of Marx when he boasts that one of his goals is “seizing the means of production.” In other words, he wants the government ownership and control of the economy. This is exactly the verbiage that Marx used in his classic communist tract, Das Kapital. Not surprisingly, Mamdani believes that the “abolition of private property” is a viable option to achieve his socialist agenda.

His economic philosophy colors his thinking about all aspects of public policy. For example, in discussing the homeless, Mamdani takes aim at those who live in “luxury condos,” arguing the need to “Seize these properties.” To be sure, this might satisfy his appetite for vengeance, but it would do nothing to help those suffering from severe psychological and physical problems.

Mamdani’s animus to private property does not extend to himself. He owns four acres of land in Uganda, the tyrannical state where he was born. It is worth between $150,000 and $250,000.

Oprah is a billionaire. Is she a problem? You bet. “I don’t think we should have billionaires,” Mamdani says. This is odd coming from someone who got engaged in Dubai, home to at least 20 billionaires. No word on whether they are also a problem.

Mamdani may not be happy with Oprah’s wealth, but at least she is black. That matters a lot to him. He explicitly notes that we need to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” In other words, the rich can keep their money as long as they look more like him than Cuomo.

His overt racism may explain why he considers himself to be black, even though everyone knows he is not. When he applied to Columbia University, on his application he checked the “African American” box. Now he may have been born in Uganda, but his parents are of Indian descent. White people get born in Uganda, too, and if they migrate to the United States, they don’t exploit the affirmative action system by claiming to be African American. But Mamdani does.

Taxing the rich has led two million people in New York State to leave between 2015 and 2024. That’s a loss of $111 billion in income. Mamdani’s plan, if it were to succeed, would lead to a stampede of wealthy New Yorkers (many of whom have dark skin) bolting for Red States. They would take their jobs and tax base with them; they would also deplete the Electoral College numbers for Blue States, shifting them to Red States. That’s a prescription for economic collapse in New York City.

Economic Policies

A review of the 2024 Democratic Party Platform reveals support for a $15 per hour minimum wage. The Democratic Socialists of America agree. The Socialist Party USA favors a $25 minimum wage, as does the Communist Party USA. Mamdani wants it pegged at $20 in 2027 and $30 in 2030. But as Milton Friedman said long ago, if increasing the minimum wage doesn’t lead to unemployment—which it does—then why not jack it way up? For instance, why not $100 an hour?

Healthcare is expensive. One reason why is due to the nearly 5 million able-bodied, working-age adults who refuse to work and are on Medicaid; there are also more than 1.2 million illegal immigrants on Medicaid. All of these people are threatening Medicaid benefits for those who legitimately need them.

What does Mamdani want to do about this? He likes the status quo and resists attempts to change it. So what’s his answer to the high cost of healthcare? “Abolish ‘medical bills.'” Yeah, that’ll work. What about private insurance? “We need to abolish private insurance,” he says. This is the world he lives in—freebies for all.

Raising kids is expensive. Should childcare be free as well? Absolutely. He says he wants free childcare for New Yorkers aged 6 weeks to 5 years. Should this just be for the poor? No way. How about those dreaded billionaires? Do they qualify? You got it. This is the politics of inclusion par excellence.

Bus fare is expensive. Mamdani has a solution: make it free. Can the rich ride for free as well? Yes, those that can afford to buy a bus can go for free. More inclusion.

This is not a new issue for him. He was the one behind an experiment launched a few years ago in New York City. In 2023, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) launched a pilot program that allowed free bus fare along five routes, one in each borough. It was targeted at low income New Yorkers.

A year later, Mamdani looked at the numbers and declared it a success. “The results have now shown us that this pilot has been an unequivocal success.” Wrong. It bombed. Here’s the proof. Once the program ended, nearly half (48 percent) of riders refused to pay the fare. Only a fool would not have been able to figure out why: what started as a privilege quickly became a right. As a result, the MTA lost hundreds of millions to bus fare evaders.

Food is expensive. Mamdani has a solution: socialized grocery stores. He claims that city-owned grocery stores will keep prices down, and he proudly exclaims that they will not be allowed to make a profit. But current grocery stores make so little profit they can hardly make it, so why would we expect government-owned stores to make it? Moreover, this is not going to sit well with those who currently own stores.

John Catsimatidis owns Gristedes, a Manhattan-based grocery store chain. If New York decides to nationalize a swath of supermarkets, he’s cashing out. It’s not just wealthy owners who feel this way. Hispanics who own bodegas are already joining forces to oppose this scheme—they won’t be able to compete and will have to close.

It’s not as though we don’t know what will happen. This gambit has been tried elsewhere. Government owned grocery stores were a disaster. Municipal employees have no direct stake in these stores, and their lackadaisical attitude shows. After seven years, the city-owned Sun Fresh Market in Kansas City, Missouri, closed its doors on August 12, 2025. Perishables sat well past their expiration date. As one reporter put it, “a rotting smell comes through the door.”

Housing is expensive. Profits being a taboo, Mamdani wants to put the screws to landlords by freezing the rent for all stabilized tenants. So how will they pay for repairs? That’s their problem. Mamdani pledges a revamped 311 hot line to report on landlords who don’t make repairs.

It is striking to note that he has nothing to say about all of those wealthy New Yorkers who currently live in rent-stabilized units, effectively ripping off the working class and the poor. That’s because he’s one of them.

Mamdani and his wife can well afford to live in any neighborhood in New York City. Instead, they live just outside Manhattan, in Astoria, Queens, in an apartment that was not intended for the rich—it’s rent stabilized. Cuomo called on him to “move out immediately and give your affordable housing back to an unhoused family who needs it.” He added, “We’re not supposed to be providing rentstabilized apartments to the children of millionaires.”

Quality education is one of the most important agents of upward mobility. Mamdani, who never stops talking about the plight of the poor, wants to deny them the same opportunities available to people like him.

New York City has long had a select group of elite public schools open to everyone. Jews, and now Asians, have taken good advantage of them.

To a lesser extent, so have Hispanics and African Americans. Mamdani objects, saying admission criteria are too restrictive and should be changed. In effect, he wants to radically change the way schools like Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant High School and the Bronx High School of Science operate. He is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science.

Black and Hispanic students have done very well in charter schools, private schools and parochial schools. Success Academy in New York City, the epic charter school system that enrolls 22,000 students, recently posted numbers that settle the argument. Black students had a 95.5 percent pass rate in math, compared to 43 percent in public schools. For Hispanics, the pass rate for charter students was 96.8 percent, compared to 43.1 percent in the traditional public schools.

Mamdani wants to close charter schools and is opposed to every school-choice initiative, effectively keeping black and brown students in their place. White racists could not do a better job of punishing the poor than this.

Crime 

Illegal aliens are responsible for some of the most horrendous crimes in New York City. Serial criminals, they continue to prey on the innocent, and that is because of the catch-and-release system that exists. Moreover, sanctuary city policies thwart the effectiveness of ICE agents to apprehend them. Mamdani hates ICE and has promised not to cooperate with them. He wants to “stop masked ICE agents from deporting our neighbors.” This includes “neighbors” such as child-rapists.

Guns are used by responsible persons to protect the innocent; they are used by irresponsible persons to kill them. The problem is not the gun—it is the character of the person who uses them. What does Mamdani want to do about this? “We need to ban all guns.” What about knives? No word on that yet.

Currently, once murderers are caught, prosecuted and found guilty, they are sentenced to prison. Mamdani disagrees with that approach. He wants to do away with prisons. He says, “our prison system relies on dehumanization and brutality, so the goal must be to abolish this exploitative system entirely.” Where should we put car jackers? He does not say. All he says is we need to “Defund & dismantle” the prison system.

What should we do about the cops? Now that he wants to be mayor, he says he no longer wants to defund the police. But who can believe him? In 2020, he was unequivocal, saying, “We want to defund the police.” He said, “the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety.” Moreover, “There is no negotiating with an institution this wicked & corrupt.”

When someone believes that the police are wicked racists—and has said so repeatedly and publicly— that kind of deeply held sentiment cannot realistically be turned on and off like a light switch. It’s who that person is.

It is because of this vile assault on the police, led by left-wing extremists like Mamdani, that New York City has lost over 15,000 police officers in the last 10 years. Former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has warned that if Mamdani wins, more cops will flee.

Mamdani wants to replace some police work with social workers. Armed with their MSW, he says they will take to the streets and stop violence before it starts. The newly established Department of Community Service will dispatch social workers to intervene when trouble appears imminent. What kinds of crimes will they address? Wife beating. That’s right, Mamdani specifically mentions “domestic violence” as a crime the police will not be allowed to deal with in the future. All this from a man who says he supports women’s rights.

Roving mobs of young men have been crashing urban stores, walking away with expensive merchandise. They do so with impunity. Few are arrested and those that are pay no price for their crimes— they are routinely released without bail.

Mamdani not only supports these measures, when asked why retail theft is so common, he blames it on the mentally ill. A New York business leader recently asked him to explain the rise in retail theft, and was left puzzled by his response. “He went into a lengthy discussion about people with mental illness. You scratch your head and say, ‘He didn’t answer the question. Unless you believe everyone who commits retail theft is mentally ill.'”

On a related note, Mamdani believes that the mentally ill who live on the streets should be allowed to do so. “People should be allowed to make their own mental care decisions.” This is certainly true of those whose mental faculties are intact, but the mentally disabled are not capable of making such judgments. Leaving them to perish on the street does not respect their autonomy—it disrespects their humanity.

High crime areas of New York are awash with drugs and prostitution. Because they go unchecked, they act as magnets for degenerates, delinquents and the deranged. Mamdani wants to allow drug addicts to shoot up in public and he wants to legalize “sex workers,” also known as prostitutes.

He needs to visit Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens. This multi-ethnic neighborhood it is being overrun by drug addicts and hookers. A local writer notes that “sex trafficking and solicitation, illegal vending, sanitation and other issues” have overwhelmed the community. As one New York City notable, Hiram Monserrate, puts it, “There are more brothels than there are bodegas in this community. We have an active 24-hour brothel across the street from two elementary schools. Our kids are seeing this.”

In East Harlem, there is an injection site for druggers where “addicts so zonked out they routinely have sex in broad daylight, often at the doorstep of neighbors forced to endure the X-rated freefor-all.” According to one resident, “They have sex in our yards, they defecate behind our cars. It’s a mess.” The injection sites attract the worst elements in the city. It’s a nightmare that Mamdani will only make worse.

It took Rudy Giuliani to reform New York City. He did by instituting common-sense conservative ideas, much of them taking from the work of researchers at the Manhattan Institute. Michael Bloomberg kept most of Giuliani’s policies, and left the city intact. Then came a Marxist millionaire, Bill de Blasio, who nearly destroyed the city with his far-left policies. Already, he has been in touch with Mamdani, offering ideas and recommending personnel.

Mamdani is a man of privilege who has never run anything. Like a child, he believes money grows on trees. His biggest victims will be the poor. They are the ones he will keep trapped in high crime neighborhoods, consigned to public schools that no one would ever choose if they had a choice. That this is being touted as social justice is mindboggling. New York City will not survive de Blasio II. There are other choices, and any one of them is head over heels more realistic about urban affairs than Mamdani.

On July 22, an Interim Staff Report on President Biden’s FBI Catholic spy ring was released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Some of the new information is distressing.

The FBI began its Catholic spy ring by focusing on “radical-traditionalist Catholics,” but it didn’t end there. Amazingly, according to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could not even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field office memo that okayed the probe.

FBI operatives went beyond these “rad-trads” by categorizing “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles their employees read. “How Extremist Gun Culture is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the gems they named as evidence of the nefarious Catholic agenda.

If there is one Catholic group that the FBI thought was emblematic of very conservative Catholics, it is the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). This was not a good choice—they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a break-away association of Catholics founded in 1970 who were upset with the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. They were once excommunicated, then reinstated, but are still one step removed from being an authentic part of the Catholic Church.

The FBI’s focus on SSPX and the “rad-trads” was a pretext to opening the door to a much wider investigation of practicing Catholics, most of whom tend to be more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.

As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion—they are called pro-life Catholics—were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

It was not dissident Catholics the FBI was concerned about, it was the loyal sons and daughters of the Church. How strange it is to note that at least some dissident Catholics, and some FBI agents, were both seeking to subvert the Catholic Church.

It is not just the profile of Catholics whom the FBI was examining that was a problem—it was the scope of its investigations. It started in Richmond, then spread to Louisville, Milwaukee and Portland. Its reach even extended overseas—the FBI’s London Office was involved.

The ultimate goal was to have a “national application” of its investigatory measures.

Under Biden, the FBI engaged in one of the most despicable violations of civil liberties of innocent Americans we’ve seen in modern times.

A young good-looking star, Sydney Sweeney, managed to set off a firestorm of criticism over the summer with an American Eagle ad.

A video of the ad said, “Sydney Sweeney has great genes.” She was shown crossing out “genes,” inserting “jeans.” She opined, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color.”

She hit the Left’s hot button. The very word “genes” was enough to ignite charges of eugenics. Moreover, her critics took note that she is a blue-eyed blond white woman, as if that is a bad thing. Ironically, it is those in left-wing circles who pioneered eugenics.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was one of the great eugenicists of the twentieth century. She believed that the best way to get rid of poverty was to get rid of the poor, especially blacks. This was the motivation behind her birth control agenda.

The Left hates the word “genes” because it reminds them of the role nature plays in directing human behavior. That bothers them. Their quest for social engineering is predicated on the idea that by manipulating the environment, we can determine behavioral outcomes. Nature gets in the way of their grand totalitarian design.

American Eagle did not buckle, sending its sales and stock soaring, thanks to the humorless woke mob. Congratulations to Sydney Sweeney for braving the storm, and to American Eagle for doubling down.

William A. Donohue

The Catholic League welcomes the announcement that the IRS has altered its policy on non-profit organizations and their participation in political campaigns. We know from our own experience that the 1954 stricture, known as the Johnson Amendment, prohibiting 501 (c) (3) organizations from campaign activity, is both rife for mischief and impractical. But the changes will not have any substantial impact on the way we have been operating for decades.

On July 7, the National Religious Broadcasters, an association of Christian communications, and the IRS reached a settlement regarding their dispute over the IRS’s authority to stifle the political speech of religious non-profits.

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate(s)’ nor ‘intervenes’ in a ‘political campaign,’ within the ordinary meaning of those words.”

The motion said “this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is in keeping with the IRS’s treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice.”

That conclusion is way too generous. The IRS did in fact break new ground with its settlement agreement. Here’s the evidence.

Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501 (c) (3) organizations. What the IRS did not realize is that I knew who triggered the investigation: Catholics United (now defunct), a George Soros-funded phony Catholic organization. We know it was a dummy Catholic group because of the 2016 Wikileaks files on John Podesta (former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign). He admitted to doing this.

When I received the November 24, 2008 IRS letter notifying me of a probe, I recognized how strikingly similar it was to a leaked copy of the Catholics United complaint. Just before I was scheduled to go on CNN on October 23 (three days after I wrote a news release, “George Soros Funds Catholic Left”), a CNN staffer leaked the complaint to me. She did so because the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen, tried to stop me from being interviewed—he suggested that one of his allies take my place, claiming I was not “an authentic Catholic commentator.” CNN knew better and I went on TV that night.

The “evidence” against me was nothing more than news releases and reports that I had written during the presidential campaign on various issues. In other words, the IRS would not have taken action against the Catholic League if it were faithful to the rules that it now claims were always operative. In short, the new wording is welcome precisely because it alters its long-standing policy on religious non-profits.

What we went through—it lasted for about a year and a half before we were given a slap on the wrist—proves what I said about the IRS rule being rife for mischief: It allowed the Soros-funded “Catholic” group to persuade the IRS to start its investigation.

Another example of the mischief that the initial rule entailed was the disparate treatment given to African American churches. Not a campaign season goes by without political candidates speaking at black churches. In some cases, they have been endorsed by pastors; there are instances when  collections have been taken up for them. If this happened at a Catholic church, the whole world would know about it.

I also said this stricture was impractical. What made it impractical was the enforcement mechanism.

How can a religious non-profit like the Catholic League be expected to combat anti-Catholicism, and fight for religious liberty, without addressing political figures who are responsible for these matters? We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, so any encroachment on those rights is unconstitutional.

The IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had “intervened in a political campaign,” it was “unintentional, isolated, non-egregious and non-recurring,” and therefore our tax exempt status remained in tact. I told the IRS agent who contacted me that they were twice wrong: (a) we did not intervene in a political campaign and (b) what we did was intentional. Therefore, I said, we were not going to change course.

It is now indisputable: the Catholic League did not change—the IRS did.

We will continue to address policy issues that arise during a political campaign that are of interest to our mission. While we have no plans to endorse candidates for public office, we will not hesitate to call out candidates who trespass on religious liberty. Quite frankly, once either the Republicans or the Democrats think they own you, they are free to throw you to the curb. We are happily independent.

So while we will not substantially change our stance, we are glad to know that we won’t have the IRS looking over our shoulder for simply doing our job.

Young Muslim radicals running for mayor in big cities are the talk of the town in left-wing circles, and within the Democratic Party. Leftwing activists are thrilled by the news, but Democrats are split: some hope the two extremists win, but more moderate Democrats are afraid this will turn off most Americans, making it hard to win elections in the future.

New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is ahead in the polls in the New York City mayoral race, and Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh is the one to beat in the race for mayor of Minneapolis. Both call themselves democratic socialists, and both are highly critical of the human rights record of the United States. Yet neither says a word about the human rights record of their African ancestors.

Mamdani

Mamdani was born in Uganda to Indian parents. He refuses to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which is understood as a call for an uprising against the supporters of Israel. He says, “That’s not language that I use.” But his supporters do, and he will not call them out for doing so. He says he believes in “universal human rights,” though his record does not show it.

In March 2025, Mamdani responded to the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student and Palestinian activist who was arrested by ICE officers on March 8. He said Khalil’s arrest “is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and a sign of advancing authoritarianism under Trump.”

In 2021, Mamdani said that his answer to the homeless is to jettison the practice of “people access housing by purchasing it on the market and toward a future where we guarantee high quality housing to all as a human right.”

In a 2020 tweet marking Pride Month, Mamdani criticized the socalled human rights struggles faced by those in the LGBT community. He said that “it’s more important than ever to reckon with how our queer family – especially our Black & trans family – still don’t enjoy basic human rights, and how they suffer from police violence at epidemic proportions.”

Mamdani likes to flag his ties to Uganda, but does not want to call attention to its human rights record. Instead, he basks in luxury.

He recently jetted off to his family’s opulent compound in the tony Ugandan neighborhood of Buziga Hill for his wedding. The three-day event saw the family estate turn into a party house among the lavish homes owned by billionaires and the upper crust of society in Uganda. Homes in the neighborhood easily fetch one million dollars. For his wedding, Mamdani had special forces commandos providing security to keep the riffraff out of the invitation-only soiree.

Fateh

Fateh is the son of Somali immigrants, and the first item on his platform states, “with Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the progress towards equity and justice that our communities have worked so hard to create is in jeopardy.”

In 2023, when the Minnesota State Senate debated legislation that would give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Fateh came to the defense of the illegals. He noted that the real threats to national security “look like the members [white Republicans] that sit in the front rows.”

In 2021, Fateh was part of a group of Minnesota lawmakers, led by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), calling for the Department of Justice to investigate how local law enforcement prepared for the trial of Derek Chauvin, the policeman charged with the death of George Floyd. Fateh and his colleagues accused the police of using “extreme and unnecessary force,” even going as far as deploying “‘less-lethal’ munitions and chemical weapons indiscriminately.” According to the letter, this amounts to the police failing to “uphold civil and human rights.”

Fateh likes to brag about Somalia being “his home,” yet he has nothing to say about its human rights record.

In 2020, he gave a speech in which he referred to Somalia as his home several times. “I understand that our Somali communities are all connected to each other, here in Minnesota and back home, and I ask for your support. There’s always been a link between our community here as well as back home and I’m running to bridge that gap and unite all of us and represent all of us because when we succeed here, we succeed everywhere.”

Human Rights in Uganda and Somalia

Freedom House is a well respected organization that details the state of human rights in every nation in the world. It studies political participation, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the like. It awards a score for “Political Rights” and “Civil Liberties,” and an overall score.

The composite score for Uganda was 34 out of 100. For Somalia, it was 8. That is why they were both deemed “Not Free.” The United States had a composite score of 84 and was deemed “Free.”

How can it be that Mamdani and Fateh are so condemnatory of human rights in the United States, which is a free country, yet keep their mouths shut about egregious human rights abuses in their ancestral homes? Maybe they should trade places with the Ugandan and the Somali people. That would be a win-win.

There was a time, not long ago, when Republicans and Democrats had more in common with each other than they had with third-parties, either on the right or the left. No more. This chart shows how far Democrats have moved left, making them almost indistinguishable from hard-core left-wing parties.

In mid-July, a federal district judge ruled that a controversial bill that would eviscerate the priest-penitent privilege was unconstitutional. It was due to a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice that settled this issue.

The Trump administration’s lawyers filed suit in June, saying that Senate Bill 5375 violates the free exercise of religion for all Catholics. Specifically, it requires priests to violate the seal of Confession; they could be excommunicated if they disclosed what the penitent said.

“Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Judge David Estudillo agreed. He said the bill “modifies existing law solely to make members of the clergy mandatory reporters with respect to child abuse and neglect.” As such, the law is “neither neutral nor generally applicable” insofar as it “treats religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity.”

The Catholic League addressed this issue in January. That is when Bill Donohue wrote to all lawmakers in the state of Washington. He also wrote to its most vocal advocate, State Sen. Noel Frame, in May, registering his criticisms of the measure.

In his letter to the state’s legislators, Donohue asked the following: “Where is the evidence that child molesters—in any state—report their crimes to priests in the confessional? We have been studying this issue for decades but we can’t name a single instance where this had happened. If any lawmaker has evidence to the contrary, you have an obligation to make it public. If not, what exactly are you trying to do?”

In his letter to Sen. Frame, Donohue took aim at a disingenuous remark she made. She said, “I am reminded that Canon law has changed many times over the years in the Catholic faith and there’s nothing to say they cannot change their rules to allow the reporting of real time abuse and neglect of children. That is within their power to change and I think they should do so.”

Donohue replied, “Funny thing is I feel the same way about your state legalizing assisted suicide. Except I would recommend that state law follow Canon law.” He added, “I am reminded that state law has changed many times over the years in secular society and there’s nothing to say they cannot change their rules to follow Canon law and put an end to assisted suicide. That is within their power to change and I think they should do so.”

What is really outrageous about bills like this is that its proponents are not seriously concerned about child sexual abuse. If they were, they would know that this problem in the Catholic Church has long been checked. Instead, they would turn their attention to the public schools— that is where minors are being molested, yet nothing is done about it.

It is no secret that the teachers’ unions are among the most generous donors to the Democrats. Accordingly, Democrat lawmakers are reluctant to anger them. They are ready to ignore those administrators, teachers, counselors and coaches who are preying on children, lest their coffers suffer.

Whenever the state encroaches on religion, as the lawmakers in Washington sought to do, it is a threat to all people of faith, not just the ones targeted by a particular bill. That is why Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others need to oppose these bills. It is only a matter of time before the same lawmakers come after them.

There is a major component of President Trump’s signature spending bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” that is of keen interest to the Catholic League—the school choice provisions.

The bill provides a full tax credit for Americans who donate to third-party scholarship granting organizations. These generous people will be eligible to take off $1,700 from their taxes each year. In turn, these donations will be used as scholarships that families can put towards paying for tuition or other educational expenses.

For the first time in American history, the federal government is providing a real alternative to families plagued by failing public schools that refuse to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic so that they can indoctrinate young minds turning them into woke activists.

Of course, as with every other aspect of these massive spending packages, the school choice provision was subjected to the usual procedural measures and horse trading that impacted its final shape. While the Senate Parliamentarian watered-down the more robust version that allowed for more funding for this critical measure, a bigger concern was the inclusion of an opt-out clause allowing blue states, who need alternatives the most, the option of not participating in the scholarship programs.

While this will lessen the impact of this program, it is a step in the right direction and illustrates that there is always more to do on the critical issue of school choice. For our part, the Catholic League will continue to lead in this critical fight.

Brooklyn Bishop Emeritus Nicholas DiMarzio has been sold out by the Archdiocese of Newark. The archdiocese has agreed to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to two men who accused the bishop of abuse, even though a twoyear Vatican investigation cleared him of all wrongdoing; he also passed a lie detector test.

The Newark archdiocese, led by Cardinal Joseph Tobin, said they agreed to a settlement to “avoid the costs of litigation and help bring resolution to painful matters for everyone involved.” They failed— by selling out DiMarzio they added to his painful situation. “I did not authorize these settlements because I did not abuse anyone,” the bishop said.

It was in November 2019 that attorney Mitchell Garabedian, whose hatred of the Catholic Church is well known—he calls the Church “evil”—made a big public splash when he said he was going to file suit against DiMarzio for abusing Mark Matzek. The following year, another alleged victim of the bishop, also represented by Garabedian, Samier Tadros, went public with his allegation. Yet no lawsuits were filed until 2021.

If this sounds fishy, it is because it is.

Bishop DiMarzio categorically denies both accusations and his lawyer, Joseph Hayden, said in 2020, “We have uncovered conclusive evidence of Bishop DiMarzio’s innocence.” As Bill Donohue said at the time, “No lawyer, aside from those like Garabedian, would put his name on the line with such an unequivocal statement unless he knew his case was a slam dunk.” In 2021, the Vatican concluded, after an exhaustive probe, that the charges against him did not have “the semblance of proof.”

Here’s where it gets really fishy.

Why would anyone wait a half century to bring a lawsuit? That’s right—the two males alleged they were abused in the 1970s and early 1980s when DiMarzio was a priest in Jersey City. How is it possible that the parents of these boys never knew about it—Tadros says the abuse started when he was 6 years old and happened “repeatedly”— especially given its alleged serial nature?

The Associated Press broke the Tadros story. What makes this interesting is that Garabedian chose Michael Rezendes of AP to go public. The two men are from Boston, and know each other well. Rezendes was a reporter who worked on the “Spotlight” team of the Boston Globe that found wrongdoing in the Boston archdiocese, and Garabedian’s role in it was featured in the movie by the same name; he was played by Stanley Tucci.

Rezendes showed his true colors by citing, as authoritative, the National Catholic Reporter. He called it “an independent Catholic newspaper.” In fact, the only thing independent about it is its independence from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Worse, its attack on the Church’s teachings on sexuality helped to foment the sexual abuse crisis that Rezendes covered.

Rezendes then offers a quote from BishopAccountability, a website known for leaving the names of accused priests found innocent on its list of accused priests. It has also smeared Cardinal Timothy Dolan, and has never accepted Bill Donohue’s challenge to provide evidence that he was hiding dozens of molesting priests.

Bishop DiMarzio was singled out because he fought unjust legislation that was targeted at the Catholic Church, bills that allowed the public schools to get off scot-free. New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, who represented a district in the Brooklyn diocese, was the one who pushed for a suspension of the statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes, permitting a free ride to the public sector.

In 2016, this former office holder accused DiMarzio of offering her a $5,000 bribe. But it was all a lie. She admitted she was wrong about the date of their meeting— by three years—and wrong about the venue. She was also wrong about her accusation, which was undercut by witnesses at the meeting.

Bishop DiMarzio is a good man who has given his life to the Catholic Church. He is innocent of these scurrilous charges, and now he is being sold out by the Archdiocese of Newark.

On July 21, when Bill Maher interviewed Billy Joel, the singer said that when he first sang, “Only the Good Die Young”—which had a snappy line about Catholic girls, he got some blowback. Maher responded, “I  mean, I guess it—look I’ve had many letters from William Donohue, the head of the Catholic League. He literally challenged me to a fight. Really? Like two 60-something year-old men in the parking lot with our short sleeves rolled up. Really? But that’s how the Catholic Church feels about me.”

The gist of what he said is right, but not the particulars. Donohue never wrote to him, but a number of years ago he did joke with Megan Kelly that he would like to put on the Everlast [boxing gloves] and meet Maher in Madison Square Garden.

Maher never got over it. He complained to Larry King about Bill’s invitation but Larry simply said, “Bill takes his religion very seriously.”

Donohue advised Maher to bring a stool.