Has Zohran Mamdani publicly condemned Hamas or extremist violence?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting shows multiple, contradictory portrayals of whether Zohran Mamdani has "publicly condemned Hamas." Some sources report he explicitly condemned Hamas’s October 7 attacks as war crimes and said he mourned all victims [1]; others say he avoided or did not directly condemn Hamas when pressed and that critics accused him of refusing to do so [2] [3]. Outside actors and partisan monitors have amplified both versions [4] [3].
1. Public statements that he condemned Hamas: a direct line in some outlets
Several mainstream summaries say Mamdani mourned victims of Oct. 7 and “condemned Hamas’s attacks as war crimes,” characterizing his position as calling for both sides to lay down arms and a permanent ceasefire [1]. The Times of Israel reports a 2025 appearance in which Mamdani “said, ‘of course I condemn Hamas,’” while also framing his condemnation within a broader critique of the Gaza war and accusations of genocide [5].
2. Reports saying he avoided an explicit condemnation: viral moments and criticism
Opponents and opinion pieces flagged moments where Mamdani was portrayed as evading a direct denunciation. A viral clip and commentary outlets said he “avoided directly condemning Hamas” when questioned and emphasized universalism, ceasefire demands and condemnation of Israeli actions instead [2]. Canary Mission—a partisan monitoring site—accuses him of “justifying Hamas terrorism” and of failing to condemn Hamas in public remarks, a claim repeated in its campaign material [4] [3].
3. Why both narratives can coexist: nuance in phrasing and media framing
The divergence tracks a pattern: Mamdani has repeatedly condemned violence against civilians and framed Israel’s response as war crimes or “genocide,” while critics highlight occasions when he reframed the question away from a simple categorical denunciation of Hamas toward broader moral and political critiques [1] [5] [2]. This leaves room for outlets to emphasize either his explicit condemnations (where present) or moments of equivocation (where clips or quotes suggest it).
4. Who is amplifying which version — ideological actors matter
Partisan actors have amplified selective claims. Canary Mission’s dossier asserts he “justified Hamas terrorism” and pushed harsher language [4] [3]. Opinion pages and advocacy outlets likewise choose angles: some note his clear statement “of course I condemn Hamas” on a national TV appearance [5], while others spotlight the viral clip of him declining to repeat rival leaders’ phrasing [2]. Readers should understand these sources have explicit agendas that shape emphasis.
5. Documentary evidence and record-keeping: what the sources show and don’t
Available sources include a Wikipedia summary stating he “condemned Hamas’s attacks as war crimes” [1], a Times of Israel report quoting an on-air “of course I condemn Hamas” [5], and multiple items that document moments of perceived avoidance and strong criticism from opponents [2] [4] [3]. Detailed transcripts of every relevant exchange or full video context are not included in the supplied materials; those gaps make definitive adjudication from this packet impossible — not found in current reporting.
6. How critics use select moments politically
Opponents use snippets of equivocation to argue Mamdani is soft on extremism; supporters highlight his explicit condemnations and his broader call to stop the slaughter of civilians and pursue a ceasefire [2] [1] [5]. Both tactics are standard in political combat: selective quoting of a phrase or of a sentence of condemnation can produce opposite narratives depending on what each side wants voters to believe [4] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking the truth
The record in these sources shows Mamdani has at times explicitly said he condemns Hamas [5] [1] and at other times been criticized for avoiding a straightforward repetition of that condemnation or for contextualizing it within broader accusations against Israel [2] [4]. Assessments of his stance depend on which statements you prioritize and on the editorial agendas of the outlets highlighting them [4] [3].