Which organizations or individuals have criticized Mahmood Mamdani for his political stances?

1. Editorial pages and establishment press: “The Anti‑Mamdani editorials”

Several national newspapers ran critical editorials arguing Mamdani’s policies — notably a proposed 2% surcharge on income above $1 million — would trigger capital flight and other harms; analysts compiled this wave of editorials as “The Anti‑Mamdani” moment in mainstream press ^{[3] [7]}. The Washington Post published opinion pieces framing his win and rhetoric as “class warfare” and focusing on a history of what it described as “divisive and demagogic statements” ^[8].

2. The Anti‑Defamation League and Jewish organizational pushback: monitoring and accusations

The ADL took visible public aim at Mamdani for his criticism of Israel and set up an initiative to track incidents and statements it viewed as antisemitic, prompting pushback about whether the ADL’s response was appropriate ^[1]. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt was repeatedly cited in reporting as a leading figure among those accusing Mamdani of antisemitism ^[1].

3. Jewish communal debate: alarm, nuance and internal criticism

Reporting in The Guardian and other outlets documents a split in Jewish New York: some rabbis and Jewish leaders publicly warned the community about Mamdani’s record on Israel and pro‑Palestinian rhetoric, while others urged engagement after his victory; community figures expressed disappointment he had not sufficiently repudiated certain chants or rhetoric earlier in the campaign ^{[5] [6]}. J Street criticized the ADL tracker as “alarming,” illustrating differing Jewish organizational views ^[1].

4. Conservative media and personalities: “meltdown” and hyperbolic attacks

Conservative cable and talk‑radio voices such as Sean Hannity launched fierce attacks, with commentary pieces and monologues portraying Mamdani as a dire threat to New York — coverage characterized by some outlets as a “meltdown” and prompting social‑media reaction ^[2]. Conservative websites and commentators likewise framed his win as a left‑wing takeover and warned of mass departures of wealthy residents and businesses ^{[4] [9]}.

5. Republican officials and partisan probes: questioning citizenship and consequences

Some Republican politicians pressed for investigations and made public threats or warnings, including calls to examine Mamdani’s path to citizenship and promises from national figures to punish or withhold funds — reporting notes Republican efforts to investigate his eligibility and harsh rhetoric from GOP quarters ^{[10] [11]}. These moves were presented in coverage as part of a broader partisan effort to challenge the new mayor‑elect.

6. Fact patterns and contested claims: what reporting confirms and where it’s contested

Reporting documents that Mamdani criticized Israel and at times did not immediately repudiate certain pro‑Palestinian chants, which fueled concerns among some Jewish and centrist Democrats ^{[6] [5]}. The ADL’s public monitoring initiative and Greenblatt’s statements are clearly reported ^[1]. However, available sources do not mention every alleged claim about Mamdani (for example, sweeping allegations of “embrace of Islamism” or calls to “empty the city’s prisons” are reported in opinion or partisan outlets but are not corroborated across mainstream reporting in the provided sources) ^{[12] [4]}.

7. Alternative viewpoints and pushback against critics

Some antisemitism watchdogs and Jewish organizations criticized the ADL and other groups for overreach, calling the ADL’s response “divisive, hyperbolic and aggressive” and warning that such tactics play into far‑right narratives ^[13]. Columnists and commentators on the left also defended aspects of Mamdani’s agenda as a response to affordability crises and argued that predictions of city collapse were exaggerated ^{[14] [12]}.

8. What this pattern means for readers assessing criticism

The record in these sources shows a strong, cross‑spectrum reaction to Mamdani from establishment editorial pages, Jewish organizational leaders, conservative media and Republican officials primarily focused on his Israel‑related statements and fiscal proposals ^{[3] [1] [2] [10]}. At the same time, watchdogs and some Jewish groups counter that policing political speech risks deepening social divisions and aiding political adversaries, which introduces a competing interpretation of the critics’ motives and tactics ^{[13] [1]}.

Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied articles; it does not cover subsequent developments or other outlets not included in the search results.