Why did the newly elected mayor of New York City need to pay $9? Here's the citation: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/nyregion/mamdani-mayor-swearing-in.html
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The New York Times coverage of Zohran Mamdani’s swearing-in describes a private, symbolic midnight oath at the Old City Hall subway station and a later public ceremony at City Hall, noting his use of family and historic Qurans [1][2]. None of the reporting supplied in the provided sources states that Mamdani “needed to pay $9,” nor do they describe any payment connected to the oath or inauguration; the record available here is silent on such a transaction [1][2].
1. What the Times and major outlets actually reported about the ceremony
Contemporaneous national reporting situates Mamdani’s initial oath-taking just after midnight at the decommissioned Old City Hall subway station in a private, roughly 10‑minute ceremony attended by about 20 people and administered by New York Attorney General Letitia James, with a larger, public ceremonial swearing-in scheduled on the steps of City Hall later that day [1][3][4].
2. The Quran detail that has dominated coverage
Multiple outlets reported that Mamdani — New York City’s first Muslim mayor — planned to place his hand on Qurans belonging to his family and on a historic Quran from the New York Public Library for the two ceremonies, a symbolic choice framed as connecting faith, family and city history [2][5][6].
3. The exact claim under scrutiny — “needed to pay $9” — and the evidentiary gap
The corpus of articles provided, including the New York Times feature cited by the question, contains no account of a $9 payment, no description of who paid whom for what, and no mention of a fee associated with the private subway-station swearing-in or the later public event; therefore there is no documentary basis in these sources to assert that Mamdani “needed to pay $9” [1][2][4].
4. Possible reasons such a claim might circulate — and what the sources do show
While the supplied reporting documents choices that could attract scrutiny — an unusual venue (a landmarked, largely inaccessible station), a small private midnight oath followed by a large public inauguration, and use of library-held artifacts — none of those facts imply a $9 transaction, and the articles instead frame the decisions as symbolic, logistical, and rooted in precedent for quick post‑midnight oaths under New York law [4][3][5].
5. How misinformation might arise around inauguration minutiae
Claims about trivial payments or bureaucratic fees often gain traction because inaugurations involve many small administrative steps (permits, security, transportation, archival handling) and prominent symbolism that opponents or observers can repackage as oddities; however, within the sources here there is no reporting that links any such administrative cost to a $9 charge or explains a reason why the incoming mayor “needed” to make such a payment [7][8].
6. What would be needed to resolve the question decisively
To answer whether Mamdani paid $9 — and why — one would need a primary record (a receipt, a finance statement from the transition/inaugural committee, or direct reporting that quotes an official explaining the payment) or an authoritative correction/clarification from the Times or another outlet; that evidence is not present in the documents provided for this analysis [1][5].
7. The takeaway for readers and investigators
Based on the selected reporting, the accurate conclusion is that Mamdani staged a historically symbolic, two-part inauguration involving family Qurans and a historic library loan without any contemporaneous mention of a $9 payment; absent new documentary evidence, the claim that he “needed to pay $9” remains unsubstantiated in the cited coverage [2][3]. Where such specific transactional claims appear, they merit retrieval of original receipts or authoritative institutional statements before being treated as fact.