When did Zohran Mamdani reportedly make a 9/11 comment and in what context?

1. The October speech that sparked backlash — what was said and when

Multiple analyses report that Mamdani delivered comments in late October 2025 framing a family member as a victim of post‑9/11 Islamophobia, saying she “stopped taking the subway after 9/11” because she did not feel safe wearing a hijab. One report dates this remark to October 24, 2025 and situates it within his mayoral campaign rhetoric about Islamophobia and public safety, where he used the anecdote to highlight long‑running consequences for Muslim New Yorkers. The core factual claim in these accounts is that Mamdani invoked a relative’s experience after 9/11 to make a broader point about discrimination, and that critics seized on the framing as insensitive to victims or as manipulating the narrative of the attacks ^{[1] [3]}.

2. A separate September controversy — refusal to condemn a commentator

A different thread of reporting places Mamdani in controversy in September 2025 for his response to Hasan Piker’s comment that “America deserved 9/11.” Analysts say Mamdani “refused to condemn” that remark at the time, and later said he would “discourage” certain incendiary slogans such as “globalize the intifada.” This episode is framed as distinct from the October anecdote but was invoked by critics to argue a pattern of insensitivity or ambivalence toward 9/11 victims, producing formal accusations and public concern from grieving relatives and commentators ^[2].

3. Fact confusion and family detail disputes — corrections and clarifications

Subsequent reporting flagged factual inaccuracies in the October anecdote, noting that the person Mamdani initially described as his aunt was later described more precisely as his father’s cousin, identified by name in at least one account, and that social media users pointed out his actual aunt lived in Tanzania at the time of the attacks. These corrections do not erase the substance of his point about post‑9/11 Islamophobia, but they complicate claims about literal family impact andopened a line of attack about credibility. The factual inconsistencies became central in public debate about whether Mamdani’s comments were an honest personal anecdote or an embellished campaign line ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Reporting that finds no direct 9/11 remark — context matters

Some pieces reviewing Mamdani’s statements and policy record do not record a direct 9/11 comment, instead discussing broader policy debates such as NYPD surveillance growth since 9/11 and his public‑safety proposals. Those analyses underline that not all coverage ties him to an explicit 9/11 statement, and context — whether a policy speech, campaign event, or social media exchange — changes how remarks are heard and reported. This divergence in reporting points to the role of editorial focus: some outlets emphasize anecdote and controversy, while others examine policy positions without spotlighting any 9/11 reference ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

5. Two competing narratives — criticism, defense, and possible agendas

Coverage splits into two clear narratives: critics present Mamdani’s remarks as disrespectful to 9/11 victims or as evidence of political opportunism, while defenders frame the October anecdote as a legitimate account highlighting ongoing Islamophobia and see the September exchange as a nuanced response to extreme rhetoric. Political agendas are evident: outlets emphasizing the most inflammatory phrasing often align with groups skeptical of Mamdani’s candidacy, while pieces focusing on policy or corrective details foreground systemic issues and factual clarifications. The clash between personal anecdote, factual accuracy, and political framing fuels the controversy, and the differing emphases substantially shape public impression ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

6. Bottom line for readers — what is established and what remains disputed

What is established in the available analyses is that Mamdani was connected to two controversies involving 9/11 references: a late‑October 2025 anecdote about a relative’s post‑9/11 fear and a September 2025 episode involving a refusal to categorically condemn a commentator’s “America deserved 9/11” line. What remains disputed are precise family relationships, the exact wording and intent, and how representative these moments are of his broader views. Readers should note that factual corrections and differing editorial priorities shape portrayals, so treating the incidents as separate but related episodes provides the clearest frame for understanding the dispute ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.