Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What did Zohran Mamdani say about 9/11 and when was the remark made?
Executive Summary
Zohran Mamdani publicly recounted a family anecdote about his aunt stopping subway rides after the September 11, 2001 attacks to illustrate post‑9/11 Islamophobic impacts; he made that remark during an appearance on October 24, 2025. Multiple outlets quote the same line—that his aunt, who wears a hijab, stopped taking the New York City subway because she did not feel safe—while opponents and some commentators have framed or amplified that anecdote as minimizing 9/11 victims or reframing the historical narrative [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and fact patterns diverge when critics extend this anecdote into broader claims about Mamdani’s views on 9/11 or when separate actors invoke 9/11 in attacks on him; those distinctions matter for understanding what Mamdani actually said versus how others used the line politically [4] [5].
1. The Remark: A Personal Anecdote Delivered Outside a Bronx Mosque
On October 24, 2025, Mamdani spoke at a press appearance outside a Bronx mosque and described a family experience in the aftermath of 9/11: he said his aunt, who wears a hijab, stopped riding the subway because she felt unsafe, and he used the anecdote to highlight the indignities and Islamophobia Muslim New Yorkers faced after the attacks. Multiple reports recount the same core sentence and date for the press appearance, and those outlets situate the comment as part of a broader point about community safety and discrimination rather than an effort to reframe the 2001 attacks themselves [1] [2] [3]. The precise wording varies by outlet, but the consistent factual elements are the subway avoidance anecdote and the October 24, 2025 timing.
2. How Critics Turned an Anecdote into a Political Flashpoint
After the remark circulated, conservative commentators and political opponents characterized the anecdote as suggesting Mamdani viewed his aunt as the “real victim” of 9/11 or as downplaying the attacks, a reading pushed by outlets and figures who framed the line as disrespectful to victims. Those critiques amplified the anecdote into claims that Mamdani was minimizing the tragedy, and some commentary argued the story was an attempt to “reframe” 9/11 or normalize radical viewpoints [4] [3]. Other reporting notes that Republicans and allied media repeatedly used the anecdote as fodder for attacks, turning a personal recollection about post‑9/11 Islamophobia into a symbolic controversy about respect for 9/11 victims [2].
3. Confounding Coverage: Misattribution and Competing Claims
Coverage also shows another pattern: separate actors invoked 9/11 in attacks on Mamdani without originating from him. For example, a MAGA activist compared a potential Mamdani mayoralty to 9/11, and critics previously accused Mamdani of failing to condemn other figures’ statements about 9/11 or “globalize the intifada,” creating a swirl of attribution confusion where it is not always clear whether Mamdani made a particular 9/11‑related claim or was the target of a 9/11 comparison [5] [6]. Fact‑checking pieces and some outlets pushed back against false or exaggerated attributions, noting a pattern of right‑wing figures amplifying or inventing connections between Mamdani and terrorism or 9/11 that the underlying record does not support [7].
4. Earlier Context: Prior Controversies and Why This Resonated
The October 24 anecdote landed against a backdrop of earlier controversies in 2025 in which Mamdani faced criticism for statements and for how he responded to other commentators’ remarks about 9/11 and Palestinian solidarity slogans. Those prior events primed pundits and opponents to treat any 9/11‑adjacent comment as potentially inflammatory, and some critics explicitly linked separate controversies—such as reactions to Hasan Piker’s “America deserved 9/11” line or debates over the phrase “globalize the intifada”—to the subway anecdote in order to paint a pattern of insensitivity or extremism [6] [8]. Proponents and some outlets, by contrast, argued the anecdote was a legitimate illustration of post‑9/11 Islamophobia and that attacks on Mamdani often relied on racialized or false claims [7].
5. Bottom Line: What is Established and What Remains Debated
What is established in contemporaneous reporting is discrete and narrow: Mamdani recounted on October 24, 2025, that his aunt stopped taking the subway after 9/11 because she felt unsafe while wearing a hijab, and he framed the story to describe Islamophobic backlash [1] [2]. What remains debated is the interpretation and political use of that anecdote—whether it constitutes minimization of the 9/11 attacks or a valid testimony about their social consequences—alongside separate, sometimes false, attributions and attacks that have conflated unrelated comments or invoked 9/11 rhetorically against him [4] [5] [7]. Readers should distinguish the direct quote and date from the partisan narratives built around it: the factual core is narrow and well‑documented; the broader claims are where facts and framing diverge.