How did Zohran Mamdani respond publicly to any arrests or ethics investigations (statements and dates)?

1. What the finance allegations say and how the campaign answered the charge of foreign donations

A finance watchdog—the Coolidge Reagan Foundation—filed criminal referrals alleging Mamdani’s campaign accepted between about $12,000 and $13,000 in donations from roughly 161–170 contributors with foreign addresses, spanning December 2024 through September 2025. The complaint urges investigation under the Federal Election Campaign Act and New York law and alleges a pattern of impermissible foreign contributions ^{[1] [2]}. The campaign’s public posture has been: deny systemic wrongdoing, emphasize legal eligibility of U.S. citizens and permanent residents abroad, assert rigorous compliance protocols, and note refunds have been issued where impermissible donations were identified. Multiple reports record the campaign spokesperson, Dora Pekec, handling these statements and the campaign returning about $9,000 of the questioned funds, while watchdogs criticized timing and sufficiency of those refunds ^{[3] [4]}.

2. What Mamdani himself said — limited direct public comment on finance probes

News accounts collected through November 7, 2025 show Mamdani himself did not issue a direct, on-record statement personally addressing the criminal referrals or ethics probes; his campaign spokespeople issued the public responses instead. Journalists noted the campaign’s statements and refund actions but reported that Mamdani “has not publicly responded” in a first-person way to the finance referrals as of late October and early November 2025 ^{[3] [5]}. That separation between candidate and campaign spokesperson is relevant because it shapes perceptions of accountability; watchdogs framed the absence of a personal denial or detailed accounting from Mamdani as a gap that strengthens calls for formal investigation ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Timing, documents returned and watchdog skepticism — key factual disputes

The campaign reported returning roughly $9,000 of donations identified as potentially impermissible, but watchdog groups questioned whether returns after the fact negate a violation if the campaign accepted funds while allegedly on notice ^{[2] [1]}. Reports vary slightly on counts—161 contributions versus about 170 donors—and on total sums reported ($12,000–$13,000), but the core factual dispute centers on intent and timing: whether the campaign knowingly accepted foreign donations, whether donors were in fact U.S. citizens or permanent residents abroad, and whether post hoc refunds suffice under the law ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The referrals were filed with both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, and as of publication there was no public confirmation of charging decisions from prosecutors ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Arrests and threats: what Mamdani publicly said about personal safety and the 2021 arrest

Separately from the finance matter, Mamdani publicly condemned death threats after a Texas man was arrested and charged in September 2025 with making terroristic threats and aggravated harassment; the campaign framed the incident as indicative of a broader climate of hate and called for protection and accountability ^[6]. Mamdani previously publicly described receiving threats in mid-2025 and the campaign highlighted the role of New York police in providing protection, drawing public comment from Mayor Eric Adams about the irony of Mamdani’s critiques of policing while receiving police protection ^[6]. Additionally, Mamdani tweeted about his August 19, 2021 arrest for disorderly conduct during an eviction moratorium protest, which was publicly documented at the time, though that earlier arrest was treated as an act of civil disobedience rather than a legal ethics matter ^[7].

5. How outlets framed responses and the political context around the statements

Coverage shows two competing framings: watchdogs and political opponents emphasize alleged legal violations and press for prosecutorial action, stressing the seriousness of foreign-donation rules and the need for accountability, while Mamdani’s campaign frames the matter as a compliance issue complicated by donors who may be U.S. citizens or lawful residents living overseas and points to refunds and internal protocols as remedial steps ^{[1] [3]}. The Coolidge Reagan Foundation’s role—and the timing just ahead of an election—suggests a potential partisan or strategic motive for aggressive public referral, a factor critics note when assessing advocacy group complaints ^[2]. Prosecutors had not indicated a charging decision by November 7, 2025, leaving the claims unresolved and the campaign’s statements as the principal public record to date ^{[5] [4]}.