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.
Which immigrant and Muslim community organizations endorsed Mahmood Mamdani and why?
Executive summary
Multiple reports say Zohran Mamdani mobilized and received endorsements from a broad coalition that included Muslim and immigrant community organizations and leaders — and that groups such as the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) and mosque networks were active in outreach and turnout efforts [1] [2]. There is also reporting alleging ties between some Muslim organizations and controversial international actors or individuals — claims disputed or phrased differently across outlets — and independent fact‑checking found viral claims of an Islamic State endorsement false or unsupported [3] [4].
1. Who community organizations say they backed — a coalition built on outreach and turnout
Reporting by The New York Times and NPR describes Mamdani’s campaign as deliberately engaging Muslim, South Asian and other immigrant communities: he visited more than 50 mosques, held phone banks in Urdu, Arabic and Bangla, and made outreach to first‑time and young voters central to his campaign’s success [1] [5]. Local Muslim American groups and mosques — not every outlet names each organization exhaustively — were presented as part of the voter‑mobilization effort that helped expand turnout for Mamdani [1] [5].
2. CAIR and related PAC activity — what supporters and critics say
Some reporting highlights organized financial and mobilization support tied to CAIR and PACs associated with Muslim civic infrastructure. A conservative outlet and commentary pieces assert that CAIR‑linked PACs (for example named “Unity Lab PAC” or “Unity and Justice Fund”) were significant donors to Mamdani’s supporting super PACs and helped mobilize Muslim voters [2] [6]. Those sources frame CAIR’s role as instrumental in elevating Mamdani; CAIR spokespeople reportedly denied organizational ties to some groups mentioned and clarified endorsements in at least one instance [2]. Available sources do not provide a single, definitive official breakdown listing every Muslim or immigrant organization that formally endorsed Mamdani.
3. Allegations about extremist or terror links and fact‑checking
Some opinion and advocacy sources have alleged that organizations backing Mamdani have problematic or extremist ties — for example, a Middle East Forum piece claims support from groups it characterizes as linked to Islamist movements, and other conservative outlets raised security concerns about individuals aligned with Muslim organizations [3] [7]. Independent fact‑checking noted that certain viral claims, such as an endorsement from the Islamic State, were false or implausible; Snopes reported the ISIS‑endorsement claim circulated online but lacked evidence and was unlikely [4]. In other words, accusations of terrorist endorsements circulated but were debunked in at least one prominent fact‑check [4].
4. Why Muslim and immigrant organizations say they supported Mamdani
Reporting gives clear policy and strategic reasons for organized support: Mamdani prioritized affordability, housing and economic issues that resonated with many immigrant communities; his campaign’s language access and door‑to‑door outreach deepened ties with communities that had felt overlooked, which motivated organizational backing and volunteer mobilization [1] [5]. Organizers framed support as pragmatic — focused on services and representation — rather than driven by foreign policy alignment [1]. Where activists like Linda Sarsour were quoted, they emphasized Muslim‑American mobilization as decisive to the victory [2].
5. Pushback from Jewish and security groups — competing perspectives
Other major civic groups, notably Jewish advocacy and security organizations, expressed concern after the election. The Anti‑Defamation League set up a monitoring project to track potential antisemitic incidents around the new administration; ADL leaders said remarks by Mamdani about Israel and other statements had heightened Jewish community concerns [8]. Some watchdogs criticized the ADL’s approach as “hyperbolic,” reflecting a fracture among Jewish organizations and critics over how to respond [9]. Thus, endorsements and support from Muslim and immigrant groups exist alongside active scrutiny and disagreement from other community organizations [8] [9].
6. What the record does and does not show
Available mainstream reporting documents concerted outreach to Muslim and immigrant communities and names CAIR‑linked PAC activity in campaign finance reporting, and it records both praise from Muslim‑American organizers and concern from Jewish and conservative groups [1] [2] [8]. However, a single, authoritative list of every immigrant or Muslim organization that formally endorsed Mamdani is not presented in the sources provided; allegations of terrorist endorsements were checked and found unsubstantiated in at least one fact‑check [4]. Where outlets assert extremist links, those claims are often made by ideologically driven organizations and should be weighed against campaign finance records and independent fact‑checks [3] [4].
Takeaway: Mamdani’s victory was built in part on organized outreach to Muslim and immigrant communities and drew explicit support from civil‑society actors and PACs tied to those communities; that support is described by some commentators as decisive and by others as problematic — and some far‑reaching accusations (for example, an ISIS endorsement) have been debunked in available reporting [1] [2] [4].