NEW YORK โ Zohran Mamdani, a leading candidate in the New York mayoral race, said this week he would not continue the city’s recent adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism if elected, a move that drew swift condemnation from lawmakers and Jewish organizations who say the definition is essential to protect Jewish New Yorkers.
Mamdani pledged in an interview reported by Bloomberg and in subsequent comments to the press. He told reporters he would stop using the IHRA definition because, in his view, it can be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy. His campaign has also expressed support for Palestinian rights and, according to multiple reports, for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.
The reaction was immediate and bipartisan. Representatives Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, issued a joint statement condemning Mamdani’s pledge and calling for passage of the Antisemitism Awareness Act that would enshrine IHRA language into federal policy. The lawmakers described the plan to dismantle the definition as reckless and dangerous.
Advocacy groups and Jewish communal leaders echoed those concerns. The Antisemitism Awareness Act’s supporters have argued that the IHRA working definition provides a practical, internationally recognized framework for identifying antisemitic words and acts, including when hostility toward Jews is expressed through attacks on Israel that cross the line into bigotry. They warned that discarding IHRA risks leaving institutions without a clear standard to address anti-Jewish harassment.
Mayor Eric Adams signed an executive order earlier this year adopting the IHRA working definition for city policy and training, part of his administration’s response to a nationwide surge in antisemitic incidents. Supporters of the mayor’s action say it sends a strong message about municipal commitment to Jewish safety and provides guidance for law enforcement, schools, and city agencies. Mamdani’s vow to reverse that decision would therefore have immediate policy implications for municipal practice.
Critics of Mamdani’s position say the pledge is particularly ill-timed, given a documented increase in anti-Jewish incidents on campuses and in public life across the United States and around the world. Jewish organizations point to recent data showing spikes in threats, vandalism, and harassment, and argue that a clear, shared definition helps institutions distinguish protected political speech from conduct that targets Jews as Jews.
Mamdani’s supporters and some critics of IHRA counter that the working definition has been used in some contexts to chill legitimate debate about Israel and Palestinian rights. Civil liberties advocates and a number of academic and activist groups have pressed for alternative formulations or safeguards to prevent overbroad application that could impede free expression. Mamdani’s stance places him in that camp, arguing for a different approach to addressing antisemitism that balances anti-hate protections with speech rights.
The debate has moved quickly into federal politics. The joint statement by Representatives Lawler and Gottheimer urged Congress to pass legislation that would cement IHRA’s use in federal education and civil rights enforcement. Supporters of such legislation say a national baseline is needed because local variations risk inconsistent protections. Opponents argue the federal measure could entangle free expression concerns and that IHRA examples should not be treated as binding law.
For Jewish and pro-Israel communities in New York, Mamdani’s comments have provoked alarm. Community leaders told reporters they fear any rollback of IHRA would hamper efforts by police and schools to identify antisemitic acts and to respond promptly. They said the city needs consistent tools to investigate incidents and to enforce harassment and bias laws, and that the IHRA language helps clarify when anti-Zionist rhetoric becomes antisemitic.
Mamdani’s campaign defended his position as an effort to preserve free expression and to ensure that municipal policy is not used to shield particular government policies from scrutiny. The campaign urged critics to focus on policies that protect residents from violence and intimidation rather than on label disputes. Still, the controversy has crystallized into a central campaign issue with potential implications for coalition building across New York’s diverse constituencies.
As the mayoral contest unfolds, the IHRA debate is set to remain a flashpoint. Voters and civic leaders will watch whether candidates propose alternate frameworks for combating antisemitism while addressing concerns about academic freedom and legitimate political dissent. For many Jewish New Yorkers, the priority is clear: robust, practical tools and policies that keep communities safe. For others, the question is how best to balance protection from hate with democratic debate.
This article is based on verified information from Bloomberg, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the New York Post, the offices of Representatives Josh Gottheimer and Mike Lawler, JNS, and Combat Antisemitism.