Why Mamdani’s Refusal To Condemn Speech He Never Made Is Good Free Speech Advocacy

At a time when politicians on both sides reflexively call for censorship and speech policing, it’s refreshing to see someone actually defend free speech principles—especially when it would be politically easier to cave.

That’s exactly what New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani did when NBC’s Meet the Press tried to pressure him into condemning language he’s never used. Rather than take the bait, Mamdani delivered a strong defense of free speech principles. It’s a better defense of free speech than we’ve seen from most politicians lately.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that many of the Democrats attacking Mamdani should be laser-focused on the existential threat Trump poses to democracy. Instead, they’re wasting time and energy going after someone who actually accomplished what establishment Democrats claim they desperately want: activating young people who often fail to vote. Mamdani didn’t just talk about engaging young voters—he did it, handily winning the Democratic primary by mobilizing exactly the demographic Democrats say they need. His reward? A coordinated attack campaign.

The controversy stems from demands that Mamdani condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada”—language he doesn’t use but which critics insist he must denounce to prove he’s not antisemitic. It’s the kind of ridiculous purity test that marginalized politicians routinely face (but somehow, white, Christian, male politicians never do), demanding they repeatedly distance themselves from the words of others simply because they share some demographic or political similarity.

But rather than playing that game, Mamdani chose to defend the principle that government officials shouldn’t be in the business of policing speech—even speech they personally disagree with. At the same time, he used the opportunity to move from the “gotcha” kind of question to a focus on how to tackle the actual problems of racism and bigotry, beyond just focusing on specific language questions.

There’s been a lot of pressure on Mamdani to specifically criticize pro-Palestinian language used by others. And, over the weekend, he went on Meet the Press and gave, what I think, is a really strong answer to a silly gotcha question that I think others could learn from:

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to ask you about an issue that has divided some New Yorkers in recent weeks. You were recently asked about the term “globalize the intifada,” if it makes you uncomfortable. In that moment you did not condemn the phrase. Now, just so folks understand, it’s a phrase that many people hear as a call to violence against Jews. There’s been a lot of attention on this issue, so I want to give you an opportunity to respond here and now. Do you condemn that phrase “globalize the intifada?”

ZOHRAN MAMDANI:

That’s not language that I use. The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights. And ultimately, that’s what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians as well.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But do you actually condemn it? I think that’s the question and the outstanding issue that a number of people, both of the Jewish faith and beyond, have. Do you condemn that phrase, “globalize the intifada,” which a lot of people hear as a call to violence against Jews?

ZOHRAN MAMDANI:

I’ve heard from many Jewish New Yorkers who have shared their concerns with me, especially in light of the horrific attacks that we saw in Washington, D.C. and in Boulder, Colorado about this moment of antisemitism in our country and in our city. And I’ve heard those fears and I’ve had those conversations. And ultimately, they are part and parcel of why, in my campaign, I’ve put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%. I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech in the manner, especially of that of Donald Trump, who has put one New Yorker in jail, who’s just returned to his family, Mahmoud Khalil, for that very supposed crime of speech. Ultimately, what I think I need to show is the ability to not only talk about something but to tackle it and to make clear that there’s no room for antisemitism in this city. And we have to root out that bigotry, and ultimately we do that through the actions. And that is the mayor I will be, one that protects Jewish New Yorkers and lives up to that commitment through the work that I do.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But very quickly for the people who care about the language and who feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it?

ZOHRAN MAMDANI:

My concern is to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible takes me into a place similar to that of the president, who is looking to do those very kinds of things, putting people in jail for writing an oped. Putting them in jail for protesting. Ultimately, it’s not language that I use. It’s language I understand there are concerns about. And what I will do is showcase my vision for this city through my words and my actions.

Note what he does here. It would be easy enough to give into the framing and make statement condemning the language. And while some will (in bad faith) argue his failure to outright condemn the language is an endorsement of it, that’s bullshit. His answer is actually very thoughtful and a good way to approach such bad faith questions.

He starts out with a direct and clear denial of using that language:

That’s not language that I use.

This immediately deflates the premise that he’s somehow responsible for words he’s never spoken.

He then immediately shifts to a more positive framing of how he views what he’s focused on in his hopes of becoming mayor: human rights for all.

The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights. And ultimately, that’s what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians as well.

When NBC’s Welker trots out the purity test point, demanding he condemn it, he points out that he shouldn’t be in the business of policing language, but rather is focused on actual concerns of the people he’s hoping to represent. In doing so, he makes it clear that he’s concerned about actual antisemitism and actual threats and risks, and he’s looking at what might actually help rather than policing specific language:

I’ve heard from many Jewish New Yorkers who have shared their concerns with me, especially in light of the horrific attacks that we saw in Washington, D.C. and in Boulder, Colorado about this moment of antisemitism in our country and in our city. And I’ve heard those fears and I’ve had those conversations. And ultimately, they are part and parcel of why, in my campaign, I’ve put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%.

And then he pivots to a reasonable defense of free speech, not in the misleading sense the way others view it, but rather in noting that government shouldn’t be in the business of policing speech (as Trump is doing) but focusing on where the real problems of hate and bigotry show up.

I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech in the manner, especially of that of Donald Trump, who has put one New Yorker in jail, who’s just returned to his family, Mahmoud Khalil, for that very supposed crime of speech. Ultimately, what I think I need to show is the ability to not only talk about something but to tackle it and to make clear that there’s no room for antisemitism in this city. And we have to root out that bigotry, and ultimately we do that through the actions.

After Welker desperately goes back to the “but won’t you condemn the language” nonsense, he makes it clear that speaking out on specific language choices is not productive when his focus is on dealing with the actual underlying problems:

My concern is to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible takes me into a place similar to that of the president, who is looking to do those very kinds of things, putting people in jail for writing an oped. Putting them in jail for protesting. Ultimately, it’s not language that I use. It’s language I understand there are concerns about. And what I will do is showcase my vision for this city through my words and my actions.

This final answer is particularly smart because it connects his refusal to condemn specific language to Trump’s actual authoritarian attacks on free speech. Rather than getting trapped in semantic debates about particular phrases, he’s defending the broader principle that government officials shouldn’t be arbiters of acceptable speech.

The contrast is stark: while the Trump regime is literally jailing people for their speech, critics want Mamdani to engage in the kind of speech policing that leads down that same authoritarian path. His refusal isn’t endorsement of problematic language—it’s recognition that the role of government isn’t to play word police.

This is exactly the kind of principled free speech defense we need more of, especially from Democrats who have too often been willing to compromise these principles for short-term political gain. While it would have been easy for Mamdani to simply condemn the phrase and move on, his more thoughtful approach actually serves the cause of free speech better.

The irony is that many of the same people attacking Mamdani are Democrats who claim to be defending democracy against Trump’s authoritarianism. Yet they’re demanding exactly the kind of speech policing that authoritarian governments excel at—forcing officials to take public positions on specific language as loyalty tests.

And yes, some could argue that simply condemning certain language is not the same as censoring it. It’s not. It’s stating an opinion. But there’s value in Mamdani making it clear he’d rather focus on the real underlying issues around bigotry and hatred than trying to say magic words to appease a media that would never ask similar questions of a white, Christian politician.

In an era where politicians routinely cave to demands for performative condemnations and symbolic gestures, Mamdani’s approach stands out. He’s more interested in actual solutions—like his 800% increase in anti-hate crime funding—than in playing the gotcha game that dominates political discourse.

This is what defending free speech actually looks like: not demanding the right to be an asshole without consequences, but refusing to let government officials become the arbiters of acceptable speech—and politely reframing the issue when the media insists on playing such a gotcha game. If more politicians followed Mamdani’s lead, we’d have a much healthier democratic discourse.