Vice President JD Vance has ignited a firestorm in the New York City mayoral race by taking aim at frontrunner Zohran Mamdani’s comments about his family’s struggles after the September 11 attacks.
Fox News reported that as early voting kicked off in NYC on Saturday, Vance used social media to challenge Mamdani’s perspective on the tragedy, while the mayoral contest—featuring Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, and Curtis Sliwa—grows increasingly heated with accusations of divisive rhetoric.
Tensions began brewing earlier in the week when, on Thursday, during a radio appearance on WABC’s "Sid & Friends in the Morning," Cuomo raised doubts about Mamdani’s ability to handle a crisis akin to another 9/11.
Cuomo’s remarks weren’t the end of the scrutiny, as host Sid Rosenberg added fuel to the fire by suggesting Mamdani might not stand with the city in such a dire moment.
Mamdani swiftly hit back that same day at a Manhattan campaign event, calling out what he described as Islamophobic language from the former governor. Well, if Cuomo’s words were a jab, Mamdani’s response was a counterpunch, though it didn’t cool the controversy.
On Friday, October 24, 2025, Mamdani held a campaign event where he shared a personal story about his aunt, who felt unsafe wearing her hijab on the subway after the 2001 attacks.
He painted a picture of Muslim New Yorkers living under a cloud of suspicion in the years that followed. It’s a heartfelt angle, but one that’s now under a harsh spotlight.
Vance seized on this narrative the very next day, posting on X with a clip from Mamdani’s event and offering a pointed critique. He suggested Mamdani framed his aunt as the primary victim of 9/11, a take that many might see as sidelining the broader tragedy. With early voting underway, this jab lands at a critical moment for public perception.
Let’s look at Vance’s exact words: "According to Zohran, the real victim of 9/11 was his auntie who got some (allegedly) bad looks." That’s a sharp barb, implying Mamdani’s focus is misplaced when remembering a day that shattered so many lives. While personal stories matter, Vance seems to argue the scale of grief shouldn’t be narrowed to one family’s experience.
Mamdani, for his part, didn’t shy away from emotion in his speech, saying, "I want to speak to the memory of my aunt. Who stopped taking the subway after September 11th because she did not feel safe in her hijab."
He continued, broadening his message: "I want to speak to every child who grows up here marked as the other, who is randomly selected in a way that never quite feels random, who feels that they carry a stain that can never be cleaned."
It’s a poignant reflection on post-9/11 life for some, but critics might ask if it overshadows the collective pain of that day. The balance between personal and communal loss is a tightrope Mamdani is walking.
Cuomo’s earlier comments on the radio also keep echoing through this drama, questioning whether Mamdani could lead during a catastrophic event. It’s a legitimate concern for any mayoral hopeful, but the framing has clearly struck a nerve. The suggestion of doubt about loyalty or resolve is a heavy one in a city still scarred by 9/11.
Mamdani’s accusation of Islamophobic rhetoric against Cuomo adds another layer to this already messy contest. He’s not wrong to call out language that feels targeted, but it risks escalating a debate that’s already red-hot. The question is whether voters see this as a fair defense or a distraction.
Meanwhile, the timing couldn’t be worse—or better, depending on your view—with early voting starting on October 25, 2025. Every word from these candidates is under a microscope as New Yorkers head to the polls.
Curtis Sliwa, the third contender, hasn’t weighed in on this specific spat yet, but his presence keeps the race unpredictable. With Mamdani as the frontrunner, every misstep or bold statement could shift the dynamic.
What’s clear is that 9/11 remains a deeply sensitive touchstone for New Yorkers, and how candidates address it can make or break their campaigns. Mamdani’s personal story resonates with some, but Vance’s critique highlights a risk of alienating others who see the tragedy through a wider lens. It’s a reminder that history isn’t just remembered—it’s contested.