Zohran Mamdani spent years telling New Yorkers what he believed. Then New Yorkers gave him power. Now the question isn’t simply what he believes. It’s what happens when belief becomes government.

This is Part II of a four-part series examining Zohran Mamdani’s political formation, record and first months governing New York City.

THE HYPOTHETICAL IS OVER

Part I ended at the door.

New Yorkers opened it.

They handed him the keys.

So now we stop asking what Zohran Mamdani might do with power.

We look at what he did.

Actions are stronger evidence than associations.

Mamdani’s first day as mayor.

His first executive order, Executive Order 1, was broad.

It continued executive orders issued before September 26, 2024, unless later revoked, revised or superseded, and revoked those issued on or after that date that remained in effect on December 31, 2025.

That distinction matters.

Mamdani did not issue an order titled:

REVOKE JEWISH PROTECTIONS.

EO1 was a blanket, date-based repeal.

But blanket decisions still have specific consequences.

Among the Adams-era directives swept away was Executive Order 60, which prohibited discriminatory procurement targeting Israel, Israeli citizens or entities associated with Israel. It also directed mayoral pension representatives, consistent with fiduciary obligations, to oppose divestment undertaken for the purpose of discriminating against Israel.

Also swept away was Adams’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.

And Mamdani did not replace IHRA with another codified definition.

Maybe you dislike IHRA.

There is legitimate debate over whether some of its examples blur the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.

Then replace it with something better.

Months later, Phylisa Wisdom, Mamdani’s appointee to lead the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, testified that the administration did not believe a codified definition was necessary:

“We don’t believe that there needs to be a codified definition at all.”

Which leaves me with a very basic question:

How do you create an office to combat antisemitism without establishing a clear standard for what antisemitism is?

How do city employees know when they’ve encountered it?

Where does anti-Zionism cross into antisemitism?

And perhaps most importantly:

How do you know whether your own words or policies have crossed the line if your administration refuses to say precisely where the line is?

That makes no sense to me.

Then give me your definition.

Draw the line somewhere.

Because “we combat antisemitism” means considerably less if nobody is willing to establish what qualifies as antisemitism.

And considering Mamdani’s longstanding positions on Zionism and Israel, New Yorkers are entitled to ask:

Why remove the existing definition at all?

What specifically was objectionable?

What standard should city agencies use instead?

What........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)