News Mamdani Makes Controversial Move As Conflict With Iran Intensifies
Mamdani Makes Controversial Move As Conflict With Iran Intensifies
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani hosted controversial anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil and his family for a Ramadan dinner at Gracie Mansion. Khalil, a Syrian-born activist and former Columbia University graduate student, attended the gathering with his wife, Noor, and their young son, Deen, The New York Post reported. The mayor posted about the event on Instagram on Monday, including a photo from the evening.
“Last night, as we marked the one-year anniversary of his detention, Rama and I were honored to welcome Mahmoud, Noor, and their son Deen to Gracie Mansion to break our fast together,” Mamdani wrote.
The photo showed Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, holding a plate of food while standing next to Khalil, who sat smiling during the meal.
The dinner was held during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when many Muslims fast from dawn until sunset before gathering with family and friends to break the fast.
Khalil was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement early last year and has been fighting deportation proceedings.
The Trump administration accused Khalil of committing fraud on his green card application.
Officials have also alleged that Khalil supports Hamas, the Palestinian militant group responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks against Israel.
The administration has relied in part on a rarely used federal statute that allows noncitizens to be deported if their beliefs are deemed a potential threat to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Mamdani praised Khalil in his social media post and described the past year as difficult for the activist and his family.
For Mamdani, Khalil’s year “has been marked by profound hardship—and by profound courage,” he wrote.
“And yet, even in the face of that cruelty, there has also been beauty. New Yorkers raising their voices in solidarity. A city refusing to look away. Mahmoud won his freedom, and a father was finally reunited with his child,” the mayor added.
Khalil spent several months in federal custody at a detention facility in Louisiana while the case moved through the courts.
During that time, Khalil’s son was born while he remained in ICE custody.
“Mahmoud is a New Yorker, and he belongs in New York City,” Mamdani wrote.
Mamdani has repeatedly defended Khalil during the legal battle.
Khalil was released from custody after a three-judge panel in New Jersey ruled in June that he should have been allowed to pursue the immigration process outside of detention.
The mayor argued earlier this year that Khalil’s arrest raised broader questions about free speech protections.
“I see this attack on him as part of a larger attack on the freedom of speech that is especially pronounced when it comes to the use of that speech to stand up for policy to human rights,” Mamdani said at a press conference in January.
Khalil has also drawn criticism over comments he made regarding the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.
In an interview with The New York Times, Khalil described the violence as a turning point in the Palestinian struggle.
“Unfortunately, we couldn’t avoid such a moment,” Khalil said. “To me, it felt frightening that we had to reach this moment in the Palestinian struggle.”
Critics said the remarks appeared to justify the attacks carried out by Hamas.
The White House condemned the comments at the time and accused Khalil of minimizing the brutality of the assault.
Khalil later drew additional attention after appearing at an anti-Israel rally in New York City following his release from custody.
During the rally, he quoted alleged Hamas terrorist and Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who was killed in an Israeli missile strike last August.
“The time is now, the bridges towards liberation start with us,” Khalil said as he repeated what he described as al-Sharif’s final words.
The dinner at Gracie Mansion comes as the controversy surrounding Khalil continues to draw attention in both political and legal circles.
Gorsuch Warns Lower Courts After Repeatedly Ignoring Supreme Court Rulings
A Supreme Court justice appointed by President Donald Trump is fed up. Justice Neil Gorsuch on Thursday blasted lower courts for repeatedly defying rulings from the highest court in the land, as the justices handed the Trump administration a narrow victory in a case over federal research grants.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court allowed the administration to cut millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants that supported projects tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity research, and COVID-19. The NIH, the world’s largest source of public biomedical research funding, will no longer award grants based on race or DEI objectives under the ruling, The Daily Caller reported.
“This marks the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to reverse a lower court on an issue it had already addressed,” Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”
The case arose after a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the government to continue payments despite a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year permitting Trump to cut similar DEI-related grants. A coalition of 16 Democratic attorneys general and public health groups sued, alleging discrimination.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett provided the deciding vote. She joined conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in terminating the NIH grants, but sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — to leave intact a lower court’s decision scrapping NIH guidance documents that described the agency’s policy priorities.
Gorsuch stressed that the district court’s actions were not a “one-off,” pointing to two other recent cases where lower courts resisted Supreme Court orders.
In July, the justices ruled 7-2 to block a district court’s attempt to override the high court’s order allowing Trump to resume third-country deportations. Even Justice Elena Kagan, who had dissented from the original ruling, sided with the majority to enforce the order.
“I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” she wrote.
That same month, the high court struck down another lower court ruling that sought to block Trump from firing three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The justices had already granted Trump authority in May to dismiss members of administrative agencies.
“All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,’” Gorsuch wrote.
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has signed executive orders dismantling Biden-era DEI programs, calling them “radical” and “shameful discrimination.” Last April, the Court upheld Trump’s authority to cut teacher training grants linked to DEI, a precedent Gorsuch said the Massachusetts court ignored in this NIH case.
Since the ruling halts immediate funding, the administration is likely to count it as another win in the series of emergency appeals it has brought to the high court.
In a concurring opinion, Barrett wrote that the case should have been filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington rather than in a district court. That court hears disputes involving federal contracts and could award damages later, but would not provide immediate relief.
May you like
The decision reversed U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, who in June ordered NIH to restore the grants after lawsuits from researchers and 16 Democratic-led states. Young used unusually sharp language, declaring: “This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.”
It is unclear why the judge legally compelled the Trump administration to fund programs to “raise awareness” about LGBTQ issues or why that is tantamount to “discrimination.”
