Federal Lawmakers Scrutinize Mamdani’s Anti-Israel Policy Shifts, Raise Prospect of Cuts to NYC Aid

By: Fern Sidman

In a development that has sent tremors through New York City’s political establishment and reignited a fraught national conversation about antisemitism, civil rights enforcement, and the boundaries of municipal authority, a U.S. Senate panel has launched a formal probe into the administration of Mayor Zohran Mamdani. As The New York Post reported on Thursday, the inquiry centers on what Senate leaders describe as “serious concerns” over the rescission of executive orders related to antisemitism and boycotts of Israel—decisions that, in the eyes of federal lawmakers, may carry profound implications for the enforcement of civil rights law and the continued flow of billions of dollars in federal funding to the city’s schools.

The probe, initiated Wednesday by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, marks a rare and pointed intervention by Congress into the internal policy architecture of the nation’s largest city. In a letter reviewed by The New York Post, Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy of Louisiana warned Mayor Mamdani that the dismantling of existing safeguards could imperil New York City’s eligibility for as much as $2.2 billion in federal funds. Cassidy’s tone was sober and unambiguous. “Antisemitism is not an abstract concern in New York City; it is a lived reality for millions of students and residents, and its consequences are very serious,” he wrote, underscoring that the stakes of municipal policy extend well beyond symbolic politics into the concrete realm of civil rights protections and federal compliance.

The New York Post report situated Cassidy’s intervention within a broader climate of anxiety among Jewish communities in the city, an anxiety that has been amplified by both rhetoric and policy shifts emanating from City Hall. According to a January survey cited by The New York Post, a majority of Jewish voters—53 percent—reported feeling threatened by statements made by the Democratic socialist mayor and by similar remarks from his political allies. This sense of vulnerability, the paper noted, has been sharpened by a series of executive actions taken by Mamdani shortly after assuming office, actions that effectively voided every executive order signed by his predecessor, former Mayor Eric Adams, following Adams’s federal indictment on corruption charges in September 2024.

Among the rescinded orders were two that had been central to Adams’s approach to combating antisemitism and resisting discriminatory boycotts against Israel. The first, issued on June 8, 2025, created the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, an entity charged with identifying and developing strategies to eliminate antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate crime. The second, signed on Dec. 2 of that year, opposed boycott, divestment, and sanctions policies directed at Israel and barred mayoral appointees, contracting officers, and departmental heads from enacting measures that discriminated against Israel or Israeli citizens. The New York Post report emphasized that these orders were not merely symbolic gestures but operational frameworks designed to align city policy with federal civil rights standards and executive guidance.

Mayor Mamdani’s decision to annul these orders has been interpreted by critics, including Cassidy, as a retreat from established safeguards. In his letter, Cassidy noted that the Adams order creating the Office to Combat Antisemitism had explicitly relied upon the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, a definition that has been adopted or endorsed by a wide array of governments, international institutions, universities, and non-governmental organizations. The New York Post reported that Cassidy directly challenged Mamdani’s public assertion that “a number of leading Jewish organizations have immense concerns” about the IHRA definition. “Contrary to your public assertions,” Cassidy wrote, the definition enjoys broad recognition and is widely encouraged as a tool to identify and address contemporary forms of antisemitism.

Mamdani, for his part, has been a vocal critic of the IHRA definition, arguing that it conflates legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism. Before taking office, he had publicly described Israel as an apartheid state and expressed support for the controversial BDS movement, positioning himself within a global activist discourse that frames economic and cultural boycotts as nonviolent instruments of political pressure. In an earlier interview cited by The New York Post, Mamdani stated that he supports “BDS and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” a position that has placed him at odds with both federal lawmakers and segments of New York’s Jewish community who view BDS as inherently discriminatory.

The practical ramifications of Mamdani’s policy reversals have already begun to surface within the city’s sprawling bureaucracy. The New York Post reported that staff at the New York City Department of Health had formed a “Global Oppression and Public Health Working Group,” a body that convened a meeting in which a presenter cited as one of its aims responding “to the ongoing genocide in Palestine.” Under the Adams-era order opposing discriminatory boycotts of Israel, such a working group may have been barred if its activities were construed as singling out Israel for censure in a manner inconsistent with city policy. The emergence of the group under Mamdani’s administration has been seized upon by critics as evidence that the rescission of prior safeguards is already reshaping the tenor and scope of discourse within municipal institutions.

The New York Post also reported that Cassidy’s letter extended beyond expressions of concern to outline specific inquiries the Senate panel expects the mayor to address. The chairman asked Mamdani to explain how his administration intends to combat antisemitism in schools and protect Jewish students, to clarify whether an alternative definition of antisemitism will be adopted in place of the IHRA framework, and to detail any guidance provided to educational institutions on handling complaints.

Cassidy also sought to determine whether the Mamdani administration had consulted with the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, or other federal agencies regarding the potential funding implications of rescinding the IHRA-related executive order. The letter demanded further clarification of the mayor’s stance on the BDS movement, signaling that the Senate panel views these issues as interconnected facets of a broader civil rights compliance regime.

At the heart of the Senate’s concern lies the $2.2 billion in federal funding allocated to the New York City Department of Education for its operating budget as of June 2025. The New York Post report indicated that continued eligibility for this funding is contingent upon compliance with federal civil rights laws and applicable executive orders designed to protect students from discrimination. In effect, the probe raises the specter that municipal policy choices could have direct financial repercussions for a school system that serves more than a million students. Cassidy’s warning that decisions “out of alignment with federal executive orders” warrant careful scrutiny casts the issue in stark terms: ideological repositioning at City Hall could translate into tangible losses for classrooms already strained by resource constraints.

The confrontation between the Senate panel and the Mamdani administration thus crystallizes a broader national debate over the intersection of local autonomy, federal oversight, and the evolving contours of antisemitism in American public life. The New York Post report framed the dispute as emblematic of a larger cultural and political reckoning, in which progressive critiques of Israeli policy collide with longstanding frameworks for identifying antisemitic discrimination. For supporters of the mayor, the rescission of the Adams-era orders represents a recalibration away from what they view as overly restrictive definitions that chill legitimate political expression. For critics, including Cassidy and advocacy groups aligned with his position, the move constitutes an abdication of responsibility at a moment when antisemitic incidents and anxieties are palpably on the rise.

The political ramifications for Mamdani himself are potentially profound. Having entered office with a reputation as a combative outsider willing to challenge entrenched norms, he now faces the prospect of sustained federal scrutiny that could constrain his policy agenda and test his administration’s legal footing. The New York Post report noted that representatives for the mayor did not immediately comment on Cassidy’s letter, leaving unanswered questions about how City Hall intends to navigate the delicate terrain between ideological commitments and federal compliance. Mamdani’s reply is expected by Feb. 19, a deadline that looms as a pivotal moment in a dispute that has already spilled beyond the confines of municipal politics into the national spotlight.

For New York’s Jewish community, the episode has intensified a sense of unease that predates the current controversy. The survey cited by The New York Post, in which a majority of Jewish voters reported feeling threatened by the mayor’s statements, speaks to a deeper crisis of confidence in the city’s leadership. In a metropolis that prides itself on pluralism and diversity, the perception that municipal policy may be retreating from explicit commitments to combat antisemitism carries symbolic weight as well as practical consequences. Jewish students, Cassidy wrote, “deserve clear assurance that their safety and civil rights will not be compromised,” a statement that resonates with parents and educators navigating an increasingly polarized cultural landscape.

The unfolding probe thus stands as a microcosm of the broader tensions shaping American urban governance in an era of ideological polarization. The New York Post’s coverage has illuminated how questions of foreign policy, civil rights, and local administration are becoming entangled in ways that test the resilience of existing legal and political frameworks. Whether the Senate’s intervention will compel a recalibration of the Mamdani administration’s approach remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that New York City now finds itself at a crossroads, where decisions made in the mayor’s office reverberate through federal corridors of power and into the lived realities of millions of residents.

In this fraught moment, the city’s leaders confront a challenge that is as much moral as it is administrative: to articulate a vision of justice and inclusion that does not sacrifice the safety and dignity of any community on the altar of ideological purity. The New York Post report has cast a harsh light on the stakes of that challenge. As federal scrutiny intensifies and the deadline for Mamdani’s response approaches, the question is no longer whether the city’s policies will be examined, but whether they can withstand the examination without imperiling the delicate social compact that binds New York’s diverse communities together.