NY Times Gets Attacked by the Left for Publishing Story About Zohran Mamdani Claiming He Was Black on Columbia University Application

| Published July 7, 2025

The New York Times, long regarded as the flagship of progressive journalism, finds itself in an unusual position — under attack from the very political left it has often championed. The backlash erupted after the paper published a piece scrutinizing New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a prominent democratic socialist, for reportedly identifying as both Asian and African American on his Columbia University application.

The story, which ran earlier this week, referenced university records reviewed by the Times. According to the article, Mamdani — born in Uganda to a South Asian family — checked boxes indicating both Asian and African American heritage when applying to Columbia. The report questioned whether this racial self-identification was strategic, given the competitive nature of college admissions and diversity preferences at elite institutions.

Blowback from the Left

Rather than provoking outrage over the alleged racial misrepresentation, the piece triggered an outcry from progressive and socialist circles, who accused the Times of unfairly targeting one of their own. Critics charged the paper with engaging in a “smear campaign” against Mamdani, suggesting that the story was a thinly veiled attempt to undermine a rising star on the left.

Among the most vocal critics was the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), of which Mamdani is a member. The DSA’s New York City chapter posted on social media that the article was “an example of manufactured controversy used to distract from the real issues Assemblyman Mamdani champions — housing, healthcare, and justice for all.”

Supporters also argued that race and identity are complex, especially for immigrants and multiracial individuals. Mamdani’s defenders say his upbringing in Uganda, a country in sub-Saharan Africa, and his exposure to African culture could justify the racial designation — even if he is not Black in the conventional American sense.

The Times Responds

Facing mounting pressure, Sarah Healy, a spokesperson for the Times, defended the story’s publication, emphasizing the paper’s responsibility to report on public figures with transparency. “The article was fact-checked and held to the same editorial standards we apply to all coverage,” Healy said in a statement. “Assemblyman Mamdani is a public servant whose history and claims are relevant to the public interest.”

The reporter who authored the piece has not commented publicly amid the online backlash, which has included calls for retraction and even demands that the reporter be fired. The controversy raises familiar questions about who is allowed to report on whom, and whether journalism can be separated from political allegiance.

Identity Politics at a Crossroads

Mamdani, who represents parts of Queens and has been outspoken on issues like Palestinian rights and rent control, has built his political brand on challenging systemic inequalities. Ironically, the very framework of identity politics that helped fuel his rise is now at the heart of the controversy — with critics on both the left and right questioning the sincerity and consistency of his racial narrative.

In a statement posted online, Mamdani called the Times report “a bad-faith attempt to discredit my work,” and insisted that his racial identification was not a fabrication but reflective of his lived experience. “This is a distraction from the real work — building a New York that works for the many, not the few,” he wrote.

A New Era of Scrutiny?

The flap suggests a shift in the media ecosystem, where even liberal outlets like the New York Times are no longer immune from intra-left criticism. In a political moment increasingly defined by purity tests and factional infighting, journalists may find themselves walking a narrower tightrope than ever before.

While the Times has weathered attacks from conservatives for decades, this latest firestorm underscores how volatile the political landscape has become — and how swiftly allies can become critics when ideological boundaries are perceived to have been crossed.

Resulting Effects: Fallout for Media, Politics, and the Left

The controversy surrounding the New York Times’ report on Zohran Mamdani has triggered a ripple effect across journalism, political activism, and public discourse about race and identity.

1. Erosion of Trust Within the Left

The backlash has revealed widening cracks within the progressive coalition. For many left-wing activists and organizations, the Times’ decision to scrutinize Mamdani — someone seen as a champion of marginalized communities — felt like a betrayal. Progressive voices accused the outlet of weaponizing identity against their own, reinforcing a belief among younger activists that even establishment-aligned liberal institutions can’t be trusted to report fairly on anti-establishment figures.

This deepened the sense of paranoia and purity politics within the movement, where loyalty to cause is now being weighed more heavily than journalistic transparency or public accountability.

2. Increased Media Caution

The incident may have a chilling effect on how major media outlets cover controversial figures on the left. The fierce blowback sent a message: reporting on inconsistencies or uncomfortable truths involving progressive politicians may carry reputational costs — especially when identity politics are involved.

Journalists may now face more pressure to avoid stories that could be interpreted as damaging to left-wing figures, even if those stories are rooted in public records and fact-checkable claims.

3. Public Debate on Racial Self-Identification

The Mamdani case reignited an ongoing national conversation about how race is defined, especially in academic and political settings. Is race a fixed biological category, or a fluid social identity? Should it be based on appearance, ancestry, geography, culture — or all of the above?

For many Americans — particularly immigrants and multiracial individuals — the question is far more nuanced than the checkboxes on a form might suggest. Mamdani’s defense invoked lived experience, but critics countered that such claims can blur ethical lines when they intersect with affirmative action policies or racial advantage in elite institutions.

4. Pressure on Columbia and Other Elite Schools

Columbia University, while not directly at the center of the controversy, is now facing scrutiny over how racial identities are self-reported and verified in admissions. Critics on the right and center are using the case as an example of how racial preference policies can be manipulated, especially in the post–affirmative action era shaped by the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling.

5. Empowerment for the Right

Conservatives have seized on the moment as a case study in hypocrisy within the progressive movement. Right-leaning commentators argue that Mamdani’s story mirrors scandals like Elizabeth Warren’s Native American ancestry claim, highlighting how identity politics can be selectively enforced or shielded depending on the political affiliation of the individual involved.

The New York Times, often targeted by the Right for perceived liberal bias, now finds itself ironically bolstering conservative talking points about the contradictions and double standards of the left.

6. Boost in Mamdani’s Profile — for Better or Worse

While Mamdani condemned the story as a political hit job, the national attention has inadvertently raised his profile. Supporters have rallied around him, portraying him as a victim of establishment media, while critics now see him as emblematic of the excesses of identity-based politics. Whether this controversy ultimately strengthens or damages his political future remains to be seen — but it has undeniably placed him on a broader stage.

 Bottom Line: When Identity Politics Collide With Accountability

The uproar over the New York Times’ reporting on Zohran Mamdani exposes a central contradiction in modern progressive politics: a movement that demands transparency and equity often shields its own from scrutiny when inconvenient truths surface.

Mamdani’s reported claim of being both Asian and African American on his Columbia application is not a minor detail — it’s part of a broader pattern where identity is strategically leveraged in elite spaces, often with little regard for consistency or fairness. When the same standards of accountability are applied to a progressive figure, the left suddenly cries foul.

The backlash against the New York Times — ironically from the very activists and ideologues it has long catered to — illustrates the trap of identity politics. When racial identity becomes a political weapon rather than a sincere reflection of heritage or experience, the result is confusion, resentment, and eroded trust in the institutions meant to uphold truth.

This moment is a reminder that journalism must not be selectively outraged. If the press is to serve the public interest, it must pursue truth no matter whom it implicates — conservative or progressive. And if the left cannot accept that one of its own is subject to the same scrutiny it often demands for others, perhaps it’s time for a broader reckoning with the excesses and double standards of the identity-obsessed political culture it helped create.

SOURCES: THE GATEWAY PUNDIT – NY Times Gets Attacked by the Left for Publishing Story About Zohran Mamdani Claiming He Was Black on Columbia University Application

NEWSWEEK – New York Times Responds After Zohran Mamdani Story Stirs Liberal Backlash

THE NEW YORK POST – Zohran Mamdani ID’d himself as Asian and African American on Columbia application: report