The FBI executed search warrants at eight locations across the Twin Cities, targeting five service providers accused of billing Medicaid for services that were either not provided or grossly misrepresented. Authorities say the alleged schemes exploited a program meant to protect some of the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Governor Walz, who has been outspoken on the issue of fraud in Minnesota’s social programs, stressed that his administration is working closely with federal authorities.
“If you’re going to commit these crimes in Minnesota, you are going to get caught,” Walz said in an interview with WCCO last month.
He added that new oversight mechanisms have been implemented, including the appointment of a new Inspector General and updated tools to detect Medicaid abuse. However, he admitted that the state still needs more advanced resources to stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes.
“I wish we would have gotten a little more out of this legislative session,” Walz noted. “There are AI tools out there that could help us detect fraud earlier and prevent it from happening in the first place.”
Acting U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson confirmed that Minnesota is facing a serious and systemic fraud problem, echoing concerns raised by his predecessor, Andrew Luger. Thompson said the generosity of Minnesota’s safety-net programs can make them a target for abuse.
“The Housing Stabilization Services program has proven to be extremely vulnerable to fraud,” Thompson said, emphasizing that investigators will continue to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The targeted locations reportedly included facilities in
St. Paul and Roseville, as well as other sites in the Twin Cities metro area. Officials have not yet named the providers under investigation, but court filings indicate a pattern of fraudulent billing practices that could have siphoned off millions in taxpayer dollars.
Walz acknowledged that Minnesota’s long-standing reputation as a generous state sometimes leaves it open to exploitation.
“We want to make sure children get food and families have housing support,” Walz said. “But good intentions don’t protect us from bad actors. That’s why we need to remain vigilant and ensure that every dollar goes to those who truly need help.”
The FBI has not announced any arrests yet, but sources familiar with the investigation say indictments could follow as prosecutors review the evidence gathered during the raids. If the fraud allegations are proven, those involved could face significant federal charges, including wire fraud and Medicaid fraud, both of which carry steep penalties.
Meanwhile, Walz pledged that his administration will continue tightening oversight, investing in modern detection tools, and working with federal agencies to close loopholes.
“This is about protecting the people who rely on these services,” Walz said. “We will not tolerate anyone who tries to cheat the system at the expense of vulnerable Minnesotans.”
When Nancy Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987, she was a determined California Democrat with a reputation for discipline, drive, and an instinct for political strategy. Her financial disclosure forms listed a
Thirty-seven years later, as Pelosi prepares to retire from Congress in
2027, her wealth has ballooned beyond imagination. Depending on which valuation you believe, it has grown anywhere from 2,292% to more than 10,000%, with estimates ranging between
.
Pelosi’s financial success has become as much a part of her legacy as her political career. She is one of the most powerful legislators in modern American history — and, by many measures, one of the wealthiest.
Her critics call it the perfect example of Washington’s problem: a political elite enriched by insider access, opaque markets, and soft corruption hidden behind legal loopholes. Her defenders call it
a familiar misunderstanding — the byproduct of a lifetime in public service combined with a husband’s business acumen and smart investment strategy.
But as Pelosi’s time in Congress winds down, the question remains:
how did she become so rich — and what does her story say about the intersection of power and profit in American politics?
Nancy Pelosi’s rise in politics began not in Washington, but in the living room of a Baltimore rowhouse. Born into a family steeped in Democratic politics — her father was a New Deal congressman and three-term mayor of Baltimore — Pelosi learned the art of influence early.
When she moved to San Francisco in the 1960s, her network grew to include some of the most prominent figures in California politics. By the time she won a special election to Congress in 1987, Pelosi was already seen as a formidable fundraiser and strategist with deep party ties.
At that time, her financial disclosures listed a minimum net worth of $2.7 million, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review. The bulk of her family’s wealth came from real estate, trust funds, and her husband
Paul Pelosi’s investments.
Over the following three decades, both her political power and personal fortune expanded — each reinforcing the other.
Today, Pelosi’s fortune places her among
the top ten wealthiest members of Congress.
Her 2024 financial disclosure lists a maximum estimated net worth of $311.4 million, while independent analyses from Quiver Quantitative peg her family’s total wealth at around
$278.7 million. Even by the most conservative calculations, she is worth over $60 million — more than 20 times the median congressional figure.
The core of that fortune lies in
stock trading, especially in technology companies that Pelosi and her husband invested in over the past 25 years.
According to a DCNF analysis, her wealth increased nearly twenty-three-fold since taking office
, far outpacing the performance of major market indices. In 2024 alone, her investment portfolio reportedly grew twice as fast as the S&P 500 — a feat that would make even veteran Wall Street investors envious.
Pelosi’s critics have long accused her of benefiting from insider knowledge of government decisions and industry trends — claims she has consistently denied.
Many of the most lucrative investments were executed by her husband,
Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist and real estate investor. His trades often involved high-profile companies that, coincidentally or not, were deeply affected by legislation under congressional review.
Among the most scrutinized examples:
NVIDIA (2022): Paul Pelosi purchased millions in stock options in the semiconductor giant shortly before a congressional vote on a bill to subsidize domestic chip manufacturing. The optics were terrible; the Pelosis later sold the shares at a loss after public backlash.
Visa (2008): During congressional debates over credit card regulations, Paul Pelosi participated in an initial public offering (IPO) of Visa stock — one that soon soared in value.
Tech Investments: The Pelosis have regularly traded shares in Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, and Amazon, among others — all companies whose regulatory futures have been debated in committees Nancy Pelosi either chaired or influenced.
The timing of such trades has fueled bipartisan outrage. “Year after year, politicians somehow manage to outperform the market,” said Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has repeatedly pushed for a congressional stock-trading ban. “Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other at the expense of the country.”
Pelosi’s office has repeatedly rejected allegations of unethical behavior. Her staff maintains that the Speaker does not personally manage or direct any of her family’s investments, and that her husband handles all trading decisions independently.
“She has no prior knowledge of or involvement in any transactions,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
The explanation is legally sound — under the Stock Act of 2012, members of Congress must disclose their trades within 45 days but are not barred from owning or trading stocks. The law’s intent was transparency, not prohibition.
Still, the perception problem remains. Critics argue that even if Pelosi herself isn’t trading, her proximity to policy decisions gives her family a unique informational advantage.
As ethics expert Kathleen Clark of Washington University puts it: “Even if there’s no direct wrongdoing, the appearance of conflict erodes trust. And trust is the foundation of public service.”
Ironically, Pelosi has become one of the most visible faces in the movement to restrict congressional stock trading — a cause once championed largely by her critics.
In July 2024, she announced support for a bipartisan proposal that would ban members of Congress, presidents, vice presidents, and their immediate families from trading individual stocks.
“We must have strong transparency, robust accountability, and tough enforcement,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest — not their personal portfolios.”
That same day, former President Donald Trump publicly renewed his call for an investigation into her finances, calling the move “too little, too late.”
“She has inside information,” Trump told Breitbart News. “It’s not right. It’s not appropriate. It shouldn’t be. She should not be allowed to do that with the stocks. It’s not fair to the rest of the country.”
Pelosi’s sudden endorsement of a trading ban surprised many observers. Only two years earlier, she had defended the right of lawmakers to trade, arguing that “we are a free-market economy — they should be able to participate in that.”
The shift reflects growing political pressure. According to a 2024 Pew Research survey, 76% of Americans — including 70% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans — support banning congressional stock trading outright.
Pelosi’s fortune has become a flashpoint in the broader debate about wealth and influence in Washington.
To progressives, her success underscores the gap between public service and working-class representation. To conservatives, it’s proof of systemic corruption and a rigged economy that rewards political insiders.
Even members of her own party have voiced discomfort. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) proposed a bill in 2022 that would bar lawmakers and their families from trading individual stocks during their terms — a measure inspired, in part, by Pelosi’s example.
Meanwhile, Senator Josh Hawley’s “Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act” goes even further, forcing violators to return their profits to taxpayers.
“It’s time to stop turning a blind eye to Washington profiteering,” Hawley said in a statement. “Public office should be about service, not speculation.”
Though neither bill has yet become law, the political momentum has shifted sharply. What was once a fringe ethics issue is now a mainstream talking point — one with bipartisan appeal.
Financial analysts who track congressional trading have been struck by the Pelosis’ uncanny market timing.
According to Quiver Quantitative, a platform that monitors lawmakers’ stock disclosures, the Pelosi portfolio has outperformed the market by an average of 15% per year over the past decade.
In 2024, her holdings nearly doubled the growth of the S&P 500, according to Daily Caller analysis — a performance few mutual funds or hedge funds could match.
Some of her most profitable assets include:
Real estate in California and Washington, D.C., valued in the tens of millions.
Vineyard properties in Napa County, part of the family’s hospitality ventures.
Stock holdings across the tech and healthcare sectors, managed through trusts.
Together, these assets place her wealth somewhere between $60 million and $300 million, depending on how valuations are calculated.
It’s an extraordinary rise for a career politician whose government salary, even at its peak as Speaker, never exceeded $223,500 per year.
Pelosi’s story is not unique — it’s just the most visible example of a systemic issue.
According to an Insider investigation, more than half of all members of Congress have reported trades in industries they directly oversee through committees or legislation. Many have dramatically outperformed market averages.
In 2023, Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)** were all flagged for trades with potential conflicts of interest.
But Pelosi stands apart for two reasons: her staggering returns — and her unmatched power. As the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House, twice over, she wielded influence across nearly every major industry in the country, from pharmaceuticals to defense to tech.
That influence, whether or not it directly benefited her financially, places her under a microscope few others endure.
For all her wealth, Pelosi continues to define herself through public service rather than profit. Her defenders point out that she has spent decades advancing progressive causes: healthcare reform, climate legislation, women’s rights, and LGBTQ equality.
They argue that her success — both political and financial — is the product of competence, not corruption.
“She’s been demonized for being effective,” said one Democratic strategist. “When a man builds wealth while leading Congress, he’s called smart. When Nancy does it, she’s accused of insider trading.”
Still, even Pelosi’s allies concede that the optics are terrible.
“The perception problem is real,” said ethics lawyer Richard Painter, a former White House counsel under George W. Bush. “It doesn’t matter if it’s legal. If the public thinks members of Congress are profiting from the job, it undermines democracy.”
No political figure has amplified the controversy more than Donald Trump, who has used Pelosi’s wealth as a symbol of what he calls “Washington’s corruption machine.”
“Pelosi made millions while pretending to fight for the people,” Trump told supporters at a rally in Michigan earlier this year. “She’s not a public servant. She’s a Wall Street investor with a government badge.”
His campaign has repeatedly highlighted Pelosi’s stock gains in fundraising emails and social media posts, contrasting them with his administration’s promise to “drain the swamp.”
It’s a potent message for voters already distrustful of Washington. A Gallup poll conducted in late 2024 found that only 7% of Americans believe members of Congress prioritize the public interest over personal gain.
Pelosi, perhaps more than any other lawmaker, embodies both sides of that paradox — the powerful legislator who rose to historic prominence and the wealthy politician who personifies the very inequality she once decried.
As she prepares to leave Congress in 2027, Pelosi’s legacy remains both towering and divisive.
She will be remembered as the first female Speaker of the House, a legislative tactician who shepherded landmark bills like the Affordable Care Act and managed to unify her party through turbulent political eras.
But she will also leave behind a lingering question: can wealth and power ever truly be separated in American politics?
For decades, Pelosi has defended her family’s success as the fruit of “hard work, good judgment, and American capitalism.” Yet as calls to ban congressional stock trading grow louder, even some of her colleagues now suggest that the system she thrived in must change.
“Transparency isn’t enough anymore,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), one of the lead sponsors of the TRUST in Congress Act. “We need to rebuild faith. And that starts with removing the temptation altogether.”
Pelosi’s fortune tells a story larger than one family’s success. It reflects an era in which political access and economic opportunity have become intertwined — where lawmakers shape the markets even as they invest in them.
It’s a story of ambition and achievement, of blurred lines and eroded trust. And it’s a reminder that, in modern America, wealth and power rarely move on separate tracks.
As Pelosi steps off the congressional stage she dominated for nearly four decades, she leaves behind a legacy of contradictions: the trailblazing woman who shattered glass ceilings — and the millionaire politician whose fortune came to symbolize them.
Her influence may soon fade from Capitol Hill, but the debate she inspired — over money, morality, and the meaning of public service — is only beginning.
Washington, D.C. — It was the kind of hearing that stops even the most hardened political observers in their tracks. What began as a tense, procedural exchange erupted into one of the most shocking confrontations in recent congressional memory — Representative
Seth Magaziner leveling devastating accusations against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem over one of the most disturbing deportation cases ever revealed: the removal of a 4-year-old American citizen battling cancer.
The moment wasn’t just political theater. It was a collision of outrage, human suffering, and raw accountability — and it’s already being called the clip that will haunt DHS for years.
Magaziner didn’t waste time with niceties. Within the first minute, he told the story flat out:
“Madam Secretary, your department deported a four-year-old boy. An American citizen. A child fighting cancer.”
The hearing room went silent. The details only made it worse. According to testimony, the boy was removed alongside his siblings and mother — despite the mother allegedly never consenting to their deportation. Even more damning, the family reportedly had
no legal representation and no chance to appeal.
That revelation triggered a cascade of questions:
Why was ICE’s own directive ignored? Policy Directive 11064 requires parents be allowed to arrange care for their children before deportation.
Why was due process shredded? A Supreme Court ruling just months earlier mandated hearings before removal — yet this child, and others, were deported without them.
What justification could possibly exist?
For Magaziner, the answer was clear: there wasn’t one.
While the sick child’s case was the emotional centerpiece, Magaziner didn’t stop there. He outlined a
pattern of deportations under Noem’s DHS leadership that, he argued, revealed systemic failures and outright violations of law.
into the exchange, he turned to the case of Andre Hernandez Romero
, an asylum seeker who fled brutal gang violence in El Salvador. Instead of a fair hearing, Andre was detained and deported — allegedly on the basis of little more than “suspected gang tattoos.”
“Tattoos are not evidence of a crime,” Magaziner thundered. “And they certainly aren’t a legal justification to deport a man fleeing for his life.”
Romero’s deportation, like the child’s, took place
without proper hearings, in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court’s April 7th ruling. For Magaziner, it was proof that the department had decided court orders were optional.
the congressman’s fury reached a boil. He rattled off case after case — stories that sounded less like isolated mistakes and more like a systemic policy of cruelty:
A gay asylum seeker from Venezuela
Legal immigrants and green card holders, wrongfully targeted and deported despite evidence of lawful status.
Children with medical conditions
Each story landed like a body blow, exposing what Magaziner called “a DHS that has abandoned both humanity and legality.”
“These are not nameless, faceless numbers,” he declared. “These are children. These are families. These are human beings whose lives are being gambled with because this department refuses to follow its own rules.”
For Secretary Noem, the hearing was a disaster. Her usual tough, unflappable demeanor cracked under the weight of the accusations. When pressed, she fell back on familiar talking points about “border security” and “enforcing the law” — but Magaziner wasn’t having it.
He interrupted sharply:
“Enforcing the law doesn’t mean breaking it. Following policy doesn’t mean ignoring the Supreme Court. And protecting America does not mean deporting American citizens.”
The quote lit up social media within minutes. Clips circulated on X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok, racking up millions of views in hours. Hashtags like
#NoemExposed and #DeportedChild began trending as outrage poured in.
For all the political fireworks, the substance of Magaziner’s confrontation revealed deeper problems — problems that could shake DHS to its core:
Policy Violations — ICE policies explicitly forbid deporting children without parental consent or care arrangements. Those policies were ignored.
Defiance of Court Orders — Deporting individuals without hearings is a direct violation of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Lack of Oversight — No accountability mechanisms seem to exist when DHS officials flout their own rules.
Humanitarian Failures — Deporting vulnerable individuals — cancer patients, asylum seekers, LGBTQ+ refugees — undermines both U.S. law and international human rights norms.
Magaziner framed the issue not as a partisan fight, but as a matter of basic American values.
“If we cannot protect a child with cancer, then what exactly are we protecting?”
As the hearing wrapped, the damage to DHS and Noem’s credibility was unmistakable. Commentators across the spectrum — even some conservative voices — admitted the revelations were deeply troubling.
Cable news replayed the clip on loop. Editorial boards called for investigations. Advocacy groups demanded resignations. And on Capitol Hill, whispers of a potential congressional inquiry grew louder.
Meanwhile, Magaziner’s star rose overnight. Once considered a lower-profile Democrat, he emerged as a new face of accountability, praised for his sharp questioning and moral clarity.
Washington is no stranger to heated hearings, but this one hit differently. It wasn’t about budget numbers or bureaucratic turf wars. It was about a four-year-old American child with cancer
who should never have been deported.
And the official in the hot seat was Kristi Noem — a rising conservative figure many once saw as a future national contender. Instead, she left the hearing humiliated, her judgment questioned, and her department under fire.
The viral clip of Magaziner’s fiery words may come to define not just her tenure, but the broader debate over what America’s immigration system stands for — and who it stands against.
In the end, the congressman’s final words may be the most enduring:
“America does not deport children with cancer. Not in my country. Not in my Congress. Not on my watch.”
The hearing adjourned. The cameras stopped. But the outrage — and the questions — are only beginning.
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani delivered a fiery victory speech late Tuesday, promising to deliver on his progressive agenda and declaring his election a historic mandate for change.
Mamdani, 34, who will become New York City’s first socialist, first Muslim, and first mayor of South Asian descent, claimed victory at Brooklyn’s Paramount Theatre, The New York Post reported.
The Uganda-born lawmaker said his win belonged to all immigrant New Yorkers and condemned Islamophobic attacks on his campaign.
“As Eugene Debs once said, I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity,” Mamdani said, quoting the early 20th-century socialist presidential candidate.
He also invoked the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, saying, “A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new.”
Raised on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Mamdani thanked working-class New Yorkers who powered his campaign.
“Fingers bruised from lifting boxes on the warehouse floor, palms calloused from delivery bike handlebars, knuckles scarred with kitchen burns — these are not hands that have been allowed to hold power,” he said. “And yet, over the last 12 months, you have dared to reach for something greater. Tonight, against all odds, we have grasped it.”
Mamdani’s remarks mixed gratitude with defiance, targeting President Trump and former Governor Andrew Cuomo while promising sweeping reforms.
“New York, tonight you have delivered a mandate for change, a mandate for a new kind of politics,” Mamdani said. “We won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now, it is something that we do.”
Mamdani vowed to pursue his campaign proposals, including freezing rent for two million residents in regulated apartments, creating free citywide bus service, providing universal child care, and launching a Department of Community Safety to handle mental health calls instead of the NYPD.
He said the policies would help working-class and marginalized New Yorkers struggling with the cost of living.
“This will be an age where New Yorkers expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve rather than a list of excuses for we are too timid to achieve,” he said.
“In this moment of political darkness, New York will be the light,” Mamdani added.
He declared that his victory marked the end of an era dominated by establishment figures.
“My friends, we have toppled a political dynasty,” Mamdani said to cheers. “I wish Andrew Cuomo only the best in private life. But let tonight be the final time I utter his name as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few.”
Citing former Governor Mario Cuomo’s famous line, Mamdani said, “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.”
“When we enter City Hall in 58 days, expectations will be high. We will meet them,” he said.
Mamdani closed by promising tangible results for ordinary New Yorkers.
“New York, this power, it’s yours,” he said. “This city belongs to you.”
“I think that there is a need for a new generation of leadership,” he said.
Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, told ABC News in a wide-ranging interview aired Wednesday that he plans to win over moderate voters — even as a self-identified Democratic socialist — as he runs in the general election.
He said he also believes the Democratic Party needs to refocus on what working-class Americans are going through.
“I think that the Democratic Party must always remember what made so many proud to be Democrats, which is a focus on the struggles of working class Americans across this country,” Mamdani told ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott.
“And I think that there is a need for a new generation of leadership,” he added.
The 33-year-old State Assembly member, who campaigned on a progressive economic platform, declared victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo as results in Tuesday’s closely watched primary rolled in.
Asked how he’d respond to voters who are nervous about his age and relative inexperience, Mamdani pointed to his campaign fundraising and sheer number of volunteers, as well as meetings he said he’s had with deputy mayors and commissioners from many mayoral administrations, “all as part of my commitment to building a team that is united, not by ideology, not by past relationship or knowledge, but frankly, by excellence.”
Mamdani also spoke with Scott about addressing concerns from Democrats about the “Democratic socialist” label, when he would be open to collaborating with President Donald Trump and reaching out to Jewish New Yorkers.
Mamdani has proudly identified as a Democratic socialist — a label that some Democrats have expressed concerns about, especially as some Republicans have seized on the label to claim that all Democrats are socialists or far-left.
“What do you say to those Democrats who have concerns about that term, Democratic socialist, that you so proudly claim you are?” Scott asked.
“I would say that I hear them, because there’s room to have disagreement and tension in any one party. And for too long, we’ve thought of politics as an act of purity, where you only work with those that you agree with on every issue… And there are going to be many Democrats, both here in this city and across the country, who have a different lens of what it is that they see us needing in this moment,” Mamdani said.
“But ultimately, we agree on the importance of addressing affordability, and that’s at the core of our campaign.”
How would he win back voters who may think the policies Mamdani ran on are too far to the left of where they think the Democratic Party should be?
“I would tell them to look at the results of last night,” he said, referring to the primary on Tuesday. He called the results a “clear reflection of a mandate to make this city affordable” and one that showed Democrats united in support of his economic proposals.
“And it shows that for a long time, what we’ve heard in terms of the analysis of this city and its politics is actually out of step with where people are.”
He added later that he hopes to win the support of people who would otherwise vote for incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who he criticized as “the original architect of this affordability crisis over the last few years.”
As to why voters should support him over Adams, he said, “I’m someone who will make the city more affordable, and because what we’ve seen is that this present has been delivered to us by the policies and the politics and even the politicians of the past. It’s time for a new generation of leadership. It’s time for a politics of the future.”
Adams, speaking on Fox News on Wednesday, criticized Mamdani as a “snake oil salesman,” saying, “I delivered for the city and we’re not going backwards.”
When asked about comments from President Donald Trump on social media calling him a “Communist Lunatic,” Mamdani shrugged off the epithet, saying he’d encourage Trump to learn about his policies, and that he’d work with Trump on affordability but would resist the president’s deportation plans.
“The next mayor of New York City will have to work with the Trump administration. Are you willing to do that? Will you do that?” Scott asked.
“I will work with the Trump administration when it is to the benefit of New Yorkers,” Mamdani said. “My approach will never be reflexive, whether in agreement or opposition, but if it comes at the expense of the New Yorkers that I’m running to serve, then, no, I will not be working with the administration on harming the people that I look to represent.”
Asked by Scott how he’d manage that relationship, Mamdani reiterated wanting to collaborate with Trump on lowering the price of groceries – pointing to his campaign plan to open “a network of municipal-owned stores” – but also reiterated not wanting to assist the president with immigrant detentions.
Mamdani has faced some pushback, given New York’s large Jewish population, over his history of comments and activism opposing Israel, including his criticism of Israel over the war in Gaza. In response, he has emphasized policies to combat antisemitism and said that he wants to focus on city issues. When asked in an interview with ABC News’ New York station WABC on Wednesday whether he supports the concept of Israel as a Jewish state, Mamdani said: “I’ve said time and again that I support Israel’s right to exist as a state with equal rights for all, and ultimately, my focus is on the five boroughs of the city.”
In her interview, Scott asked Mamdani, “How do you gain the trust of Jewish voters in New York City?”
Mamdani brought up his campaign plan to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming, but acknowledged a divide between his views on Israel and those of many in the Jewish community.
“Ultimately, my comments have been on critiques of the Israeli government’s policies, and I know that there are many New Yorkers who may disagree with me on those same critiques,” Mamdani said. “And yet that disagreement is still rooted in the shared sense of humanity.”
As for his strategy to reach out to Jewish voters, Mamdani said he was ready to “to introduce myself again and again” to every New Yorker, including Jewish New Yorkers, given the low name recognition he started out with in the race.
ABC News’ Brittany Shepherd contributed to this report.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to add Mamdani’s position on the State of Israel.