On his first day in office, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday has overturned all the executive orders signed by his predecessor, Eric Adams, after September 26, 2024, the date that the outgoing mayor was indicted on five federal charges related to bribery, wire fraud and campaign finance offenses.
Among the canceled orders are the ban on protesting in front of synagogues, the ban on city employees cooperating with the BDS movement and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance controversial definition of antisemitism.
Under the IHRA definition of antisemitism, claims that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” deny the “Jewish people their right to self-determination.” The IHRA definition is often criticized for conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Truly amazing how much time and money this country spends on Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel. So very very tired. Glad we have all our problems solved here.
Removed by mod
I feel like that comment is dunking on Adams, not Mamdami, for wasting time and resources on these pro-Israel laws. Could be wrong but I had to reread it a couple times to figure out how it could be interpreted your way
Removed by mod
To me, undoing Zionist decisions isn’t the obsession with Israel being criticized in the comment. Also, the reversals returns constitutional rights so I assumed it wasn’t the thing they were mad at here
I guess we’ll wait for OC to clarify.
It’s a good start.
but he had to take a shit in it with the definition of antisemitism.he didn’t
What do you mean? He rolled back the terrible definition that the previous mayor used. This was a straight across the board win.
Oooh I read it as he adopted that. Yeah no good riddance.
I have to say it’s getting hard to filter the little good news we hear these days…
Confusing headline, given that Synagogue protests were never banned by the prior administrations. No sources suggesting he “reversed” anything on that regard.
His police commissioner (mega-Zionist) is now reviewing whether these protests are acceptable or not, so quite the opposite could be true here.
EO number 61 is the EO referenced in this article. It was the one that mandated Tisch evaluate the acceptability of these protests, and is now overturned
Can you provide a source for that?
For the record EO61 never banned these protests. It was merely a review, which has been renewed by Mamdani himself as of yesterday.
https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/executive-order-02
Under Section 19.
Edit: why is this being downvoted?
No, I know what EO61 is. I’m asking for a source that Mamdani overturned the “synagogue ban”. EO2 would conflict with that notion. It seems that the synagogue review was actually renewed as of yesterday, not overturned.
Pretty wild that im being downvoted for this…
EO1 is the one that revoked anything by date: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/executive-order-01
EO61 is the one that reviewed where protests could be. EO2 establishes other things not related to previous EOs
Thank you for actually providing a real source, but unfortunately EO2 renews the review of protesting near religious institutions. EO1 was meant to clear out all prior orders made by Adams from September and onward (many of which were questionable), however the matter of protesting near religious institutions is now renewed in EO2.
Hope this clears things up for everyone and we can put this to bed.
Just read the article. It’s not hard. If you did then you will have all the information we have to work with from Haaretz, which given the context is probably hyperbolic and exaggerating very specific things to turn truth into a death by a thousand cuts as every detail needs to be found to expressly counter the petty, needling questions.
If you need more information go find it and blast back to Lemmy that Mamdani did something (with proof). Otherwise go throw chaff somewhere else.
The article doesn’t have the authority to overturn executive orders. As of January 1st, the synagogue review has been renewed. That is the fact of the matter. Until you can provide something that factually contradicts the new EO, you are speaking nonsense.
Thanks for the heads up I will change the title unless that becomes clearer.
Not your fault at all! You were merely copying the article’s headline. My criticism is with the publication.
