Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s transition team hit turbulence when a top appointee resigned after old social posts surfaced with explicitly antisemitic language, exposing vetting failures and raising questions about how his administration will handle appointments tied to pro-Palestinian sympathies and controversial rhetoric.
The resignation happened fast and publicly: Catherine Almonte Da Costa stepped down from her new role overseeing appointments and talent recruitment just one day after her appointment was announced. That rapid exit undercuts the idea that the transition team had thoroughly screened candidates, and it hands critics ammunition to question Mamdani’s judgment. This is especially sensitive given his earlier reluctance to forcefully condemn the slogan ‘globalize the intifada.’
The posts in question date back to 2011–2012 and were flagged in recent days, prompting the appointee to scrub her X account. Among the resurfaced messages were explicit references invoking classic antisemitic tropes, including phrases about “money hungry Jews” and one line that read, “Far Rockaway train is the Jew train.” The claims were enough to prompt swift public backlash and immediate pressure on Mamdani’s team.
Da Costa issued an apology acknowledging the harm caused and said that the posts do not reflect who she has become. “As the mother of Jewish children, I feel a profound sense of sadness and remorse at the harm these words have caused,” she said, and then offered her resignation. The mayor-elect accepted it, with his spokesman confirming the move and Mamdani himself noting, “Catherine expressed her deep remorse over her past statements and tendered her resignation, and I accepted.”
There’s no denying the optics are bad. It was only the day before the resignation that Mamdani publicly celebrated her appointment and welcomed her to “a new era” in New York City. That kind of turnabout—welcome one day, resignation the next—looks like chaotic staffing and weak vetting to voters watching closely. For a mayor-elect who courted controversy during the campaign, this is exactly the kind of problem that feeds narratives about poor judgment.
His campaign’s handling of the slogan ‘globalize the intifada’ already drew heat; he refused for months during the campaign to fully condemn the phrase and later said he would discourage others from using it. That unfinished, equivocal posture makes it easier for critics to argue the transition will be tolerant of extreme rhetoric and problematic views among appointees. The Da Costa episode is being treated as more evidence along those lines rather than an isolated lapse.
From a practical standpoint, this episode exposes straightforward administrative risks: when vetting is shallow, mistakes show up publicly and fast. Appointments chiefs are supposed to catch these kinds of red flags before they become crises. The fact that the person nominated to manage appointments was forced to resign for past social posts suggests the opposite—an ironic failure at the very post charged with preventing such failures.
Political consequences are immediate and unavoidable. Jewish organizations and other watchdogs were already watching Mamdani’s transition; this resignation will likely sharpen their scrutiny. Opponents on the right will use it to argue that the new administration will be soft on antisemitism and permissive of extreme rhetoric, which plays into a broader narrative about the mayor-elect’s political alliances and ideological leanings.
There are policy and personnel lessons here that aren’t partisan math. Any transition team operating in a high-profile city needs deeper vetting, clearer standards, and a willingness to act fast when problems surface. But those neutral-sounding measures don’t erase the political fallout when the appointee’s own words are inflammatory and the mayor-elect’s prior comments left room for doubt about his stance.
The resignation raises another question that will linger: is Da Costa an outlier, or the first of several personnel headaches for Mamdani? Given the mayor-elect’s public positions and the kinds of supporters he attracted during the campaign, the odds that more controversial past statements among appointees will surface seem real. That possibility keeps the pressure on the transition to be more rigorous and more transparent about standards.
This episode also shows how social media history can nullify a polished announcement in short order. One day you’re being welcomed as part of “a new era”; the next, you’re apologizing for decade-old posts and stepping down. For any incoming administration, that kind of rapid reversal is a lesson in reputational risk, not just personnel policy.
Accountability was swift in this case, with Da Costa stepping aside and Mamdani accepting her resignation. But the public response and the ongoing scrutiny won’t just evaporate because one role was vacated. The transition now faces a credibility test: tighten vetting and demonstrate clearer lines on acceptable rhetoric, or continue to invite skepticism from voters and watchdog groups.
Add comment