Neo-Con Jewish Pundit Bret Stephens Sees the Writing on the Wall
Bret Stephens built his career advocating for American military interventions abroad, but now the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist is telling Jews to retreat inward and abandon the institutions that have defined Jewish advocacy for a century.
There is an unmistakable anxiety in Bret Stephens’s recent public appearances. The Jewish columnist who once radiated confidence while calling for American military interventions across the Middle East now speaks with the urgency of a man watching the ground shift beneath his feet. On February 1, 2026, standing before an audience at Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y to deliver the 46th annual “State of World Jewry” address, Stephens made an admission that would have been unthinkable from the neoconservative establishment just a few years ago.
“The fight against antisemitism, which consumes tens of millions of dollars every year in Jewish philanthropy, is a well-meaning but mostly wasted effort,” Stephens declared. “We should spend the money and focus our energy elsewhere.”
When asked what he would do if he led the ADL or similar organizations, Stephens apologized to ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who was sitting in the audience, and said, “if it were up to me, I would dismantle it.” He compared the money spent on fighting antisemitism to “those scenes of people in the Wolf of Wall Street, just tossing a hundred-dollar bills into garbage cans.”
Some of the most salient points Stephens raised in that speech were that Jews should stop trying to disprove hatred through achievement and that Jewish survival depends on building independent institutions rather than seeking broader acceptance. He called for redirecting resources toward building more Jewish day schools at “Catholic-school tuition rates” and strengthening Jewish identity from within.
Stephens pointed to polling data showing that “one in five millennials and Gen Zs believe the Jews caused the Holocaust” as evidence that decades of Holocaust education had failed. Greenblatt responded that Stephens’s thoughts on Jewish identity were “powerful and provocative” but called his critique of antisemitism-fighting efforts “misguided,” noting the ADL’s work in collecting hate crime data, training synagogues in security, and running a Center on Extremism that has helped “intercept and prevent plots.”
Stephens’s stance on Tucker Carlson has undergone a dramatic evolution. In March 2019, when recordings surfaced of Carlson making controversial statements about Iraqis, Stephens tweeted approvingly of a David French quote — calling it “astute as usual” — defending the principle that society should “rebut ideas” rather than “destroy careers.”
By late 2025, however, Stephens’s tone had hardened. In a November 2025 New York Times column titled “Meet the New Antisemites, Same as the Old Antisemites,” Stephens wrote about Carlson’s interview with nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes, noting that “antisemitism was supposedly banished twice from the conservative universe” by William F. Buckley Jr. only to return through figures like Carlson. He highlighted the irony that Carlson himself had once criticized Pat Buchanan for “needling the Jews” in 1999 and had now become the very figure he once denounced.
In his State of World Jewry address, Stephens grouped Carlson and Candace Owens together with Nick Fuentes, Alice Walker, and Roger Waters as “the out-and-out Jew-haters and their sly enablers.” He noted that “Tucker Carlson’s popularity and influence as a podcaster have only soared as his bigotry has become more blatant.”
Yet in a February 2026 i24NEWS interview, Stephens argued that the ADL’s approach of condemning these figures is counterproductive. “When the ADL focuses on condemning figures like Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens — or other antisemitic enablers — it’s often worse than useless,” he said. “These individuals feed off condemnation from groups like the ADL. That doesn’t help build thriving Jewish life in the United States.”
In the same interview, Stephens made remarks about Carlson’s children and grandchildren that sparked fierce backlash. He argued that history will judge Carlson harshly and that the stigma will extend to his family legacy, much as the descendants of notorious figures bear reputational consequences. George Galloway called Stephens’s statement “hard to overstate how offensive, even obscene” and noted it invoked “one crime, three generations” logic. Chris Menahan of Information Liberation described it as Stephens endorsing “Vile blood guilt targeting children.”
Stephens has written extensively about the impact of October 7 on American Jewry. He coined the now widely referenced term “October 8 Jew” in a New York Times column shortly after the attacks. In his 2026 speech, he revised the definition. Rather than a Jew who “woke up to discover who our friends are not,” the October 8 Jew “was the one who woke up trying to remember who he or she truly is.”
In his December 2023 column “Why I Can’t Stop Writing About Oct. 7,” Stephens wrote intimately about his mother, who was born in Italy during World War II to a Jewish family that had fled the Nazis. His mother told him, “I was born in hiding. I don’t want to die in hiding.” He documented how hate crimes against Jews had “surged fivefold” from October 7 to December 7, 2023, compared to the same period the prior year.
In his October 2023 Sapir essay “We Are Alone,” Stephens excoriated left-wing Jewish intellectuals who had championed anti-Zionist causes, writing that “Jewish progressives are being massacred by [reality], if only metaphorically.” He described the October 7 attacks as “the single most murderous day in Jewish history since 1945” and argued that the post-Zionist Jewish left had provided “moral cover to outright antisemitism.” His overarching message, sharpened over subsequent years, was that Jews needed to stop seeking validation through progressive causes and instead “lean into our Jewishness as far as each of us can, irrespective of what anyone else thinks of it.”
Stephens’s insistence on Jewish self-reliance is not merely an intellectual posture. It is rooted in a family history shaped by pogroms, exile and survival. Stephens was born November 21, 1973 in New York City into a secular Jewish family. Both his parents were Jewish. His mother was born in wartime Italy to a family that had fled the Nazis, and his paternal grandfather fled the Kishinev pogrom in Moldova. He was raised in Mexico City and is fluent in Spanish. He attended Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts, then earned an honors degree from the University of Chicago in 1995 and a master’s in comparative politics from the London School of Economics.
Stephens began at Commentary magazine as an assistant editor in 1995. He joined The Wall Street Journal in 1998, later serving as editorial writer for its European edition in Brussels. In 2002, at just 28 years old, he moved to Israel to become editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, leading the paper through the worst years of the Second Intifada. He has said one reason he left the WSJ for The Jerusalem Post was that “Western media was getting Israel’s story wrong.”
He returned to the WSJ in 2004 and took over the “Global View” foreign affairs column in 2006. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2013 for “his incisive columns on American foreign policy and domestic politics, often enlivened by a contrarian twist.” In April 2017, he joined The New York Times as an opinion columnist. In 2021, he became founding editor-in-chief of SAPIR, a major journal of Jewish intellectual discourse funded by the Maimonides Fund, a pro-Israel philanthropy.
Stephens is one of the most prominent neoconservative voices in American media. His core belief is that American global retreat invites disorder, the thesis of his 2014 book America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. He was a prominent voice among media advocates for the 2003 Iraq War, writing in 2002 that Iraq was likely to become the first nuclear power in the Arab world. As late as 2013, he continued to insist the Bush administration had “solid evidence” for going to war, despite weapons of mass destruction never being found. Stephens compared the Iran nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement.
He has written numerous columns calling for or praising military action against Iran. Stephens compared the Iran nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement, calling it “worse than Munich” in a 2013 Wall Street Journal column. He has written numerous columns calling for or praising military action against Iran, including a 2010 WSJ essay arguing that Iran “cannot be contained” and that containment advocates were dangerously naive, an October 2024 New York Times column titled “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran” calling for the destruction of an Iranian missile complex, a June 2025 column laying out a strategy for Trump to “drop bunker busters on Fordo,” and a February 2026 column titled “The Case for Hitting Iran” arguing that military strikes were necessary because engagement, sanctions and diplomacy had all failed. Now it appears Stephens has gotten his wish. The United States is at war with Iran, with no exit timetable and no indication Washington intends to fully disengage.
And finally, on March 10, Stephens proposed the following:
What, then, should the Trump administration do? My prescription: Seize Kharg Island. Mine or blockade Iran’s remaining ports. Destroy as much Iranian military capability as possible over the next week or two, including a second Midnight Hammer operation to destroy what’s left of Iran’s nuclear capacity and know-how. And threaten the regime with further bombing if it massacres its own citizens, mounts terrorist attacks abroad or returns to nuclear work.
That constitutes the most realistic path to victory at the lowest plausible price in lives, risk and treasure. And for all its admitted dangers, it gives Iran’s people their best chance of winning their freedom. Not bad for a one-month war its critics warned would be another Iraq.
The increasingly volatile rhetoric from Bret Stephens serves as a stark barometer for the pervasive anxiety currently gripping the American Jewish establishment in the wake of October 7th. As Jewry’s veneer of civility dissolves in this new judeo-skeptic environment, what remains is a defensive, hyper-tribal reaction to a perceived loss of cultural hegemony across the West.
Should this anxiety continue to escalate, it is highly probable that figures like Stephens will abandon the rhetoric of liberal pluralism in favor of state-sanctioned repression, using hate speech legislation to insulate their interests from public criticism. Such a transition would serve as a clarifying moment for the American public, revealing the extent to which these alien actors prioritize their specific communal survival over the fundamental constitutional norms of the nation.