On the evening of the 2025 Doft Lecture at Harvard University, a packed auditorium gathered to hear New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg discuss a subject that has become increasingly fraught in American public life: the intersection of authoritarianism, antisemitism, and the future of pluralism in the United States. The event, hosted by the Center for Jewish Studies and led by its director, Derek J. Penslar, was titled "Authoritarianism, Antisemitism & the Future of America," and it quickly became clear that the conversation would not shy away from controversy or nuance.
Goldberg, who identifies as a secular Jew, made her perspective plain from the outset. "When I think about my future in the country, my family’s future in this country, I am so much more threatened by people who are opposed to pluralism," she said, according to The Harvard Gazette. For Goldberg, the tradition of liberal pluralism in the United States has been central to Jewish flourishing. "Our traditions of liberal pluralism are why Jews have thrived in the United States," she continued, emphasizing the importance of a society that welcomes diversity and debate.
One of the evening’s central topics was the contentious debate over anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Goldberg articulated a position she has often advanced in her columns: while not all anti-Zionism is antisemitic, there is a clear line that should not be crossed. "Trying to force Jewish Americans, with their deep cultural and religious attachments to Israel, to disavow the movement for a Jewish nation is unquestionably antisemitic," she asserted. Yet, she was quick to note that some critics of Israel, such as New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, have been unfairly labeled as antisemites. "They basically say every state should be a state for all of its citizens. You can argue with that. You can say it’s naïve. But I fundamentally do not find it threatening," Goldberg said, as reported by The Harvard Gazette.
Penslar, guiding the discussion, pointed out that accusations of antisemitism are often wielded as partisan weapons. "Do you honestly believe that antisemitism is primarily on one side or the other?" he asked. Goldberg responded candidly: "I deeply, honestly believe it’s worse on the right," referencing a recent Politico report detailing how Young Republicans leaders had praised Hitler in a leaked chat. Still, she amended her view to acknowledge that "the antisemites on the left have dramatically less power." Her remarks underscored the complexity of the problem—antisemitism is not confined to one political camp, but its influence and manifestation differ across the spectrum.
The conversation then turned to the boundaries of acceptable debate, a topic Goldberg has explored in the context of both public health and politics. She warned of the dangers of "artificially narrowing the boundaries of debate," drawing on her reporting about COVID vaccine skepticism. "Experts’ refusal to engage with concerns about COVID vaccines turned everyday skeptics into hard-line opponents," she explained. Conversely, she noted that the political right often adopts a "just asking questions" posture to push the boundaries of political speech and, at times, advance prejudice and misinformation. "I don’t know that anybody can say, ‘Here’s where the boundary should be,’" Goldberg admitted, highlighting the challenge of balancing viewpoint diversity with the need to reject hateful or false ideas.
The 2024 presidential election loomed large over the discussion, especially as Penslar asked about the notable rise in Hispanic American support for Donald Trump. He wondered whether the values of pluralism require liberals to consider the social conservatism prevalent in parts of this voting bloc. Goldberg acknowledged the tension, suggesting that certain policy goals—such as banning same-sex marriage or outlawing abortion—may be fundamentally incompatible with democracy. The issue of immigration, she said, is even more complex. "I think most Democrats probably see America giving asylum to refugees as something sacred and fundamental," Goldberg observed, but she also recognized that maintaining this access, while addressing citizens’ concerns about system abuses, would require substantial investments in infrastructure. "It’s much easier for Republicans, who don’t care about those values in the first place, to just say, ‘We’re just going to shut it down,’" she said.
During the event’s Q&A, Goldberg addressed questions about podcasting, media polarization, and the unique contours of American attitudes toward Jews. She reminded the audience that the United States is home to the largest Jewish population outside Israel, and noted the "particular insult" in efforts to dismantle institutions—such as universities—where Jewish Americans have historically thrived, all "in the name of fighting antisemitism."
Meanwhile, the national conversation about antisemitism and political extremism continued to play out in other, sometimes more incendiary, forums. On October 28, 2025, far-right commentator Nick Fuentes appeared in an interview with Tucker Carlson, where he touched on topics ranging from presidential politics to his personal heroes. Carlson asked Fuentes whom he would like to see as the next president of the United States. Fuentes replied with a laugh, "Who should be president? Well, Ye! Of course, Kanye." The two shared a moment of levity, but the conversation quickly turned to Fuentes’s recollection of a private Thanksgiving dinner in November 2022 with Kanye West (now known as Ye) and Donald Trump. "It was surreal because those are my two heroes. Those are my two number one heroes of all time. I’ve always been a Kanye West fan," Fuentes said, according to The Texas Tribune. He described Ye as "sort of shy" at first, and recounted how Trump tried to draw him out of his shell. Fuentes also noted Ye’s admiration for Trump as an industrialist and visionary, saying, "He loves builders, visionaries, architects. He’s very into that. So, he has a deep regard for Trump."
Yet, Fuentes’s notoriety has not been limited to his celebrity connections. In late October, he found himself embroiled in an online feud with Laura Loomer, a prominent Trump ally. On October 24, Fuentes tweeted, calling Loomer a "Jewish Israel shill," a comment that sparked a fierce response. Loomer accused Fuentes of attempting to sway voters against Trump during the 2024 election, claiming, "You used your group to run billboards against Trump during the 2024 election in swing states and you said we would be better off if Kamala were in office." Loomer further described Fuentes as "his own worst enemy." Her tweet quickly went viral, garnering over a million views and injecting fresh controversy into the already heated discourse surrounding the 2024 campaign.
Fuentes, who identifies as a Christian nationalist, has a history of courting controversy. As reported by The Texas Tribune, he attended the infamous "Unite the Right" rally as a freshman at Boston University—a gathering widely condemned as a meeting of white nationalists.
As the nation grapples with questions of pluralism, free speech, and the boundaries of acceptable debate, voices from across the political spectrum—whether in Ivy League lecture halls or on viral social media threads—are shaping the conversation in ways both constructive and destructive. If anything, the past weeks have shown that the struggle over America’s identity, and the place of Jews and other minorities within it, remains as urgent and complicated as ever.
