When naming names isn’t picking a fight
Late last week, a bipartisan pair of Members of Congress introduced a resolution condemning antisemitic hate-filled rhetoric and content disseminated by prominent online personalities, specifically naming Candace Owens and Hasan Piker.
I work for an organization that knows the importance and impact of quiet diplomacy, on handling problems discreetly to avoid escalation. We try to help public figures avoid “stepping in it” and if they do, we try to guide them towards positive resolution. We recognize that putting leaders on blast is often not the best way to educate or get results, so supporting the passage of a resolution doing exactly that may seem contradictory.
It is not.
Naming these names is not about putting Owens or Piker on blast, it’s about putting their hate on everyone’s radar.
Owens is a political commentator whose increasingly antisemitic rhetoric has alarmed former allies, mainstream conservatives, and Jewish groups, including American Jewish Committee (AJC).
Owens has transformed from a conservative commentator with credentials at Daily Wire, Turning Point USA, and as a Fox News contributor, into someone who promotes Holocaust denial, blood libel, and conspiracy theories about Jewish control.
With more than 5.7 million YouTube subscribers, Owens packages antisemitism as political commentary, making hate speech against Jews palatable to audiences who might otherwise reject explicit antisemitism. Extremists like Nick Fuentes praise her “vitriolic antisemitism.”
Piker is a far-left antisemitic streaming star who has attracted millions of fans on the streaming platform Twitch. He has gained notoriety for his rants justifying the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel along with other antisemitic comments and dog whistles, while blaming Jews who decry anti-Zionism for the rise in antisemitism.
News outlets and prominent podcasts have interviewed him about contemporary politics, and journalists and elected officials continue to join him on Twitch. He appears at rallies to support candidates for office, raises money, and amplifies candidates to his online audience.
Despite their clear record of antisemitic vitriol, Piker and Owens have increasingly maneuvered their way into the American political establishment. Unfortunately, when Jewish groups raise objections to the antisemitism they spew, it is too easily dismissed; we are being too sensitive (to Holocaust denial! to support of terrorism!) This resolution and its passage would make clear that Congress is aware of the problem– yes, antisemitism exists; it’s a problem on and offline; and Piker and Owens, and many others, revel in spreading it. And, in doing so, will force leaders who embrace these personalities, and those like them, to explain to their constituents why they are engaging with and giving legitimacy to such voices.
Antisemitism is experienced the most and spreading the most in online spaces. According to AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2025 Report, 74% of Americans who encountered antisemitism last year saw it on social media—the single largest source by far.
Thirty-nine percent of American Jews avoid posting content that identifies them as Jewish out of fear. Among younger Jews, 85% report seeing antisemitic content online or on social media, with nearly half saying they have been directly targeted by this hatred.
Owens and Piker have fringe views, but they are not operating on the fringes. Rather, they thrive in ecosystems where their vitriol is widely consumed, shared, and – most problematically – accepted as part of the broader political conversation.
History has proven: hatred does not need to be universally endorsed to be dangerous. It only needs to be tolerated, repeated, and left unchallenged by those with the largest audiences.
H.Res.1239, offered by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY), directly challenges these harmful narratives.
More than that, the resolution also recognizes that it takes far more than condemnation to address anti-Jewish hate today. It calls for much-needed reform on social media platforms, including:
- Stronger, more transparent content-moderation systems
- Clear and effective reporting tools for users
- Collaboration with expert organizations to track evolving narratives
- Public accountability from platforms on enforcement outcomes
These steps are not about restricting political discourse. They are about ensuring that influence carries responsibility—and that widely accepted platforms do not become vehicles for the normalization of dangerous hate.
A public square where antisemitism can be repackaged as commentary, rewarded with clicks, and excused as just another “point of view” is a public square that corrodes trust, distorts debate, and lowers the bar for what we tolerate from those with influence.
Naming names in this context is not a departure from quiet diplomacy—it is a necessary call to elected leaders to be on guard against hate that would, in previous generations, relegate one to the fringes, hate that now is algorithmically rewarded, raising up those who should be pariahs on digital pedestals.
Antisemitism — from the far right or the far left – has no place in American politics. Calling attention to Owens and Piker is not about them. It is about moral clarity and civic responsibility, and the protection of a democratic culture that depends on both.
