How have Jewish organizations documented changes in conservative influencer rhetoric about Israel in 2025?
Executive summary
Jewish organizations and think tanks—most prominently the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI)—have documented a marked shift in some high-profile conservative influencers’ rhetoric about Israel in 2025, arguing that criticism has crossed into language the groups characterize as antisemitic [1] [2]. Those findings prompted both alarm and organized responses from pro-Israel advocacy groups, even as other Jewish actors pursued outreach to change minds through trips and engagement [1] [3].
1. Who documented the change and what did they say
The clearest public accounting came from JPPI’s study, which concluded that top conservative figures such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens “significantly ramped-up” anti‑Israel rhetoric in 2025, including comparisons of Israel to Hamas, use of the word “genocide,” allegations Israel deliberately killed children, and conspiratorial claims about Israeli influence in U.S. affairs—forms the institute said resemble classic antisemitic tropes [1] [2]. Jewish news outlets summarized and amplified JPPI’s findings, framing the data as a warning about how parts of the American right are retooling language once associated with the far left [2] [4].
2. How the documentation was gathered and presented
JPPI published quantified research and public statements that paired content analysis of influencers’ output with a “Voice of the People” survey of Jews who register with the institute; press summaries emphasize the linguistic patterns JPPI flagged across multiple videos and shows [2] [1]. Independent Jewish media and national outlets reported JPPI’s data and quoted its director-general describing the trend as a “flashing warning light” for Israel and its leadership [1] [4].
3. Examples and corroborating reporting
News organizations cited concrete incidents that fit JPPI’s pattern—Carlson hosting extremist guests and deploying new critiques of evangelical Christian support for Israel, and Owens using terms like “demonic” and alleging undue Israeli influence—coverage that framed the rhetoric as both ideologically novel on the right and consistent with antisemitic themes [5] [6]. Jewish outlets also linked the trend to a broader ecosystem in which social-media amplification, podcast platforms, and high‑visibility appearances normalize the language JPPI documented [7] [8].
4. Jewish organizations’ responses and counter-efforts
Beyond documenting the shift, Jewish organizations moved to respond: mainstream groups issued warnings and criticisms of platforms or festivals that amplified anti‑Zionist influencers [9], while other Jewish advocacy actors organized outreach to conservative influencers—sending MAGA-associated creators to Israel in hopes of changing their views in person, an effort Israel365 Action reported produced some attitude changes among attendees [3]. Separately, reporting exposed coordinated influencer campaigns and suggested governments and advocacy networks were investing in information campaigns to shore up pro‑Israel narratives [10].
5. Political stakes and contested interpretations
Jewish analysts warned that conservative influencer shifts could bleed into policymaking and U.S. support for Israel, citing surveys showing younger Republican voters growing more critical and the risk to future congressional backing [6]. At the same time, some commentators and pro‑Israel voices argue social‑media trends overstate broader Republican sentiment—pointing to public-opinion data that still finds large numbers of conservatives supportive of Israel—and to outreach successes that complicate a singular narrative of irreversible right‑wing drift [8] [3].
6. Limits of the documentation and open questions
The picture relies heavily on JPPI’s content analysis and on contemporaneous journalistic synthesis; public reporting documents vivid examples and institutional concern but does not yet settle questions about scale, durability, or how much influencer rhetoric is influencing elected officials versus performative audience-building [1] [2]. Reporting also shows countervailing efforts—both Israeli outreach to influencers and continued mainstream pro‑Israel majorities within older conservative cohorts—underscoring that the trend JPPI flags coexists with concerted pushback and unresolved causal links [3] [6].