The student-debt debate has been trapped inside a false choice for years. Either borrowers repay every dollar attached to their accounts, no matter how much they have already paid, or we Democrats supposedly want to erase any shred of personal responsibility and hand everyone free money. That framing is convenient, loud and wrong.

There is an obvious middle ground: require borrowers to repay the principal they actually received, then forgive the outstanding interest the government chose to add. The government loaned the principal. It did not hand borrowers a sack of accrued interest at graduation.

The Trick Hidden in the Balance

Imagine the government disbursed $40,000 for someone's education. That borrower has since paid $45,000 but still owes $30,000. Conservatives point to the remaining balance as proof that a debt remains. What they rarely mention is that the borrower may have already returned the entire amount originally advanced, plus thousands more.

Interest has a legitimate function. It can cover financing, servicing and default risk. But it is still a policy-created charge, not money placed in a borrower's hands. The distinction gets even murkier when unpaid interest is capitalized, relabeled as principal and allowed to generate more interest. The account calls it principal. The Treasury never sent another tuition check. It is old interest wearing a new name tag.

Corporate America treats debt as a financial instrument. Student borrowers are told to treat it as a character test.

The Power Behind the Framing

Language does most of the political work here. A corporation gets a restructuring. A bank gets a rescue. A developer gets tax-increment financing. All of that is described as pragmatic economic policy. But when a working person asks why years of payments barely touched a student-loan balance, suddenly Washington becomes the First Church of Compound Interest.

This double standard protects the government from a basic question: What public purpose is served by collecting far more than it disbursed? Federal student loans are supposed to expand access to education. They should not become permanent revenue streams built on the fact that some families had enough wealth to pay tuition upfront and others did not.

A Progressive Case With Bipartisan Legs

For progressives, the case is economic justice. Runaway interest punishes people for lacking family wealth and turns education from a ladder of opportunity into a toll road. It delays homeownership, constrains family budgets and makes career changes harder. A public program meant to widen opportunity should not deepen inequality instead.

But a hard-core capitalist Republican government should also be able to understand debt restructuring without reaching for smelling salts. Businesses refinance. Banks modify loans. Creditors negotiate workouts. Investors write down assets. Capitalism does not require every debt to remain untouched until death. It recognizes that an economy works better when unproductive debt can be resolved.

The Counterpoint Trap

“Forgiving interest rewards people who refused to pay.”

Reframe: The proposal still requires repayment of the original principal. It rewards repayment by counting every dollar already paid toward the money actually borrowed.

“Taxpayers would be handing borrowers free money.”

Reframe: Canceling expected interest has a budgetary cost, but it is not a cash payment. The government would stop collecting future charges it created.

“It is unfair to people who already paid.”

Reframe: Past harm is not a reason to preserve a defective policy. Fixing the system is not an insult to those who endured it. It is the point of governing.

“This does nothing about tuition prices.”

Reframe: Correct, by itself. Colleges still need pressure to control costs. That is an argument for additional reform, not for keeping borrowers trapped in accumulated interest.

What the Government Should Do

Congress should forgive outstanding accrued and capitalized interest on federal student loans and reconstruct every account. Start with the amount disbursed. Credit every payment made. If a borrower has repaid the original principal, close the account. If not, reset the balance to the unpaid principal and offer a zero-interest or genuinely low-cost path to repayment.

Future federal education loans should carry no interest, or a rate limited to actual financing and administrative costs. Interest should never capitalize, and it should not accrue during verified periods of serious hardship. The terms should fit on one page. Every borrower should be able to see an honest finish line.

The Last Word

The government created the interest rules. It can change them. That is not socialism, and it is not a bailout. It is the government admitting that financing education should not become a lifetime extraction scheme.

Forgive the interest. Credit what borrowers have paid. Require repayment of what they actually borrowed. That is progressive, practical and bipartisan enough for anyone who is more interested in solving the problem than preserving the punishment.

Let me begin with something that should not be remotely controversial: Benjamin Netanyahu has done catastrophic damage to Israel.

I am not a Netanyahu supporter. I believe his government has helped destroy Israel’s standing around the world, prolonged unimaginable suffering in Gaza, empowered extremists, and made Israelis and Palestinians less safe. His political survival has repeatedly appeared to matter more to him than peace, democracy, or Israel’s long-term future.

As a progressive Jew, I refuse to pretend otherwise.

But my disgust with Netanyahu does not require me to become a huge fan of Hasan Piker. It certainly does not require me to ignore rhetoric that treats violence against American Jews as the predictable consequence of Jews having the wrong opinions.

During a recent livestream, Piker said that if American Jews continue presenting themselves as “singularly invested in Israel,” then “eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the State of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.”

Piker has defended his comments as a warning, not a threat. But that distinction does not rescue the statement. When you tell a minority group that violence will eventually be directed at them because of how members of that group speak, organize, or identify, you are making their safety conditional.

You are telling Jews that if they do not want to be attacked, they had better distance themselves from Israel in a way you find acceptable.

That is victim-blaming dressed up as political analysis.

The liberal antisemitism watchdog Nexus Project responded exactly as it should have: “A Jewish person’s stance on Israel (or any issue) isn’t an invitation to violence.” The organization added that people who attack Jews are making a choice and that blaming victims or presenting violence as inevitable is unacceptable. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries likewise called the suggestion that American Jews are inviting violence against themselves “dangerous and antisemitic.” The Associated Press reported on the controversy and Piker’s defense of his remarks.⁠

They are right.

Progressives should understand this better than anyone. We do not tell Muslim Americans that Islamophobic attacks are an inevitable response to terrorism committed by people thousands of miles away. We do not tell Asian Americans that violence against them is the foreseeable consequence of China’s policies. We do not tell immigrants that xenophobic attacks are the natural result of an immigration debate.

At least, we should not.

The entire progressive project is built on rejecting collective guilt. It is built on the principle that human rights do not depend on whether the majority approves of someone’s identity, religion, affiliations, or political beliefs.

That principle must include Jews.

American Jews are not a monolith. Some enthusiastically support the current Israeli government. Many support Israel’s existence while despising Netanyahu. Some are non-Zionists or anti-Zionists. Some feel deeply connected to Israel but are horrified by the war. Others have little connection to the country at all.

Every one of them deserves protection from antisemitic violence.

The progressive answer cannot be that the “good Jews” will be safe as long as we loudly condemn Israel, while the “bad Jews” should have anticipated what might happen to them. Jewish safety is not a prize awarded for ideological compliance.

I support a two-state future, oppose the occupation, despise the extremists Netanyahu has elevated, and believe the devastation in Gaza demands moral clarity rather than excuses. None of that makes me responsible for the actions of Israel’s government. And if another Jew holds views considerably more conservative than mine, that person still does not become a legitimate target for violence.

This should be easy.

Criticizing Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Calling for Palestinian freedom is not inherently antisemitic. Condemning Netanyahu is not inherently antisemitic. Opposing Israeli military policy is not inherently antisemitic.

Blaming Jews for antisemitism because they remain connected to Israel is antisemitic. Suggesting that attacks on American Jews are a foreseeable consequence of Jewish political advocacy crosses a line. The fact that the speaker considers himself progressive does not erase that line.

The American left has rightly spent years warning that words matter. Dehumanizing language creates permission structures. Victim-blaming helps aggressors rationalize their choices. Describing violence as inevitable makes it sound less like an atrocity and more like the natural conclusion of a political disagreement. Those lessons cannot disappear when Jews are the targets.

We also need to stop acting as though acknowledging left-wing antisemitism somehow helps Netanyahu. Netanyahu does not own the fight against antisemitism. Right-wing organizations that weaponize accusations of antisemitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel do not own it either.

In fact, progressives should be leading this fight precisely because we understand that criticism of a government and hatred of a people are fundamentally different things.

We can reject the cynical claim that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic while also rejecting the equally dishonest claim that antisemitism disappears when it is spoken in the language of anti-imperialism.

We can confront more than one moral failure at a time.

Netanyahu’s government has caused immense harm. Palestinian civilians deserve safety, freedom, dignity, and a future. Israelis deserve leaders who care more about peace than political survival. American Jews deserve to participate in political life without being warned that their relationship with Israel could eventually bring violence upon them.

Hasan Piker does not get a pass because he positions himself on the left. No influencer, activist, candidate, or commentator should.

My fellow Jews do not need to agree with me about Netanyahu. They do not need to pass anyone’s political purity test.

Whether they march against the Israeli government, defend it, or wrestle privately with Israel, they are my fellow Jews.

Their safety is not negotiable.

Anyone who attacks them is responsible for that choice. Not Netanyahu. Not Israel. Not the victims.

As a Democrat, I am perfectly capable of recognizing when voters in the other party do the right thing. Florida Republicans were given the opportunity to nominate two openly antisemitic, racist pieces of human garbage. They rejected them.

Good.

James Fishback lost the Republican primary for governor. Dan Bilzerian lost his congressional primary against Rep. Randy Fine. Both men attracted national attention, dominated far-right corners of the internet and tried to turn hatred of Jews into a political brand. Neither came close to winning.

Their defeats are a reassuring sign that Groyperism, the online far-right movement built around Nick Fuentes, remains more powerful on social media than it is at the ballot box. These creeps can rack up views, likes and podcast appearances. They can convince themselves that their collection of angry incels represents a mass political awakening. But when actual voters showed up, Fishback and Bilzerian got their asses kicked.

That deserves to be acknowledged.

However, these were not merely unconventional conservatives questioning American aid to Israel. They were not thoughtful foreign-policy critics. They were not brave outsiders challenging the establishment. They were antisemites, full stop.

Fishback embraced Fuentes and the Groyper movement while trafficking in antisemitic conspiracy theories and running a viciously racist campaign against Byron Donalds. He repeatedly called Donalds, who is Black, a “slave” and reportedly told a Black Floridian that the person should be lynched. This is not conservatism. It is not populism. It is the diseased politics of the white nationalist gutter dressed up for a generation raised on livestreams.

Bilzerian was somehow even more blatant. He targeted Fine specifically as a Jew, promoted claims about Jewish control, questioned the Holocaust and used Hitler imagery in campaign propaganda. He reportedly referred to the architect of the October 7 massacre as a hero and repeatedly attacked Fine with an antisemitic slur.

There was no ambiguity. No missing context. No reasonable alternative interpretation.

Dan Bilzerian ran for Congress as an antisemite. Anyone who supported him knew, or should have known, exactly what they were supporting.

Florida Republicans rejected him, but nearly 19 percent of voters in that congressional primary still chose him. Bilzerian received almost 17,000 votes and finished second in a five-person field. Fishback received roughly 10 percent of the statewide gubernatorial vote. These were not a few dozen neo-Nazis screaming into the void. Tens of thousands of people looked at two candidates openly marinating in antisemitism and racism and decided, “Yes, that is my guy.”

That is scary as hell.

I am originally from Florida. It been my home more than once. I have many friends and family there. I understand that Florida politics have always included more than their fair share of crooks, cranks and shameless attention seekers, but there is a difference between voting for an embarrassing candidate and voting for someone who openly targets an ethnic and religious minority.

These voters were not tricked by a hidden recording released the night before the election. Fishback and Bilzerian advertised their ugliness. Hatred was the product they were selling.

The results also tell us something important about the current political moment. Large numbers of Americans have soured on Israel and its government. Candidates who call for an end to military aid, condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza or support a Palestinian state are winning elections. As a Democrat, I believe we must preserve the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu does not make someone an antisemite. Opposing a particular Israeli policy does not mean someone hates Jews.

Blaming Jews for controlling America is antisemitism. Questioning the Holocaust is antisemitism. Calling for “Zionists” to be imprisoned while claiming Jews control Hollywood and the media is antisemitism. Targeting a candidate because he is Jewish is antisemitism.

These are not difficult distinctions unless someone is deliberately trying to blur them.

Earlier this year, Democratic congressional candidate Maureen Galindo lost a Texas runoff after spreading grotesque anti-Jewish conspiracies and calling for “American Zionists” to be imprisoned. Leading Democrats condemned her, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Hakeem Jeffries and Texas Senate nominee James Talarico. Galindo lost with about 40 percent of the vote.

That result was also disturbing, and Democrats should not minimize it. Antisemitism is not acceptable when it comes wrapped in progressive language any more than it is acceptable when it comes wearing a MAGA hat. If someone uses “Zionist” as a transparent substitute for “Jew,” Democrats have a responsibility to call it what it is. We cannot demand that Republicans confront Fuentes while making excuses for hatred in our own coalition.

There is, however, a serious difference in how the two parties currently approach political guardrails. Democrats broadly united against Galindo. Prominent Republicans condemned Bilzerian, but much of the conservative movement continues treating Fuentes and his Groyper followers as edgy young rebels who should be debated, courted or quietly tolerated.

They should not be courted. They should be politically destroyed.

Nick Fuentes is not offering a fresh direction for conservatism. He is reheating some of the oldest and most murderous lies in Western history for lonely young men with broadband connections. His movement takes personal failure, economic anxiety and social isolation, then tells its followers that Jews, women, immigrants and Black Americans are responsible for everything wrong with their lives.

It is pathetic. It is dangerous. And it is spreading.

Republicans should be celebrating the defeat of Fishback and Bilzerian, but they should not pretend the problem has been solved. Nearly one in five Republican voters in Florida’s 6th District chose an open antisemite. Around one in ten Republican gubernatorial voters backed a candidate associated with Fuentes.

Those numbers are not a victory lap. They are a fire alarm.

The good news is that the antisemites lost.

The terrifying news is that tens of thousands of Floridians knew exactly what these men represented and voted for them anyway.

A lot has to change before the next group of antisemitic assholes gets more than attention.

Next time, they might get power.

Please note: Randy Fine is a piece of garbage too…

A real “Sophie’s Choice” situation for Floridians in that fuggin’ race yesterday…

There is a version of the last two and a half years where Israel emerges from October 7th with something it rarely gets: near-universal global sympathy, a clear moral case, and the credibility to lead on a genuine peace process. That window existed. From a progressive standpoint, it closed because one man chose his own political survival over Israeli security, Palestinian lives, and Israel’s long-term standing in the world, and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu.

The sympathy Israel had, and lost

In the days after October 7th, condemnation of Hamas’s attack was close to unanimous, including from progressives who have spent years criticizing the occupation. That baseline of solidarity mattered. It gave Israel room to respond in a way that isolated Hamas rather than isolating Israel itself.

Instead, the war that followed produced a civilian death toll in Gaza that human rights organizations, UN bodies, and much of the international community consider indefensible by any standard of proportionality. Mass displacement, the deliberate restriction of food and medical aid, the destruction of hospitals and universities, and a West Bank where settler violence has expanded with the tacit blessing of ministers in Netanyahu’s own cabinet: this is not what security looks like. It’s what happens when a government stops distinguishing between defeating an armed group and collectively punishing a population. That’s why the International Court of Justice took genocide allegations seriously enough to issue provisional measures, why the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and why country after country, including longtime allies, has moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. Progressives didn’t invent this shift in world opinion. Netanyahu’s conduct of the war produced it.

A war that never seemed to have an endpoint

What makes this especially damning is that the war never had a coherent theory of victory. Hamas has not been eliminated. Hostage families spent months, some spent years, watching a government that talked about their loved ones as a priority while consistently choosing to escalate military operations instead of closing ceasefire deals that were reportedly on the table. Israeli reservists, retired generals, and hostage families themselves, not just outside critics, have said plainly that the war has served Netanyahu’s political survival more than any military objective.

That’s not a fringe accusation from people who dislike Israel. It comes from inside Israeli society, and it lines up with the facts. Netanyahu has been on trial for corruption since 2020. His coalition survives only because of far-right partners who’ve said outright they’ll bring down the government the moment a permanent ceasefire is signed. A prime minister who loses power risks both prison and the end of his career. Progressives have been right to point out that when a leader’s personal legal jeopardy and a country’s war aims become this entangled, the public deserves deep skepticism about whose interests are actually being served.

Why this matters beyond Netanyahu

The deeper cost isn’t Netanyahu’s approval rating, it’s Israel’s relationship with the rest of the democratic world, and with a rising generation that increasingly views the occupation, not just this war, as the central obstacle to peace. Polling shows young people across the US and Europe, including many young Jews, moving sharply away from unconditional support for Israeli government policy. That shift didn’t happen because progressives ran an effective messaging campaign. It happened because people watched the war unfold in real time and drew their own conclusions about who was responsible.

What a different government might do differently

This is the case progressives have been making for a change in Israeli leadership, and it’s a case grounded in outcomes, not just moral outrage. A center-left or unity government, freed from dependence on annexationist far-right coalition partners, would have had far more room to close a hostage deal a helluva lot quicker than what happened, commit to a real ceasefire, and reopen a credible path toward Palestinian statehood and an end to occupation, the only framework that has ever offered a durable peace. It could roll back settlement expansion instead of accelerating it. It could rebuild the international coalitions and moral standing that Netanyahu has spent this war burning through. None of that guarantees peace overnight. But it removes the specific political incentive, one man’s need to stay out of a courtroom, that progressives argue has made a just resolution impossible to reach.

The bottom line

Israel had real security needs after October 7th, and no honest accounting of this moment should minimize the trauma of that day. But from a progressive lens, security was never actually served by two years of war without a strategy, mounting civilian death, and a leader whose personal survival depends on the fighting continuing. Whether or not Netanyahu ever faces a courtroom for either the corruption charges or the ICC warrant, the damage to Israel’s standing in the world is already done. The path back starts with new leadership willing to choose peace over political self-preservation.

Fair to note: not everyone agrees with this framing. Some argue Israel’s declining international standing reflects decades-old dynamics in global coverage of the conflict, not this war or this leader specifically, and that any Israeli government would have faced intense pressure given Hamas’s attack and continued refusal to disarm or release hostages. That’s a real disagreement, and readers should know it exists.

Because here’s the truth. My Jewish identity is not a political accessory. It’s not so…

Read more

This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

Read more

There are bad ideas. There are insulting ideas. And then there are ideas so perfectly calibrated to offend common sense that they almost feel like parody… This is one of them.

According to the Financial Times, officials working with the U.S.-led Board of Peace, the body set up to oversee Gaza’s postwar future, have been exploring a stablecoin for the ter…

Read more

At some point you have to wonder if anyone in the White House has read the Constitution. Not skimmed it. Not quoted it selectively at rallies. Actually read it.

Because launching military strikes on Iran without congressional authorization is not a gray area. It is not creative interpretation. It is not bold leadership. It is a direct bypass of the branc…

Read more

On January 24th Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents in downtown Minneapolis. It happened in public. In daylight. On camera. Under circumstances that immediately raised serious questions.

Naturally, Minnesota officials did what officials in a functioning democracy are supposed to do: they asked for the evidence.

Naturally, t…

Read more

At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, President Trump once again reached for one of the most reckless analogies in American political discourse. Recounting COVID-era restrictions on church gatherings, Trump claimed Democrats behaved “like the Gestapo,” arresting worshippers and persecuting pastors. He framed himself as the victim of authoritari…

Read more

There is a reason Minnesota keeps showing up in MAGA talking points, social media rage bait, and national conservative outrage cycles. It is not because Minnesota is failing. It is because Minnesota is working, and that makes it dangerous.

By multiple national rankings, Minnesota is the second best state in the country to raise a family. That alone shoul…

Read more

Alex Jeffrey Pretti was dead.

Pretti was a 37 year old ICU nurs…

Read more

The federal arrest of Minneapolis civil rights attorney and activist Nekima Levy Armstrong, along with a member of the St. Paul school board, should matter to people far beyond Minnesota. While the incident itself took place at a church in St. Paul, the response from the federal government reveals something larger about how protest, religion, and state …

Read more

Subscribe

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said something recently that should be so obvious it barely deserves airtime: when a fraud happens, you investigate it, prosecute it, and arrest the person who did it. As an individual. Not as a stand in for their neighbors, their cousins, their mosque, their block, or an entire immigrant community.

And yet here we are this m…

Read more

Share

There is a particular genre of American foreign policy thinking that reappears every few years, usually on social media and cable news, and almost always ends badly. It goes something like this: if enough moral outrage is expressed loudly enough by Washington, authoritarian regimes will simply crumble. People will rise up, freedom will win, and America …

Read more

This wasn’t crowd control gone wrong. This wasn’t a chaotic protest spiraling out of control. This was ICE agents …

Read more

This week, Donald Trump once again revived the idea that the United States should acquire Greenland for national security reasons. Seems like a new way to distract from Venezuela now, if you ask me. But… I digress…

The …

Read more

I’ve been sitting with my reaction to the Maduro kidnapping for a few days now, mostly because every time I try to be “analytical” about it, the analysis collapses under the weight of something much simpler: revulsion.

Not outrage as performance. Not partisan fury. Just revulsion.

Because this wasn’t a complicated act carried out in a tragic gray zone. It…

Read more

I’ll admit it: when I see a headline about Israel these days, my first instinct isn’t curiosity—it’s fatigue. My shoulders tighten. I’m already bracing for the next argument, the next moral compromise, the next thing I’ll have to hold in tension as a left-wing Jew living in the diaspora. So when I read that Israel had announced diplomatic ties with Soma…

Read more