Hasan Piker

Recently, Hasan Piker has become a controversial figure within the Democratic Party. Who is Hasan Piker, you ask? I'll rely on Wikipedia to answer that question:

Hasan Doğan Piker (born July 25, 1991), known online by the name HasanAbi, is an American Twitch streamer, influencer, and left-wing political commentator. His content primarily consists of political and social commentary and media consumption. As of 2026, Piker's Twitch channel ranks among the platform's most-subscribed. Piker has been described as one of the biggest voices on the U.S. left.

After the 2024 presidential election in which online media played a major role, many Democrats asked, "where is the left's Joe Rogan?" One answer was "Hasan Piker." Piker may have been invisible to most of the typical DC Urban Moms and Dads audience. Face it, we are getting old. But he was well-known to my college-aged sons. Conventional wisdom after the election was that Democrats were struggling with youth, especially young males. That was a demographic with whom Piker was very popular.

However, there were a few issues preventing mainstream Democrats from viewing Piker as the answer to Joe Rogan. Piker is young and Muslim. Both of those groups had strong objections to the mainstream Democrats' position regarding Israel's war in Gaza. Not surprisingly, Piker was a vocal critic of U.S. policy towards Israel and Gaza and, not infrequently, focused considerable anger at Democrats. Vice President Kamala Harris undoubtedly harmed her presidential aspirations by keeping critics of Israel at arm’s length during her campaign. Many Democratic leaders appear to favor continuing such a policy. As such, Piker has not particularly welcome by most Democrats.

An early exception to that rule was Zohran Mamdani during his campaign for Mayor of New York City. Mamdani appeared on Piker's show in April 2025 during the primary campaign. Piker also attended several of Mamdani's rallies and was a vocal supporter. Mamdani elicited considerable criticism for his association with Piker, but defended himself by saying:

I also think that part of the reason why Democrats are in the situation that we are in, of being a permanent minority in this country, is we are looking only to speak to journalists and streamers and Americans with whom we agree on every single thing that they say.

Mamdani argued that it was important to reach out to audiences with whom Democrats might not always agree.

Recently, there have been robust efforts to encourage Democrats to distance themselves from Piker. Much of this is a result of coverage by Jewish Insider, which has published multiple articles criticizing Piker. Jonathan Cowan and Lily Cohen took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to describe Piker as "anti-American, antiwomen, anti-Western and antisemitic" and to argue that "No Democrat should engage with him." The organization "Third Way" adopted almost exactly the same language to call on Democrats "to confront extremist, antisemitic voices on the left, naming specifically Twitch streamer Hasan Piker." Recently, Mallory McMorrow, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, criticized one of her opponents, Abdul El-Sayed, for campaigning with Piker. McMorrow compared Piker to Nick Fuentes, the groyper far-right white nationalist.

This leads to the question of whether Piker deserves to be described in such a manner. I think that it is fair to stipulate that anyone who spends as much time talking, especially in the manner that Piker does, is going to occasionally say something that is regrettable. I think that it goes without saying that there is not a single popular political commentator with whom I agree with 100%. Another question is whether among those regrettable statements are ones that might be considered disqualifying. I would argue that despite how McMorrow, Third Way, and the others have portrayed Piker, he has not crossed lines that they suggest that he has. Rather, they have tended to misrepresent his statements, mostly by removing context and nuance. I also contend that most of the criticism leveled at Piker is due to his anti-Israel positions. 

Piker's critics have found a surprisingly few statements by him with which to object. They tend to rely on the same few examples, as if reading from the same note cards. The most popular is the claim that Piker said that "America deserved 9/11." He did, in fact, say this, but I think the broader context is important. Piker was conversing with Representative Dan Crenshaw and discussing how U.S. actions abroad can have unwanted consequences. More specifically, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida were once supported by the United States. The U.S. armed and trained bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He was, in effect, a chicken that came home to roost. As Piker said about 9/11, "we brought it on ourselves." Certainly one can disagree with this statement, but it is not particularly outrageous. Even Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative who has been described as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" recently wrote:

Even the threat of terrorism from the region was a consequence of American involvement, not the reason for it. Had the United States not been deeply and consistently involved in the Muslim world since the 1940s, Islamic militants would have little interest in attacking an indifferent nation 5,000 miles and two oceans away.

Piker obviously went too far by saying that the U.S. "deserved 9/11," but the notion that 9/11 was a consequence of prior U.S. actions is not particularly controversial.

Piker has also been accused of referring to ultra-Orthodox Jews as "inbred." This is another case in which, strictly speaking, he is guilty as charged. However, there is considerable missing context when presented so narrowly. Piker was discussing a controversy in Israel regarding military service by ultra-Orthodox Jews. Israel has compulsory military service for Jewish males and females. However, the ultra-Orthodox were traditionally exempted. In 2024, the Israeli Supreme Court put an end to the exemption. Some of the ultra-Orthodox protested and threatened to leave Israel rather than serve in the military. During one of his Twitch streams, Piker described both options as "hilarious," suggesting that it would be funny if they left Israel and "If they serve in the military and they get their inbred, untrained, asses shipped into southern Lebanon, again, very funny."

Piker was clearly referring to the ultra-Orthodox the way some Americans might describe the hillbillies of Appalachia and probably should not have chosen such language. It is also clear that Piker did not describe the ultra-Orthodox in such a manner due to their religion, but rather their insular lifestyle. Moreover, Piker was right on the money when it came to the predicted lack of training. Ultra-Orthodox were eventually enlisted into a special battalion. Recently, that battalion had a confrontation with a CNN crew that was in the West Bank interviewing Palestinians. Soldiers from the battalion physically detained the CNN crew, choking a cameraman in the process. This created considerable controversy, and the battalion was withdrawn from the West Bank and ordered to undergo additional training.

Certainly, it is possible to object to Piker's language, but I think it is a stretch to describe it as antisemitic. Piker was referring to a very specific group that lives very parochial lives. Moreover, Piker has said that he refers to other groups in the same way and has called "white nationalists, white supremacists, racists, neo-Nazis all inbred". Nevertheless, Piker has also said:

But yeah, I agree, that’s the one quote that’s like, someone could hear that and sincerely be like, ‘Oh, this guy’s actually antisemitic.’ It’s one that I will be more careful not to utilize in the future. Yeah, of course I regret that.”

Piker addressed the above quotes and the others that have been used to argue that Democrats should distance themselves from him in a recent interview with The New Republic. I think that, if you read the article, you will find Piker to be considerably more thoughtful than you might initially. That is not to say that you won't disagree with him. To the contrary, you probably will. But, are the things that Piker has said disqualifying?

By his own admission, some of Piker's statements could be interpreted as being antisemitic. Therefore, it is hard to criticize those who interpret the remarks that way. However, I think that he makes a good argument that he is not antisemitic. I would argue that the label is used more due to his anti-Israel politics than due to his views of Jews. I do not find anything he has said to be disqualifying.

I would compare Piker to Sister Souljah at the time of her famous confrontation with Bill Clinton. Clinton criticized Sister Souljah in order to show that he was not beholden to the extremes of the Democratic Party. So-called "Sister Souljah moments," have become an almost expected action by Democratic centrists these days. When McMorrow criticized El-Sayed for associating with Piker, she was engaging in her own "Sister Souljah moment," sending a message that, unlike El-Sayed, she was willing to condemn personalities within her own party. However, we are not living in 1992, and Piker is not Sister Souljah. Israel is extremely unpopular these days among Democrats, especially younger ones. To the extent that McMorrow is perceived as attacking Piker due to his anti-Israel politics rather than actual antisemitism, I think the more it will hurt her. When she describes Piker as being like Fuentes, McMorrow really discredits herself.