Opinion Columnists Turn Hard Against Political Course

Prominent voices like Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman are sharply criticizing the rise of extremism and misinformation in politics.

Published on Feb. 23, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Prominent opinion columnists like Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman are taking a strong stance against the current political climate, marked by the rise of extremism, misinformation, and corruption. Krugman criticizes the "quackistocracy" - the influence of conspiracy theorists and anti-science activists in policymaking. Friedman lambasts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for "spitting in America's face" and enabling the growth of an "apartheid state." The columnists' shift in tone signals a potential turning point, as elite opinion appears to be hardening against the country's troubling political trajectory.

Why it matters

The opinion pages have long been criticized for "bothsidesing" political issues, giving equal weight to fringe or extremist views. The fact that prominent columnists are now taking such a firm stance against the current state of politics suggests a potential shift in how the media covers these issues, which could have significant implications for public discourse and the political landscape.

The details

Krugman criticizes the influence of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Oz, who have made careers peddling medical misinformation, yet are now in positions of power in the government. Friedman lambasts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for pursuing policies that threaten Israel's democracy and relations with the U.S., arguing that Netanyahu is the greatest threat to Israel, not Iran.

  • In a column published on February 19, 2026, Paul Krugman criticized the "quackistocracy" - the influence of conspiracy theorists and anti-science activists in policymaking.
  • Also on February 19, 2026, Thomas Friedman published a scathing column condemning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's actions.

The players

Paul Krugman

A prominent economist and op-ed columnist for The New York Times, known for his progressive political views and criticism of conservative economic policies.

Thomas Friedman

A veteran foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times, known for his centrist political views and advocacy for globalization and free trade.

Benjamin Netanyahu

The current Prime Minister of Israel, known for his right-wing nationalist policies and strained relations with the U.S. government.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

An environmental activist and prominent anti-vaccine advocate, who has been appointed as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the current administration.

Dr. Oz

A celebrity doctor and former TV personality, who has been appointed to oversee Medicare and Medicaid in the current administration.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Last week the Food and Drug Administration refused to review Moderna's new mRNA-based flu vaccine. They didn't reject it based on evidence; they wouldn't even look at it, in line with RFK Jr.'s evidence-free, dogmatic assertion that mRNA technology, which gave us Covid vaccines, is useless and harmful.”

— Paul Krugman, Columnist (The New York Times)

“Let's stop beating around the bush: Israel's far-right government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is spitting in America's face and telling us it's raining. It's not raining. Bibi is playing both President Trump and American Jews for fools. And if the U.S. lets him get away with it, we are fools.”

— Thomas Friedman, Columnist (The New York Times)

What’s next

The columnists' sharp criticism of the current political climate could signal a shift in how the media covers these issues, potentially leading to more scrutiny and accountability for elected officials and policymakers who promote extremism and misinformation.

The takeaway

The fact that prominent opinion columnists like Krugman and Friedman are taking such a firm stance against the rise of extremism, corruption, and anti-science sentiment in politics suggests that the tide may be turning on the media's tendency to "bothsides" political debates. This could have significant implications for how the public perceives and engages with the country's political discourse.