Glenn Loury Fired for Criticizing Israel's Offensive in Gaza

Glenn Loury, one of the most respected intellectual voices in America, has publicly revealed that he was dismissed from the Manhattan Institute for expressing his critical view of Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack.

In a recent conversation, Loury —an economist, author, and longtime political commentator known for his independent thinking— explained how his call for a ceasefire, coupled with the demand to release hostages, led to the abrupt cancellation of his senior fellowship at one of the country’s most prestigious think tanks.

“What Hamas did on October 7 was barbaric, and I oppose that,” Loury stated. “However, what I saw unfold afterward was a campaign of collective punishment that was horrific in the extreme. I didn’t want my country to be involved in that. And I wasn’t afraid to say it.”

The response was swift. According to Loury, just one day after his comments were published following a debate with journalist Eli Lake and analyst Matthew Cockerill, the Manhattan Institute informed him his affiliation was being terminated.

This incident has sparked concern among conservative leaders and free speech advocates. Rather than defending a diversity of viewpoints—even difficult ones—many institutions still tethered to the old establishment seem eager to silence dissenting voices, even from within the Republican spectrum.

Drawing the Line: Support for Israel, Not Moral Blindness
For Loury, calling for a ceasefire was not an act of betrayal nor a nod to progressive narratives. On the contrary, it was a principled stance rooted in rejecting the unnecessary suffering of innocent civilians. He emphasized that his proposal included the immediate release of hostages and an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas as a terrorist organization.

His position, however, struck a nerve among some who, while supporting Israel, refuse to tolerate any critique of its strategic decisions, even when thousands of civilian lives are at stake in Gaza.

“This is not what a civilized country should be doing,” Loury said firmly. “I oppose it.”

Another Example of Liberal Intolerance Among Institutional Elites?
While the Manhattan Institute has historically leaned conservative, in recent years many such institutions have drifted toward the liberal mainstream, where deviation from dominant narratives is quickly punished.

This trend highlights a dangerous pattern the Trump 2025 administration has warned about from day one: the rise of a cancel culture that punishes anyone who dares to think differently—even within the ranks of patriotic voices.

In contrast, President Donald Trump’s vision has remained crystal clear since his re-election: America must be a country where truth, justice, and free speech are upheld without fear of retaliation, regardless of one’s opinion.

Glenn Loury’s case is a wake-up call for the conservative movement to restore intellectual integrity by supporting voices that challenge us—even from within.

Conclusion: Dissent Is Not Betrayal
Loury is not alone. More Americans are beginning to realize that political correctness and ideological conformity are not democratic tools, but instruments of control.

As Loury himself put it: “I had a debate. I did it respectfully. I didn’t change my mind. And they fired me.”

The United States cannot allow institutional censorship to become the cost of having principles. And under President Trump’s leadership, true patriots will continue to speak out.