Elise Stefanik's New Book Exposes Her as a Fraud
someone please tell Claudine Gay that I'm sorry
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik published a book this month about the Claudine Gay affair. Spoiler alert: don’t waste your money, it’s dogshit, and written at an 8th-grade reading level for braindead, geriatric Fox News viewers.
I bought the book solely because it mentions me, so I was curious, and felt obligated to point out the lies and propaganda she is spreading.
You can buy it here:
The first thing I noticed is that, ironically, Stefanik plagiarized the title:
Poisoned Ivy (1981): A Student Witnesses The Origin of the “Woke Mind Virus”
Poison Ivy (2022): How Elite Colleges Divide Us
Poisoned Ivies (2026): Moral Rot at America’s Elite Universities
Before I even read page 1, I noticed a groan-worthy, blatant lie in the first line of the book jacket where Stefanik claims that the Claudine Gay hearing was "the most-watched congressional hearing in history."
She doesn’t make an attempt to quantify or prove this claim, because there is zero chance it’s true. For example, 85% of American households saw at least part of the Watergate hearings… do you really think even 5% of of American households saw the Claudine Gay hearing?
The rest of the book was much of the same.
Introduction
Typical slop about how society-is-losing-trust in universities because of DEI and wokeness, mixed with plenty of bragging about how historic her hearing was.
“the world heard [me]”
“it would become a historic earthquake that instantly reshaped the debate on higher education overnight”
“the hearing changed the trajectory of higher education”
“as a result of [my question], elite campuses are in the midst of a generational upheaval”
“nothing is the same”
“our hearing reset the course of American higher education”
Readers quickly learn that the entire purpose of the book is to brag about, promote, and re-live this 1-minute long clip:
Stefanik: Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
Gay: It can be, depending on the context.
Stefanik: What's the context?
Gay: Targeted as individual. Targeted at individual.
Stefanik: It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
Gay: Anti-Semitic rhetoric... Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct and we do take action.
Stefanik: So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct, correct?
Gay: Again, it depends on the context.
Stefanik: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
She re-plays this clip hundreds of times in the book.
Except, Stefanik is histrionically overstating what she actually means.
When she refers to “calls for genocide,” she is actually just referring to students chanting “from the river to the sea,” a slogan that featured prominently in the DOJ’s antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard.
Stefanik was part of a concerted effort by the Israel lobby and to characterize the phrase as an explicit call for genocide. For example:
Combat Antisemitism Movement: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free is a violent call to genocide that should be banned from the social media platform.”
Senator John Kennedy: “The phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ is a call for genocide against Jewish people. It’s a call to annihilate Israel.”
Senate Resolution 497: “This resolution expresses the sense that the slogan from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free and its derivations are anti-Semitic and a call for genocide and destruction of the Jewish state.”
What makes the charge of genocide especially strange is that this slogan has deep roots in Revisionist Zionism itself. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist Zionist movement, wrote a 1929 song titled “The East Bank of the Jordan,” which became one of Betar’s (an Israeli terrorist movement) best-known anthems:
“The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too.”
The Likud Party’s 1977 platform then stated:
“Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
So, if “from the river to the sea” is treated as inherently genocidal when Palestinians use it, then the same standard has to be applied consistently. Either the phrase is not genocidal, or Israel is founded on the same calls for genocide.
During her book tour, she was brutally exposed by Jake Tapper for this hypocrisy:
Chapter 1: The Hearing Heard Around the World
This chapter begins by tediously whining about Hamas and Hitler for several pages, then whines about Hamas and Hitler for several more pages, then whines about university students having the nerve to sign petitions and open letters.
Stefanik then name-drops several of her colleagues and profusely praises each one. The prose is as sloppy as it is sycophantic:
“A dear friend and mentor, Dr. Virginia Foxx has a spine of steel and a heart of pure gold. Virginia Foxx is a no-nonsense, legendary member of Congress not just among Republicans, but across the aisle. Sh’e just a bull, and she just charges in every day, non-stop, from sun up until way after the sun goes down. At age 82, Virginia put many fellow members of Congress to shame with her dogged work ethic and determination. She keeps a packed schedule that would tire out even the spriteliest Gen-Z movers and shakers.
Stefanik then spends a few pages describing how she prepared for the hearing:
“I stayed up late working through reams of research”
“I pre-drafted several rounds of questions “
“I thought to myself, how can I ask this in a very moral way, that will force them to answer YES?”
What’s fraudulent about this narrative is that she conspicuously omits any mention of Shabbos Kestenbaum and “a small gathering of Jewish students” working “behind the scenes” to “help write” her now-infamous genocide question, also writing her follow-up questions:
Kestenbaum [2025]: Anyone know what happened on December 6th of 2023? Okay, it was the congressional testimony of Claudine Gay, Sally Kornbluth, and Liz McGill, three of the most morally bankrupt individuals in American history. And I’ll tell you some behind the scenes. We were working with Congress on drafting those questions. Tthat was not meant to be a trick question. I know because we helped write the questions.
I thought to myself, okay, how can I ask this in the most straightforward, simplest way possible, not a political question, but a moral one. And I thought they were going to answer yes to the question, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct? I was planning on following up when I thought they would say yes of, why haven’t you taken disciplinary action? But I didn’t have the opportunity to follow up because they answered so abysmally.
Kestenbaum is only mentioned briefly in Stefanik's book, where she says he was threatened by a man waving a machete:
The line about a Harvard employee waving a machete at Kestenbaum leaves out that the "machete" was a toy.
The video with the toy machete is about the false exoneration of Jeffrey Epstein’s close friend, Alan Dershowitz, not even about Kestenbaum. You be the judge:
In April 2026, Stefanik then goes on Kestenbaum's show to promote her book, and neither mentions it to their audience that he was actually the one who wrote her “question heard around the world”:
I watched the entire 22 minutes.
There is 1 minute worth clipping:
To start the clip, Shabbos lies about not knowing that her not-a-trick question was coming:
Kestenbaum [2026]: “What I did not know, this was in the book, that wasn’t even meant to be a trick question!”
Of course, he was the one that wrote it, and specifically wrote it to not be a trick question:
Kestenbaum [2025]: “We were working with Congress on drafting those questions. That was not meant to be a trick question. I know because we helped write the questions.”
She then makes a hilarious slip up, almost saying that he was there to write it for her, before catching and correcting herself:
Stefanik [2026]: “Well you [Shabbos] were there—I mean… uh… people were there…”
She then repeats several times how she came up with the question herself, and how she wrote follow up questions:
Stefanik [2026]: “I was planning on following up, but I didn’t have the opportunity to follow up.”
Of course, a year earlier, Shabbos framed it as HE WAS THE ONE who was writing the question and follow up questions:
Kestenbaum [2025]: "“I was planning on following up … But I didn’t have the opportunity to follow up because they answered so abysmally.”
Chapter 2: Harvard
This chapter is dedicated to explaining that Elise Stefanik is a humble, hardworking genius because she got into Harvard. She wants you to know that she thrived around other geniuses, because she is a genius, and she enjoyed her time as an undergrad. She was very popular and used her time there to become friends with many famous, powerful people.
Did I mention that she’s a hardworking genius, and very popular?
Chapter 3: Harvard Exposed
Complaining about Harvard going woke interspersed with complaining about Hamas and Hitler. Then complaining length about how Claudine Gay was insufficiently loyal to Israel. Then complaining about Qatar.
Then bragging about how she was featured on Saturday Night Live.
Chapter 4: University of Pennsylvania
Complained about anti-semitism at UPenn for 12 pages.
Chapter 5: Columbia
Complained about anti-semitism at Columbia for 26 pages.
Chapter 6: Other Ivies and Beyond
Complained about anti-semitism at other schools for 39 pages, including screeching about several obviously staged, fake, false-flag hate crimes, such as a Yale student who blatantly lied about a Palestine flag hitting her eye which she described as being “stabbed.”
Chapter 7: What Went Wrong?
Complaining about DEI, Hamas, Qatar, and the communist infiltration of the Chinese Communist party, and concludes that to counter China’s influence on American campuses, TikTok must be sold to a Zionist.
Chapter 8: How We Fix It
She talks about what role the government can play in reforming American higher education. Her primary solution is to arrest, suspend, and expel all anti-Israel “agitators” on campus.
Another solution is to pass laws IHRA laws, including two pieces of legislation called “Combatting Anti-Semitism” and “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” to direct federal agencies to use “all available and appropriate legal tools to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.”
Visas should be revoked.
Oh, and please support Bari Weiss’ University of Austin, and support Peter Thiel.
I’m no fan of Stefanik. Anti-semitism is also a favorite boogie man of the current elites. The ADL sucks.
But ironically those ivies are probably the most anti-Semitic places in the country in relation to student body politics. I’m sure plenty of students would love a few more Oct 7s. Just talk to them. They really do hate Jews.
And I’m saying this as someone who advocates for investigation and prosecution of Israeli groups that are blatantly manipulating US politics and discourse.
This might be of interest....an internal report from Harvard.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Harvard-ASAIB-Report-4.29.25.pdf
Obviously the issues are contentious, but those of us who graduated from the institution and have supported it over the years have a significant stake in it and clear legal rights that matter. Among other things, e.g., because Harvard is a private enterprise we are the only ones who have a vote for candidates to the leadership of the alumni association and the board of overseers. And all many of us ask is that the documented internal rules for violations on matters like occupation of property, notice of demonstrations, blocking of speakers, disruption of classes and other university business and so on apply equally to everyone. Many of those rules were waived in the case of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus, and it is perfectly legit to argue that was wrong.
More: there are very serious problems at the school -- which is why e.g. FIRE continuously ranks Harvard at the bottom of all universities in the country on its support for free speech:
https://rankings.fire.org/campus/166027-harvard-university?demo=all&year=2025&csfs=false&neutrality=true&spotlight=yellow
Also, on titles, perhaps you were being sarcastic, but you cannot plagiarize a title, as titles are not protected by copyright. Stefanik did not plagiarize her title -- that's not legally possible.
Further, speaking of plagiarism, that was the charge--which seems to be a convincing one if you read the relevant documents--that brought Gay down, not the congressional testimony. Gay was obviously a weak candidate for the position, and there are many who did not mourn her departure (just ask Roland Fryer, whose treatment by Gay is one of the issues FIRE has addressed in its past rankings).
You seem so enraged that none of this is likely to have any impact. And I am not arguing that Stefanik's book is strong, or that Trump's approach to the school was the best one. But the notion that there is no real issue here is unconvincing. The courts have agreed there are very serious issues here in the recent past, as in the 2023 SCOTUS ruling that it had indeed violated the rights of applicants when considering Asian students:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
In fact, this case was considered sufficiently egregious to lead to a broader ruling that effectively ended affirmative action in the US--and note that this was a strongly supported ruling, 6-2 (Jackson recused herself).
Stefanik's book may be weak, but Harvard and many other similar institutions do have serious problems involving free speech and campus culture of which this episode is just one example. Denouncing Stefanik and others who make this case fixes nothing.