When ideology replaces fiduciary duty, public trust is the first casualty

For generations, the charge of “dual loyalty” has been one of the most persistent slurs directed at American Jews — a lazy accusation that their attachment to Israel somehow compromises their loyalty to the United States.

Most American Jews have rightly rejected that smear. But in recent years, something else has emerged: not divided loyalty, but overcorrection so extreme that it distorts judgment in the opposite direction.

That brings us to New York state comptroller candidate Drew Warshaw.

Warshaw has made divestment from Israeli bonds a centerpiece of his campaign, wrapping the proposal in the language of Passover, liberation, and moral responsibility. It is a striking presentation — Jewish identity deployed not as a source of connection, but as a credential for opposition to the Jewish state.

Strip away the rhetoric, however, and what remains is not a moral argument. It is a category error.

The New York state comptroller is responsible for managing nearly $300 billion in pension assets on behalf of teachers, firefighters, and other public employees. That role carries a clear and demanding fiduciary duty: to act in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries.

It is not a platform for foreign policy. It is not a vehicle for ideological activism. And it is certainly not a pulpit from which to prosecute political grievances, no matter how passionately held.

Israeli bonds make up a tiny fraction of the fund’s portfolio and have, at times, outperformed comparable instruments. Israel maintains strong credit ratings and a stable outlook. You can debate Israeli policy all day long, but “divest because I disagree” is not an investment strategy. It is a political statement. And that is precisely the problem.

Public officials are free to hold strong views. They are not free to subordinate their professional obligations to those views — especially when those obligations involve the retirement security of millions of people.

This is not about Israel. It is about whether public offices remain anchored in responsibility or drift into activism.

It is no accident that this argument is emerging in New York’s current political climate. In a state where progressive activism increasingly shapes primary elections, candidates are rewarded for ideological signaling, even in offices that are supposed to be insulated from it. Figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have helped expand the space for such positioning, blurring the line between governance and advocacy. That may play well on the campaign trail. It has no place in the management of a pension fund.

Once that line is crossed, there is no limiting principle. Today it is Israel. Tomorrow it could be energy companies, defense contractors, or any industry that falls out of political favor. The result is the same: politics displacing prudence, and ideology replacing judgment.

For decades, critics suggested that affection for Israel would compromise Jewish Americans in positions of responsibility. That claim was false — and offensive.

But the inverse is no more acceptable. If a comptroller were to favor investments based on personal attachment to a foreign country, that would be a breach of duty. But so too is the opposite: allowing hostility toward a foreign country to shape investment decisions that are supposed to be governed by financial judgment alone.

The retired teacher in Schenectady and the firefighter in Buffalo are not participants in a geopolitical debate. They are beneficiaries of a pension fund. Their financial security should not rise or fall based on the ideological commitments of the person managing it.

The issue, in the end, is not dual loyalty. It is whether there is any loyalty at all to the responsibilities of the office. New York’s pensioners deserve a comptroller whose first, last and only obligation is to the fund.

Anything less is not a political position. Public office is not a platform for ideological expression. It is a responsibility. And when that responsibility is subordinated to politics, the people who pay the price are not governments abroad but retirees at home.

Stephen M. Flatow is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, the author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror,” and the president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi. He divides his time between Jerusalem and New Jersey.

Opinion