A West Point graduate whose communist graduation photo drew national attention is back under scrutiny, this time over reported praise for Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Townhall reports that Spenser Rapone is now a PhD student at the University of Chicago. Journalist Jon Levine described his program as fully funded and highlighted posts on Rapone’s public X account. Those posts, quoted by Townhall, include tributes to Yahya Sinwar and Hassan Nasrallah. The controversy centers on specific expressions of admiration, not simply Rapone’s decision to study Arab history or pursue an academic career.
Rapone’s earlier controversy began with a photograph from his May 2016 West Point graduation. He shared it on social media in 2017 while serving as a second lieutenant. In the photograph, he raised his fist and displayed the inside of his service cap, where he had written “Communism will win.” According to Townhall, the Army investigated and found that he had advocated online for a socialist revolution and disparaged high-ranking officers. He resigned in 2018 and received an other-than-honorable discharge, ending the military chapter that made him publicly recognizable.
West Point Graduate’s Posts Go Beyond Academic Study
The newer controversy concerns statements attributed to Rapone on X, including posts written in Arabic. Townhall quotes an Oct. 18, 2024, message as saying, “Glory to the martyred leader Yahya Sinwar.” It was posted shortly after Israel killed the Hamas leader. The article identifies Sinwar as the mastermind of the Oct. 7 massacre. That context matters when assessing the language: this was a tribute to a named leader, rather than a general statement about civilians or opposition to war. Calling him a martyr and offering him glory conveys admiration, which is why the post warrants scrutiny.
Townhall also reproduces a September 28, 2024, post honoring Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him. Its quoted translation reads, “Glory to the martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, symbol of dignity for the Arab homeland and all free peoples around the world. May God have mercy on him.” Townhall describes Nasrallah as responsible for thousands of terrorist attacks, including attacks that killed Americans. The tribute therefore carries a significance that cannot fairly be reduced to an abstract disagreement over foreign policy. It praises the individual and presents him as a symbol worthy of honor.
View Rapone’s Oct. 18 post on X.
View Rapone’s September 28 post on X.
The Anniversary Message and the Limits of the Record
Another post appeared on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks. Townhall quotes Rapone’s message as saying, “Long live the resistance, and glory to the martyrs.” Read alongside the tributes to Sinwar and Nasrallah, that statement adds to the basis for criticism of his public views. Its wording does not name a particular group or individual, however, and that distinction should remain clear. The strongest criticism rests on what Rapone is reported to have written, without adding intentions or activities that the reporting does not establish.
View Rapone’s Oct. 7 post on X.
Levine’s November 11, 2026, post said Rapone was in a fully funded PhD program and regularly expressed support for Islamic terrorism and Bashar Al-Assad. Townhall likewise describes an affinity for Syria’s now-deposed Assad regime. Those characterizations should be distinguished from the specific Sinwar and Nasrallah quotations reproduced in the article. The account does not reproduce a particular Assad statement or provide details about Rapone’s doctoral research. Criticism is more credible when it keeps documented language separate from broader descriptions of his politics.
View Levine’s November 11 post on X.
The university connection raises an institutional question, but the available reporting leaves important details unanswered. Townhall does not identify the funding source, explain the terms of Rapone’s support or include a University of Chicago response. It also does not include a response from Rapone to the criticism. Enrollment alone does not establish that a university endorses a student’s statements. Likewise, a fully funded program should not automatically be described as taxpayer funding when the reporting does not establish who pays.
View Levine’s related post on X.
Funding Questions Require Answers, Not Assumptions
Melissa Braunstein raised the central objection in a November 12, 2026, post: “What is the societal upside of funding any of this? Because I see none.” That is a pointed question about the value of supporting someone whose reported public statements honor terrorist leaders. Answering it responsibly requires knowing what is funded and under what conditions. Academic study and personal political advocacy are not automatically the same activity. Still, academic credentials do not shield a student’s public praise of violent figures from criticism.
View Braunstein’s November 12 post on X.
The clearest issue here is Rapone’s own reported language, not an assumed position held by everyone around him. Praising Sinwar and Nasrallah deserves direct scrutiny without turning the controversy into an unsupported accusation against an entire university. Questions about institutional support remain open because the funding details and university response are absent from Townhall’s account. Those gaps should guide further questions rather than invite invented answers. The published tributes already provide ample grounds for criticism on their own.
Source: Townhall
المجد للقائد الشهيد يحيى السنوار
— Spenser Rapone 🇵🇸 (@SpenserRapone) October 18, 2024