In a recent Moment Debate, the two participants discussed whether the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had made the right decision in announcing it would narrow its mission to focus more exclusively on protecting Jews. North American Values Institute founder David L. Bernstein argued “Yes,” supporting the move as strategically sound, while Nexus Project president and national director Jonathan Jacoby argued the opposite. But the problem is larger than this question alone. Not only should the ADL not shrink its mandate, it must urgently correct its direction and its leadership. At a time when anti-Jewish hate crimes are rising, the ADL’s strength depends on its broad civil-rights mission, its historic alliances and its moral clarity. These foundations are now being eroded.
[Read: “Moment Debate: Is the ADL Right to Narrow Its Mission to Focus More on Protecting Jews?”]
The ADL was founded in 1913 to defend Jews and to work in partnership with the NAACP and the Urban League to fight the KKK and end segregation. This legacy is not a symbolic part of its history. It is the core of what made the ADL one of America’s most respected civil rights institutions.
The ADL recently erased most references to this civil rights history from its website, apparently in an effort to appease FBI Director Kash Patel and the Trump administration. This retreat comes at the worst possible moment. Black-Jewish alliances are under strain. Misinformation is spreading faster than truth across social media. Tens of thousands of college students are being exposed to false narratives that portray Jews as “white colonizers.” How can we teach young Jews to be proud and stand strong when the organization created to defend them is erasing its own identity? How can our allies trust the ADL when they see it backing down in the face of neo-Nazi threats while focusing its attention on attacking New York’s first Muslim mayor before he has even taken office?
Over the past year, the ADL has repeatedly refused to challenge the Trump movement or call for accountability when, for example, Republican staffers were exposed sending text messages praising Hitler. Instead of issuing any serious call to action, ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt issued a single weakly worded X post. He hasn’t demanded accountability or organized a coalition of human rights groups to demand resignations or consequences. The issue didn’t rise to the level of even an official statement through the ADL’s official press center. This is not leadership.
The ADL can only protect Jews by restoring its integrity, taking consistent moral positions, standing proudly on its civil rights history and confronting hate in every political direction.
The ADL’s pattern of erasing its own research appears similarly intended to appease MAGA-aligned critics. After public criticism from Elon Musk and others in the Trump administration after the death of Charlie Kirk, including complaints about references to Kirk’s organization Turning Point USA, the ADL removed thousands of pages of research from its Glossary of Extremism, including research on American hate groups. This is the same Elon Musk that the ADL attempted to defend after he used a Nazi salute at an event the evening of Trump’s second inauguration.
The ADL has also missed opportunities to note when leaders on the political left use clear hate speech. When Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin declined to repudiate the phrase “Globalize the Intifada” during an interview on PBS about the Mamdani campaign, relying instead on vague language about the Democratic Party’s “big tent,” the ADL did not speak out or urge civil rights, labor or human rights leaders to denounce the normalization of hate speech in any political party. As for hate speech on the right, surely the ADL can do more than send out tepid X posts condemning Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes. Why is it not directly confronting powerful institutions like the Heritage Foundation, whose CEO Kevin Roberts has normalized dangerous rhetoric in one of the nation’s largest think tanks?
To many observers, it appears that the ADL is playing favorites to maintain access to political power. This strategy is causing real damage to the organization’s reputation and weakening its ability to protect the Jewish community.
In 2010, I joined other young Jewish leaders in condemning ADL’s longtime chief, Abe Foxman, for his opposition to building an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. We believed the ADL’s actions would damage Jewish–Muslim relationships and betray the organization’s stated mission.
The challenges today may appear different, but today, too, I want the ADL to fight all forms of hate and to work in strong coalition with the major civil rights organizations of our time. To maintain clarity of mission and impartiality, the ADL must avoid political bias and stay rooted in its founding purpose. It lost sight of these principles in 2010 when it contributed to Islamophobic tensions, and it is repeating those mistakes today. The consequences of this failure will be significant and long-lasting unless the organization corrects its course.
The ADL cannot protect Jews by narrowing its mission. It can only protect Jews by restoring its integrity, taking consistent moral positions, standing proudly on its civil rights history and confronting hate in every political direction. What both Moment debaters missed in their responses is that the ADL’s crisis is not merely about scope or strategy. It is about courage, consistency and the willingness to confront hate wherever it appears. Until the ADL restores that moral clarity, it cannot fulfill any version of its mission.
Scott Goodstein was Barack Obama’s external online director and the architect of his 2008 social media and mobile campaigns. Goodstein is the CEO of Catalyst Campaigns and co-founder of Project Shomer/ShomerPAC
Image credit: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.