What’s Holding Up the Antisemitism Awareness Act?

1. Everyone Wants to Fight Antisemitism. But How?

The Antisemitism Awareness Act should have been a no-brainer. After all, who in Congress doesn’t think there’s a need to be aware of antisemitism and to fight it in every possible way? Who doesn’t believe that a dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents in the past two years requires Congress to take action?

Well, it isn’t that simple.

The bill was first introduced in the previous Congress, where it passed the House with a resounding 320-91 vote, but it never made it to the Senate’s schedule. When the new Congress came to town after the elections, the bill was reintroduced in the House and in the Senate, where a fiery debate in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week redrew the battle lines over what constitutes antisemitism in American public life and the role of Washington in eradicating hatred toward Jews.

The legislation focuses on one specific aspect of combating antisemitism. It requires the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which broadly defines many expressions of anti-Zionism as antisemitic, as the standard for judging college protests against Israel. 

The controversies surrounding the IHRA definition are not new, nor are the political divisions on this issue. Pro-Israel activists, alongside most mainstream Jewish organizations, believe the new bill and its reliance on the IHRA definition are a necessary tool to make sure that legitimate criticism of Israel does not devolve into hatred, which creates a sense of fear and lack of security for Jewish students. To put it simply, they want a bill that codifies the notion that while protesting Israeli actions in Gaza is fine, chanting calls for the elimination of the only Jewish state is not. On the other side of the argument stand mostly liberal activists, including some in the Jewish world, who fear that making determinations of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition will inevitably lead to criminalizing a broad swath of critical opinions on Israel and its behavior.

The politics behind it should have been easy: the pro-bill camp includes roughly all Republicans and had included two-thirds of the Dems, and so one might have assumed that the Antisemitism Awareness Act would sail through Congress pretty easily, just as it did in the House back in 2024.

But the Senate markup hearing last week demonstrated how the debate is shifting. Democrats, led by Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, managed to insert amendments aimed at ensuring that the bill does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of protesters, effectively defanging the legislation.

The hearing ended abruptly with no bottom line, no vote and no scheduled date for continuation.

2. Strange Bedfellows

Sanders led the drive to include amendments that would ensure that Congress does not shut down those seeking to protest “Netanyahu’s horrific war in Gaza.” He was flanked by fellow progressives and joined by an ally from the other side of the aisle—Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Libertarian who is no friend of Israel and also no supporter of the government telling people what they can and cannot say.

Senator Paul’s vote in favor of progressive Democrats’ amendments was expected. The real surprise came from committee chair Bill Cassidy. The senator from Louisiana, a staunch conservative supporter of Israel, had his own amendment: He inserted language that would effectively exclude the claim that Jews killed Jesus Christ from the definition of antisemitism, by stressing that the bill will ensure “free exercise of religion.” This concern was raised previously in the House by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia and was echoed by Senator Paul in last week’s hearing. They’ve argued that since the IHRA definition includes the deicide accusation of Jews as an expression of antisemitism, it potentially incriminates Christian believers who wish to repeat the claim as part of their religious belief.

Either way, between Sanders’ concerns over limiting criticism of the Israeli government, Paul’s worries about federal Department of Education agents intervening in free speech expressions, and Cassidy’s commitment to allowing Christians to blame Jews for killing Christ, the bill is now stuck. 

3. What Has Changed?

Take a look at Rep. Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a leading progressive voice in Congress, who is committed to Jewish values and a champion of the rule of law and of the liberties enshrined in the Constitution. Last year, Raskin voted for the original Antisemitism Awareness Act, explaining at length the pros and cons of the IHRA definition, as well as of the Jerusalem Declaration and of the Nexus paper, both offering a less restrictive approach regarding criticism of Israel. But his bottom line was that given the troubling rise in antisemitism in the United States, it was time to pass the bill, despite the controversial effect of defining anti-Zionism as an expression of Jew-hatred.

Now, Raskin is less supportive of the notion, and last week he called on Senators to oppose the bill. “Trump is weaponizing, distorting and exploiting the reality of antisemitism to attack academic freedom,” Raskin wrote.

With that, Raskin encapsulated much of what has changed in America in the past year. Concerns over antisemitism on college campuses have not subsided, but lawmakers, activists and some Jewish communal leaders now see another threat—that Trump will use their concerns as an excuse for advancing his anti-academic agenda. 

4. Holocaust? That’s a Political Issue, Too

President Trump’s decision to fire eight Biden-appointed members of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum board, including former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, came as a bit of a surprise. It is, of course, Trump’s prerogative to choose his own people for the board overseeing the Holocaust Museum, but who would have thought that would be a priority for a president in his first 100 days in office?

Shortly after, Trump announced his picks for the board, which include controversial radio talk-show host Sid Rosenberg, Trump lawyer Robert Garson and Alex Witkoff, the son of real-estate dealer turned peace negotiator Steve Witkoff. 

This move is largely symbolic but provides insight into Trump’s Jewish circles. His list of new appointees for the museum’s board reads as a map of the new administration’s viewpoint of Jewish-American leadership: Instead of figures who grew up in the environment of major legacy Jewish organizations, Trump has his own Jewish circle, made up of MAGA-supporting media figures, close friends and acquaintances. 

5. Ben-Gvir Goes to Washington

After all the hype, here’s a quick summary of Israeli far-right cabinet minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s visit to the United States:

Number of days in America: Seven.

Meetings with Trump administration officials: Zero.

Members of Congress willing to sit down with Ben-Gvir: Four. All Republicans.

Protests outside venues that hosted Ben-Gvir: endless.

Was it worth it?

For sure. Ben-Gvir did not come to Washington because of burning bilateral issues he needed to discuss with the administration. He came to prove a point–that yesterday’s far-right pariah is today’s acceptable guest, that Trump’s America, just like Netanyahu’s Israel, is willing to legitimize politicians who were previously deemed outcasts. And in that sense, his trip was victorious.

Top image credit: United States Senate, Public domain; United States Congress, Public domain; Shelly Prevost from San Francisco, United States, CC BY 2.0; United States Senate, Public domain.