Sponsors (91)
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Introduced February 5, 2025 by Michael Lawler · Last progress February 5, 2025
Requires the Department of Education to treat the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as its definition when evaluating Title VI complaints that allege discrimination tied to Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics. It also states congressional findings about rising antisemitism, endorses parts of the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, and emphasizes that the change does not create new agency powers, change harassment standards, or limit First Amendment rights.
The bill strengthens federal recognition and enforcement against antisemitism—giving Jewish students and communities clearer protection and a national focus—while raising significant free‑speech concerns, administrative costs, and risks of inconsistent application or perceived unequal treatment.
Jewish students and community members gain clearer federal recognition of antisemitism through adoption/endorsement of the IHRA definition, making it easier for schools and agencies to identify antisemitic conduct.
People targeted with antisemitic discrimination (including students) are more likely to get investigations and remedies because federal enforcement is directed to treat antisemitism with greater priority under Title VI.
Declaring combating antisemitism a national priority and endorsing the National Strategy encourages coordinated federal action, awareness efforts, and community safety programs that could reduce threats to Jewish communities.
Students, faculty, and campus communities could face restrictions or disputes over protected speech because IHRA examples may be interpreted to limit debate about Israeli government policy or political expression.
Schools, universities, and federal agencies will likely incur increased compliance, training, investigative, and security costs to align policies and respond to more complaints.
Adopting a single, detailed definition without implementing guidance risks inconsistent application, legal challenges, and confusion for institutions handling complaints.
