Who is affected and how:

• Institutions of higher education: Most directly affected; they must change event-approval, funding, and sponsorship practices to avoid authorizing or supporting events the institution determines "promote antisemitism" under the IHRA working definition. Institutions may adopt new review procedures, documentation requirements, or conditions for student-group funding.

• Students: Both Jewish students and other student groups are affected. Jewish students and campus Jewish organizations may gain stronger institutional protections against events the institution deems antisemitic. Other student groups or speakers—particularly those engaging in political speech about Israel/Palestine—may face additional scrutiny, limitation, or denial of institutional support if events are judged to run afoul of the IHRA definition.

• Educators and campus staff: Faculty and staff who organize or participate in campus events may encounter new institutional processes for approval and potential restrictions on institutional sponsorship. Academic programming and classroom-adjacent public events may be reviewed for compliance.

• Campus communities and public stakeholders: Campus-hosted public forums, external speakers, and community partnerships may be affected when events are planned on campus property or with institutional backing.

• Federal oversight actors: While the amendment does not create new enforcement steps, agencies that administer HEA compliance could be asked to interpret and enforce the new prohibition using their existing authority. Institutions may face investigations or administrative consequences if found noncompliant under current HEA remedies.

Potential secondary effects and considerations:

• Policy and legal uncertainty: Because the IHRA definition contains examples that some interpret as encompassing certain political speech about Israel, institutions may face difficult judgment calls and potential conflicts over academic freedom and free speech rights.
• Administrative burden: Colleges and universities may need to devote staff time and resources to update policies, review proposed events, provide training, and document decisions to demonstrate compliance.
• Litigation and dispute risk: Disagreements about whether an event "promotes antisemitism" under the IHRA definition could lead to campus grievances or legal challenges by student groups, speakers, or other parties.

Overall effect: The amendment is a concise, targeted change that conditions institutional behavior about campus events on an external definition of antisemitism; it primarily affects higher-education institutions and campus communities by introducing a new prohibitory standard tied to that definition.