Jewish communal groups are at loggerheads over the possibility of merging two related but distinct State Department offices: the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism and special envoy for Holocaust issues.

Some Jewish groups recently sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio in support of the concept of merging the two offices, while others have sent letters in recent  months opposing such a move.

Proponents of combining the two offices say that doing so consolidates linked issues under the authority of one envoy with ambassador-rank status, while maintaining the work of both offices. Opponents say that combining the two teams would undermine and diminish the work of the Holocaust affairs envoy and risk politicizing critical work on Holocaust restitution.

The reexamination of the two roles comes ahead of the expected retirement of Ellen Germain, who has served as special envoy for Holocaust issues since 2021. Advocates on both sides of the debate said they understand the State Department is considering whether to merge the two offices, though no final decision has yet been made. Multiple communal letters reference rumors about the possibility of a merger of the two offices.

The antisemitism envoy office focuses on combating antisemitism globally, and is led by a political appointee chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate, who has typically changed with each administration. The Holocaust affairs envoy office focuses on Holocaust restitution and education issues, as well as combating Holocaust denial and distortion, and is led by an apolitical career Foreign Service Officer, often maintaining their role across multiple administrations.

The Department of State did not provide comment.

In a June 10 letter, groups and leaders including the Combat Antisemitism Movement, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters, Coalition for Jewish Values, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, Orthodox Union, World Jewish Congress, Zionist Organization of America, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, former antisemitism envoy Elan Carr, former deputy antisemitism envoy Ellie Cohanim and former deputy antisemitism envoy Karen Barall, wrote to Rubio urging him to merge the two positions.

“The historical realities of global antisemitism and the preservation of Holocaust memory are inextricably linked. Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented and sophisticated surge in global anti-Jewish hostility, which frequently weaponizes Holocaust denial, historical revisionism, and the distortion of Nazi-era atrocities to fuel modern hatred,” the groups wrote. “Fragmenting our diplomatic response across two distinct offices dilutes administrative efficiency, risks duplicative efforts, and underutilizes vital Department resources at a time when maximum strategic impact is required.”

The groups said that combining the two offices “will streamline U.S. foreign policy implementation and provide foreign governments and international bodies with a singular, high- level point of contact in the form of [current antisemitism envoy] Ambassador [Yehuda] Kaploun, elevating the visibility and diplomatic weight of the SEHI portfolio” and help facilitate the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism worldwide.

The Holocaust issues office currently falls within the State Department’s Europe portfolio, while the antisemitism office has a global mandate.

Groups including the American Jewish Committee, American Joint Distribution Committee, Agudath Israel of America, Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, The National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry and the World Jewish Restitution Organization — many of which deal directly with post-Holocaust and restitution issues — are opposing the move.

The Holocaust issues office “serves as a critical statement to the world of American values and moral leadership and of the singular significance that the United States attributes to commemoration, research and remembrance of the Holocaust, as well as the commitment of the United States in seeking justice for Holocaust survivors,” they said in a joint letter to Rubio in late April, a draft of which was obtained by JI.

The groups described the office as a critical resource for the Jewish community, which has received strong support from Congress. “In a world where there is less and less knowledge of the horrors of the Holocaust, and there are fewer and fewer Holocaust survivors, it is imperative that this office which is dedicated solely to these goals, continue to stand as a beacon showing the special commitment of the United States government to education about the Holocaust and the United States’ role in leading the quest for justice for the victims and their families internationally.”

The groups urged Rubio to appoint a “senior diplomat” to fill Germain’s role upon her retirement.

Numerous Jewish organizations have also weighed in individually, on each side of the issue.

In favor of a merger, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, also wrote to Rubio this month in favor of combining the two offices. He said that combining the offices under a Senate-confirmed ambassador will “elevate the issue set; strengthen U.S. representation on key international fora like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; and send a clear signal to foreign counterparts that the United States remains committed to these issues.”

“Ambassador Kaploun has made clear that the status quo must be broken if we are to finally achieve a small measure of justice. This means strengthening accountability, working with Jewish communities, and seeking results, not conferences and photo-ops,” Cooper said. “I look forward to supporting him in those efforts.”

The World Jewish Congress also expressed support for merging the two offices, arguing in a May letter to Rubio that the “Holocaust issues today differ from those of the postwar and restitution eras.”

“The central challenges now concern Holocaust denial and distortion, the erosion of historical memory, and the exploitation of Holocaust revisionism in service of contemporary antisemitism and extremism,” the WJC letter reads, adding that the issues are now far larger than Europe.

But that’s far from a consensus view within the Jewish community.

Opposing a merger, AJC CEO Ted Deutch separately wrote to Rubio in March to “respectfully underscore the critical importance of maintaining the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues as a separate, prominent, and fully empowered office within the Department, and to urge that the process of selecting a qualified Special Envoy be set in motion without delay.”

“Maintaining a dedicated and empowered Special Envoy ensures that the United States can continue to press governments to meet their commitments, resolve outstanding restitution matters, combat Holocaust distortion and antisemitism, and uphold justice for survivors and their families while it is still possible to do so,” Deutch said, particularly at a time of rising Holocaust denial, distortion and inversion, including by public figures and leaders, and when many Holocaust restitution claims remain unresolved.

Robert Williams, the USC Shoah Foundation’s chair and CEO, also urged Rubio, in a letter in late May, to keep the two positions separate.

“Merging these offices risks diluting their effectiveness. This is something we can ill afford in our trans-Atlantic relations or in our work in North America,” Williams said, particularly after Canada eliminated its own antisemitism envoy. “Respecting the relevance of the Holocaust and justice for the survivors, while simultaneously focusing the fight against antisemitism is only possible if State maintain[s] both offices with their complementary yet different strengths and areas of expertise.”

A source familiar with the situation said that some in the Jewish community feel that having a senior FSO in the Holocaust affairs envoy role has historically served the office well, insulating the position and the issues from politics.

The source said that some in the community see the move to combine the offices as driven by Kaploun, and believe it to be an effort by the antisemitism envoy to expand his influence over various issues relating to the Jewish community.

At the same time, the source acknowledged that there could be value in placing the Holocaust affairs envoy’s responsibilities in the hands of someone such as Kaploun, who has the ear of President Donald Trump, in addition to other senior officials.

Barall, who serves as the chief policy officer for the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said that discussions about combining the two offices are longstanding, dating back to the Bush administration, when the antisemitism office was first established.

“We’re at a time where resources are limited, and combining expertise and budgets under a unified strategy can create greater impact without sacrificing the mission,” Barall said. “When you have two different offices working independently and in parallel of each other, it doesn’t benefit anybody.”

She said that it’s not helpful for the Jewish community and is confusing to foreign interlocutors to have two separate offices, which sometimes are undertaking duplicative or contradictory efforts.

Alyza Lewin, the president of U.S. affairs at CAM, echoed that argument, calling the current separation “awkward and inefficient” for interlocutors with the offices.

“It makes sense for the two offices to be combined, so that the issues are addressed together with one voice, with consistency, and it also, quite frankly, elevates the Holocaust issues today” under the supervision of a Senate-confirmed official reporting directly to the secretary of state, Lewin said.

She said that her understanding is that there would be no reduction in staff or resources to either office, and that the Holocaust affairs envoy’s staff would move to the antisemitism envoy’s team, ensuring no loss of expertise or capacity to work on Holocaust issues.

Lewin also argued that, with the shrinking number of Holocaust survivors, the work of the Holocaust affairs envoy is shifting toward a greater emphasis on issues like Holocaust memory, Holocaust denial and Holocaust education, which she said are a “key part” of modern antisemitism.

Opponents of a merger say that the extent of that shift is overstated, and that the issues of the Holocaust affairs envoy remain critical, and distinct, from those of the antisemitism envoy.

“I worry … that a merger brings with it a risk that these offices’ individual tasks will be harder to accomplish, and at least in the short term, and that could inhibit our ability to, A, push back against the world’s oldest hatred, and B, as the head of a Holocaust institution, ensure that we have a future that remembers, learns from, and respects the history of the Holocaust and its contemporary relevance over the long term,” Williams, the USC Shoah Foundation CEO, said.

He also argued that Holocaust restitution issues remain a critical and ongoing task and will not disappear in the near future — pointing to Congress’ recent passage of a new law relating to restitution issues and some countries that continue to resist restitution efforts.

Williams further argued that Holocaust education and antisemitism are related but ultimately distinct issues. And, he said, the U.S. should not necessarily model its own approach on other countries’ decisions to combine antisemitism and Holocaust issues into a singular role, though he said he did not doubt Kaploun’s personal capabilities and effectiveness.

“None of these countries have been as effective as morally clear and as useful in ensuring a future for the fight against antisemitism and a future that remembers and respects the Holocaust, as has the United States, and I think a major factor in that has been because we have divided labor effectively,” Williams said. He warned that consolidating the positions could ultimately open the door to antisemitism and Holocaust work being subsumed into a broader portfolio in some future administration.

Menachem Rosensaft, a Cornell University adjunct law professor involved for years in post-Holocaust issues and fighting antisemitism who has worked with multiple envoys in both offices, said that combining the two teams “risks undermining the effectiveness and the professionalism of the Holocaust-era office.”

“I think both are important offices, both are important areas, but they’re also different,” Rosensaft said. “One of them is a politically oriented office looking at contemporary manifestations of antisemitism abroad, and the other is an office whose purpose… is to effectively assist in Holocaust-era restitution, mostly benefiting Holocaust survivors and their heirs, and those are two very different functions.”

He emphasized that the Holocaust affairs envoy position is in some ways “much more sensitive and delicate” because it requires navigating complex bureaucracies in Europe, a task which he said is best left to an apolitical career official rather than a political appointee — even as he praised Kaploun’s credibility on the issue of antisemitism.