For years, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has been viewed by his Jewish constituents as an ally in fighting antisemitism and as generally supportive of Israel, despite his deep disagreements with the Netanyahu government and current U.S. policy in the Middle East. 

The congressman has maintained a good relationship with many of the Jewish constituents in his suburban Washington district with the largest share of Jewish voters in Maryland, even as he’s backed numerous measures restricting U.S. aid to Israel, which has drawn backlash from prominent Jewish community figures.

But a recent broadside against the Trump administration’s investigations into antisemitism, in which Raskin cited whistleblower reports to describe the investigations into Harvard, Brown and Columbia universities as fabricated and predetermined, is generating new tensions with some community members.

Raskin also spent Wednesday on the campaign trail boosting Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, whose virulent anti-Israel views and associations with an antisemitic streamer have made him persona non grata throughout much of Michigan’s Jewish community.

Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt, the CEO of the Zionist Rabbinic Coalition who leads a synagogue in Raskin’s district, said that the letter from Raskin regarding his investigation into the campus antisemitism efforts was “disappointing” in light of the extent of intimidation targeting Jewish students on campus. Weinblatt said he saw the administration’s policies as a good-faith effort to support Jewish students and disrupt those who have isolated and harassed them.

He said he’s concerned that Raskin’s letter could undermine both the federal tools to protect students as well as lead some people to believe that the problem of campus antisemitism was overstated.

“We have an administration that wants to try to do something, to help protect and defend Jewish students, to help to make them feel safer and more secure,” Weinblatt said. “It would be unfortunate and tragic to be limiting their ability to be able to do that.”

He said that, if Raskin believes — as he said he does — that campus antisemitism is a serious problem to be addressed, he should articulate how that should be done in lieu of the Trump administration-led probes.

“Congressman Raskin has a history of being committed to pursuing issues related to justice and fairness, and so I think it’s unfortunate that he — as a member of Congress who is identifiably Jewish — is taking this action, because I think many Jews are concerned about the environment on college campuses and would look to our Jewish members of Congress to help,” Weinblatt continued.

But, he acknowledged, any action should be taken in a way that is legal, appropriate and measured, and should be done in accordance with the applicable laws.

Some federal courts have also raised objections to the administration’s efforts, finding that the  funding cuts targeting Harvard were unconstitutional and that the administration had overstated its case against the university.

In a lengthy statement to Jewish Insider, Raskin emphasized that antisemitism on campus is a real problem that schools must address. But he said that the government levying unjustified penalties helps no one.

“Universities have a duty, under federal law, to prevent and address harassment and discrimination on their campuses and they should be held to account if and when they fail to do so,” Raskin said. “But when the government ignores the actual facts found by its investigators and resorts instead to levying major financial penalties on our universities despite the facts and the law, everyone loses, especially the actual victims of antisemitism and racism.”

He said that the government cannot legally penalize chosen targets without or in spite of an investigation “no matter how just may be its stated cause.”

“Throughout history, Jews have often suffered as the designated scapegoats of these perverted forms of justice,” he continued.

The Washington Jewish Week called Raskin’s efforts wrongheaded, arguing in an editorial published Thursday that the congressman is “making a mistake” by focusing on re-investigating the investigations, rather than trying to address the antisemitism itself.

“Raskin instead describes the administration’s investigations as ‘fake,’ a ‘pre-baked frame-up operation’ and a ‘sham,’” the editorial continues. “Those are sweeping conclusions to announce before conducting an investigation supposedly intended to determine what happened.  … The House Judiciary Committee should be strengthening [the civil rights investigatory] system, not conducting another round of political theater about who weaponized government first.”

The editorial argues that Raskin should be putting his energy toward “showing America how to address [campus antisemitism] properly.”

Raskin previously criticized the administration’s efforts to shutter parts of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, a move he said endangered efforts to fight antisemitism, among other forms of discrimination.

Raskin, citing the whistleblower testimony, said in his statement to JI that the administration had “used fabricated and disproven claims of antisemitic discrimination as a cudgel, even in cases where the targeted school’s own Jewish students, faculty, and rabbis applauded and praised the university’s positive and proactive responses to incidents of antisemitism or intolerance” and “ignored Jewish voices and the on-the-ground facts found by investigators.”

He said that in doing so, the administration, rather than his probe, undermined legitimate efforts to combat antisemitism and sent a public message that the problem of campus antisemitism is not a real one.

“If we lose public confidence in the integrity of government investigations and the government’s respect for the facts, we will lose the effectiveness of our anti-discrimination laws,” Raskin said. “This is why everyone, but especially the actual victims of antisemitism and racism, have every reason to stand by the rule of law and the central importance it places on actual facts rather than allegations and suppositions.”

Ron Halber, the CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, took a more sympathetic view of Raskin’s efforts, even while underscoring that colleges and universities have failed to protect Jewish and pro-Israel students and that he’s glad that they are being investigated and held accountable.

But he also expressed concerns about some of the penalties the Trump administration imposed, particularly stripping funding from the schools, and said that if Raskin has evidence that the cases were pre-determined, those issues should be investigated.

“If there are cases where nothing was found and the universities were punished, first of all, it’s illegal, it’s unethical and Jews do not want antisemitism being used as a weapon to further other political goals. 
We want open, objective investigations,” Halber said. “If a university did not act properly and protect their Jewish students, we want them to be held accountable and punished accordingly.”

He said that if some of the investigations do prove to have been faulty, that would also cast doubt on other investigations that may have found more credible evidence. “It doesn’t help us get to the bottom of [the campus anti-Israel protests and administration responses] if the investigations themselves are flawed.”

Kenneth Marcus, the CEO of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which has represented Jewish students in legal action against various colleges and universities, dismissed the Raskin letter as the result of a disgruntled former Department of Justice employee, who filed a whistleblower complaint because she did not align with the administration’s efforts to combat antisemitism.

“It is no secret that the career ranks of the Justice Department contains some long-time employees who do not share the current administration’s values or priorities. The federal government has a legal obligation to enforce Title VI to protect Jewish students as vigorously as it does with other groups,” Marcus said. “After years of paying insufficient attention to anti-Semitism, it is a welcome relief that the Justice Department has finally made it a priority.” 

He argued that the administration’s investigations were evidently necessary, as well as overdue.

“No one can deny the seriousness of the problem at institutions like Harvard and Columbia. The question isn’t so much why this administration has responded forcefully to the problem at these campuses but rather why wasn’t it done sooner,” Marcus continued.

On the campaign trail with El-Sayed this week, Raskin was also asked — as a widely regarded figure among liberal Jews — about his pitch to Jewish Democrats concerned about El-Sayed. He emphasized in response that Democrats’ efforts must be focused on defeating President Donald Trump and GOP candidates for Congress. 

Raskin visited Ann Arbor on Wednesday to campaign for El-Sayed, also joining Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI). Many prominent Jewish Democrats in the state say they’re agonizing over the general election, torn between their party loyalty and their concerns about El-Sayed and his allies. 

“The Democratic Party is a very big tent,” Raskin said. “It’s a very big tent because there are a lot of people in it, and they’re just like — you know, any big family Thanksgiving dinner, there can be arguments and people jostling, and there’s unruliness. But fundamentally, we all believe in democracy, in freedom, and the progress and prosperity of our people.”

He said that the election is a “referendum about the future: Will we have democracy or will we have autocracy? This is our chance to cut this reign of lawlessness and terror in half in this election.”

Raskin also praised El-Sayed’s career in public health and said that he would be critical to making health care more affordable in the Senate, but didn’t directly address the concerns that members of the Jewish community have raised about the nominee.

He also did not address a question from JI about influencer Hasan Piker — whom various other leading Democrats have condemned this week — and his ties to El-Sayed.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) blasted Turkey this week over its continued hostility toward Israel, calling on the U.S.’ NATO ally to stop targeting Israel and working with terrorist groups.

“We all know that Turkey likes cozying up to terrorists and supporting Israel’s and America’s enemies,” Scott said Friday, in response to a Turkish request for Interpol to issue an arrest notice for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ankara has issued charges against Netanyahu including war crimes, genocide and torture in connection with Israel’s interception of an activist flotilla headed to Gaza.

Scott said that “anyone who isn’t a terrorist sympathizer can see that” Israel has a right to defend itself.

“Where is NATO in all of this? When are our other allies going to join in calling this out and setting clear expectations on this outrageous behavior? Turkey needs to act like a real ally. This needs to END,” Scott continued.

It’s the second time this week Scott has hit out at Ankara. Earlier this week, he responded to an interview by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack in which Barrack asserted that the Turkish military was not aware Israel planned to strike targets inside Syria, which Barrack said could have sparked a military confrontation.

“It’s clear Israel gave Turkey advanced warning, and Ankara ignored it. Israel has the right and the duty to defend itself from threats,” Scott said. “Turkey needs to stop playing around, stop shilling for terrorists, and start acting like the NATO ‘ally’ they pretend to be.”

Netanyahu also responded to the arrest effort, calling Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan an “antisemitic dictator” and accusing Erdogan of trying to “extend his aggression against Israel into Syria.”

Dozens of LGBTQ Jews and allies gathered Tuesday evening at Adas Israel Congregation in Washington for a Pride event hosted by the Israeli Embassy, with speakers honoring the legacy of slain embassy staffer Sarah Milgrim and reflecting on the challenges she faced in progressive spaces, despite being an ally of the community. 

The event, held as Pride celebrations concluded at the end of June, paid tribute to Milgrim, who helped lead the embassy’s outreach to LGBTQ communities before she and her partner, Yaron Lischinsky, were killed in a shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum in May 2025.

Comedian Judy Gold, a longtime advocate for LGBTQ rights and outspoken critic of antisemitism, headlined the evening with a stand-up set blending humor with reflections on Milgrim’s advocacy.

“It takes a very special person to be the LGBT liaison for the Israeli [Embassy], and boy was she special,” Gold said.

Gold also recalled participating in two LGBTQ delegation trips to Israel organized by Milgrim: As the group ran to bomb shelters amid Iranian missile attacks, she got a laugh when one delegate showed up with a different guy each time the alarm sounded, “so that was exciting,” she joked. 

Catherine Szkop and Abbie Talmoud, colleagues of Milgrim who were several feet away when the deadly shooting occurred, described her as a bridge-builder who worked to engage communities that had become increasingly hostile to Israel after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks. 

“She served as the director of civil society and affairs. Her work focused on engaging communities that became deeply critical of Israel, or even opened up anti-Israel [sentiment] after Oct. 7,” Talmoud said of Milgrim. 

Szkop said Milgrim struggled with being pushed out of progressive spaces because of her work at the Israeli Embassy, despite sharing many of the community’s values.

“She identified with the progressive community on a lot of issues,” Szkop shared, “but when she started working at the Israeli Embassy, the [community’s] anti-Israel sentiment was too strong and ostracized her from her friends” and “the moment it turned to Israel, they exiled her.” 

“You should never have to deny who you are or an aspect of your identity in order to belong somewhere,” Szkop concluded. 

The reception featured Pride-themed decor, including a lectern bearing three flags: American, Israeli, and Pride. Closing out the event, LGBTQ community members and allies danced to Omer Adam while waving rainbow LED sticks.

It’s a strange moment when the leader of the free world explains to a reporter why he cursed out the prime minister of a major ally.

But we live in an increasingly strange moment, one in which President Donald Trump confirmed to the New York Post this week that he had indeed called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” during a discussion about Israel’s plans to expand operations in Lebanon, even as he stressed that he and the Israeli leader have “worked very well together.” (Trump’s confirmation came after Netanyahu’s office denied the remarks.)

The tense nature of the Trump-Netanyahu call this week underscores the increasingly divergent tactics the two are taking to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East as Trump leans into diplomacy while Netanyahu pushes for intensified military action — and as questions loom over the future of U.S. aid to Israel.

With the House’s passage of a war powers resolution yesterday (with four Republicans breaking with House GOP leadership), and a Senate vote on the issue still pending, the Trump administration’s appetite for a resumption of hostilities is even smaller than it was last month (when, as we reported, it was already quite low, owing to rising gas prices and the approaching midterms). 

And it’s not just Trump distancing the U.S. from renewed all-out conflict. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers that the Iran war was “over.”

The comments come even as Iran continues to scale up its attacks in the region, in some cases prompting a U.S. response. Early Wednesday morning, the Islamic Republic launched a drone attack targeting Kuwait’s main airport, killing one person and injuring at least 60.

Trump has reportedly set a red line on Iran, telling aides that he could end the ceasefire — which, while not a technical halting of all fire, has resulted in far fewer exchanges of fire and destruction than at the height of the war in March and early April — if U.S. troops are killed.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu told CNBC on Wednesday that he wants to start the process of winding down U.S. military aid to Israel over the next two years — the final years of Trump’s term — in a way that would shift the relationship, according to the prime minister, “from aid to a partnership where we both invest equal amounts and both share equally in the fruits of our innovators and technologies.” Such a move, Netanyahu added, “will also take away the myth that Israel is depleting America’s coffers” — a popular talking point among opponents of U.S. aid to Israel on Capitol Hill and beyond.

On paper, Washington and Jerusalem do appear in lockstep — alongside Beirut — on deepening relations between Israel and Lebanon and rooting out Hezbollah. To that effect, the White House announced in a joint statement with Lebanese and Israeli officials on Wednesday that the parties had agreed to a renewed ceasefire — though it is contingent on the cooperation of Hezbollah, which did not take part in the talks and continues to launch drones and missiles at northern Israel.

But even as officials in Washington reach an accord on Lebanon, the challenges on the ground remain much the same. It was, after all, the issue of Lebanon — and Netanyahu’s announcement that the IDF would attack Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut — that triggered Trump’s expletive-laden outburst on Monday, causing Netanyahu to walk back Israel’s military plans in Lebanon.

And while Netanyahu needs to stay in Trump’s good graces, it is voters in Israel — including those in the country’s north who are living under daily Hezbollah fire — whom Netanyahu will need to sway ahead of the fall elections.