A high-profile New Jersey bill adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism is not expected to pass in the current New Jersey Assembly session, four sources familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider. 

Two sources familiar with the legislation said that Gov. Phil Murphy opposed the legislation and was a key obstacle to its passage.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer, the Democratic lead sponsor of the legislation, told Politico on Thursday that he had been told by the assembly speaker that the legislation would not be on the docket for the assembly’s final session next week because it did not have “the necessary votes to get where we wanted to.”

“Leadership in the assembly, in the Senate and in the governor’s office have tried significantly to get it done, but they have not been able to get it done,” Schaer told JI. “My office worked closely with any number of agencies and organizations, but the effort was just — cannot get it done. Do I think the bill can pass at some point? The answer is yes, but it requires a political will which does not seem to be evident.” 

The legislation was cosponsored by a significant majority of the assembly, but — assuming any Democrats not cosponsoring the bill would have voted against it — it would not have been able to pass with Democratic votes alone.

The bill would have instructed law enforcement to take the IHRA definition into account when determining if violations of state or federal anti-bias law have occurred or whether criminal acts were motivated by antisemitism, and to use it for training public officials and responding to antisemitic incidents. 

The legislation, which has been a priority for Jewish state leaders, became a flashpoint among Democratic gubernatorial candidates and in Democratic politics last year. After much debate, it moved through committee in the state Assembly, but hasn’t received a full-chamber vote in either the Assembly or the state Senate. The legislature’s session ends on Monday, and Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill will be sworn in the following week.

Two sources familiar with the legislation blamed Murphy, the outgoing governor, for its failure, alleging that he did not want to be forced to make a decision whether to sign it.

One source familiar with the situation emphasized that the legislation had the support to pass, but that Democratic leaders were reluctant to move the bill forward to a full vote — concerned that support for the bill would place some Democratic members in danger of progressive primary challenges in the future. Concerns about such primary challenges are already widespread, and leaders were concerned that the IHRA bill could give challengers additional ammunition against Democratic incumbents.

The legislation has been attacked by progressive Democrats as an attempt to silence free speech and criticism of Israel, despite provisions in the legislation protecting free speech and its narrow application in criminal matters.

The Murphy administration declined to comment on pending legislation, but emphasized that Murphy “unequivocally condemns all forms of violence and discrimination based on religious belief” and pointed to past statements and initiatives he has supported to combat rising antisemitism in the Garden State.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told Politico that Murphy would have signed the bill had it passed the legislature.

Another source familiar with the situation said that there had been significant finger-pointing between Murphy, Senate President Nicholas Scutari and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, with each blaming the others for the legislation’s failure to pass. Scutari and Coughlin did not respond to requests for comment.

Assemblyman Mike Inganamort, the lead Republican sponsor of the legislation, told JI he’s “disappointed” the legislation has not made it into law.

“This has been going on for a long time now, preceding even my time in the legislature,” he said. “I think advocates are tired of getting jerked around. Frankly, what I’m hearing from them is they’re tired of the lip service … all we’re asking for is a simple up-or-down vote.”

He emphasized that the legislation is co-sponsored by approximately three-quarters of the Assembly but votes have repeatedly been postponed — “so does the majority rule or not?”

He said that he’s not involved in internal discussions among Democrats about the bill, but said, “the reality is, it’s highly likely that there is a very vocal fringe that is opposed to this legislation. And I sure hope they’re not the ones calling the shots.”

Inganamort said that he’ll work with his fellow sponsors to “fight again in the new term,” though he said that he’s not “terribly optimistic that we’re going to achieve more success in a new term under a new governor,” saying he had been “cautioned to re-read” Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s “exact words” on the subject.

Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill told JI in February 2025 that she “supported the IHRA definition in the U.S. House, and would support the current state Senate bill to combat the alarming rise of antisemitism in New Jersey.” Some Jewish leaders told JI that she made comments later in the campaign that included caveats about free speech concerns — which is protected in the existing legislation — but ultimately clarified and strengthened her position.

A new bill introduced by several prominent House progressives blasts the Trump administration’s agenda and actions on combating antisemitism, while also implementing new posts and requirements across a series of federal departments to fight Jewish hate.

The new bill, the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act, is led by Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Becca Balint (D-VT) and Maxwell Frost (D-FL).

The legislation accuses the Trump administration, at length, of weaponizing antisemitism to “pursue ideological and partisan political objectives unrelated to protecting Jewish communities,” including attacking educational institutions, suppressing speech and enforcing “ideological conformity.”

Citing the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther report, which the legislation describes as the framework for the administration’s strategy, the lawmakers link the Trump administration’s actions to a “Christian Zionism theology and beliefs that Jewish presence in the Holy Land will precipitate End Times.”

It claims the administration has used the “false pretext of antisemitism investigations” to undermine academic freedom on college campuses, eliminate diversity and Middle Eastern studies programs and silence criticism of Israel.

The legislators also allege the Trump administration “inappropriately appropriated the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as a tool for immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings,” citing the administration’s efforts to deport students engaged in antisemitic and anti-Israel activity and scrutinize the social media activity of visa applicants.

They accuse the administration of holding Jewish institutions’ security “hostage” to political objectives through new conditions on Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding.

The legislation downplays the IHRA definition of antisemitism, describing it as one of “several definitions of antisemitism which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism,” despite widespread adoption by the mainstream Jewish community and its use by multiple administrations of both parties.

The bill describes various definitions, also naming the Nexus Document, as “valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism” which “should be utilized by Federal, State, and local agencies” and as “non-legally binding educational tools [which] should not be applied in punitive legal contexts.”

It further emphasizes that “criticism of Israeli government policies, when not motivated by or expressed through antisemitic tropes or discrimination against Jews, is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment and does not constitute antisemitism.”

And it states that “the weaponization of antisemitism accusations to pursue partisan political agendas undermines genuine efforts to protect Jewish communities and breeds additional antisemitism.”

The legislation includes some provisions which have enjoyed bipartisan support, including several aspects of the Protecting Students on Campus Act: requiring universities to publicize to students how to file discrimination complaints and to report annually to the Department of Education on the complaints they have received and for the Department of Education to report to Congress monthly for a year on the complaints it has received and how long they remain open.

The Protecting Students on Campus Act was re-introduced by its bipartisan sponsors — Reps. Lucy McBath (D-GA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Don Bacon (R-NE), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ) and Haley Stevens (D-MI) — on Thursday, the same day Nadler’s legislation was announced.

The Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act additionally requires the administration to create an office in the Department of Justice to combat antisemitism, to be headed by a career DOJ official as the full-time national coordinator to counter antisemitism, similar to a provision previously sought by the mainstream Jewish community and included in bipartisan legislation in the prior Congress.

The bill requires the Department of Education to reopen and staff all regional offices of the Office for Civil Rights that were closed earlier in the Trump administration, and prevents the department from closing such offices going forward. It proposes providing $280 million for the program annually.

It also requires colleges and universities to designate a Title VI coordinator to handle complaints.

Additionally, it requires the FBI to establish a hate crimes reporting center, to be led by a designated coordinator, for the purpose of collecting and overseeing hate crimes data. It proposes $50 million in funding annually for the office.

Regarding the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, the legislation requires the administration to ensure sufficient personnel to support the implementation of the program and prohibits the imposition of conditions on DEI, immigration, political advocacy or affiliation or protected characteristics for grant awardees. It mandates the administration provide specific detail to Congress on approved and rejected grant applications.

It proposes providing $500 million for the program annually. 

The legislation makes repeated reference to the Biden administration’s national strategy on antisemitism, and is framed as an effort to build off of that approach.

“This bill shows that moderates and those aligned with the current Israeli government do not enjoy a monopoly over the fight against antisemitism and hate,” Nadler said in a statement. “I am proud to introduce, with my cherished colleagues, the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act, which embodies a comprehensive and principled framework — one that steadfastly upholds and celebrates progressive values without compromise, diminution, or equivocation.” 

DeLauro said the bill “lays out a national strategy for combating the rising threat of antisemitism while protecting freedom of speech, and calls out the Trump Administration’s co-opting of antisemitism for its own political agenda.”

Balint said the legislation would provide critical resources while also implementing “strong Congressional oversight and guardrails to prevent any administration from politicizing antisemitism to further attack their opponents.”

Frost said the legislation “creates a coordinated, whole-of-government response to confront antisemitism wherever it appears in our communities. Unity is our greatest strength, and when we act together, hate has nowhere to take hold.”

A new bipartisan and bicameral bill is pushing for greater accountability and transparency on China’s violations of U.S. oil sanctions on Iran.

China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, in spite of the sweeping U.S. sanctions regime targeting the Iranian oil and gas industry, as well as newer sanctions that target importers of that oil, which have been recently applied to some firms in China. 

Recent reports by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have found that Iran oil exports, primarily to China, have remained near their peak level in spite of U.S. sanctions, which FDD has attributed to a “failure of U.S. sanctions enforcement.”

The new bill, led by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Ben Cline (R-VA), requires the administration, within a year of the bill’s passage, to determine whether the People’s Republic of China is conducting sanctionable activities with regard to Iran.

In advance of that determination, the bill requires the administration to report to Congress within 180 days on China’s purchases of Iranian oil, including how China is using shell companies and other methods to dodge sanctions, as well as on Chinese efforts to sell or transfer chemical precursors to Iran to support its ballistic missile program.

Recent reports have found that Iran has been importing materials from China to rebuild its ballistic missile program, an effort that has prompted concern on Capitol Hill.

“China’s growing purchases of Iranian oil and its support for Iran’s ballistic missile program are not just violations of U.S. sanctions—they are direct threats to regional stability and to our allies,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement, adding that the legislation “gives Congress the intelligence and transparency needed to expose how the PRC enables Iran’s most dangerous activities.”

“By bringing these transactions into the light, we strengthen our ability to enforce sanctions and hold malign actors accountable,” Krishnamoorthi continued.

Krishnamoorthi is mounting a bid for the U.S. Senate in his home state.

“China’s continued purchases of Iranian oil and its role in enabling Iran’s missile program to pose a direct threat to U.S. national security and to the stability of our allies in the Middle East,” Cline said. He called the legislation and the reporting it requires “a necessary step toward exposing how the PRC uses shell companies, transshipment schemes, and other avenues to evade sanctions.” 

“This report will give Congress and the Treasury Department the insight needed to strengthen enforcement, close loopholes, and ensure that hostile regimes, and those who bankroll them, are held accountable,” Cline continued.

Blumenthal said that China’s purchases of oil are “providing significant financial support for Iran’s terrorist activities in the Middle East and beyond.”

“Transparency is the first step towards accountability, which is why our bill would require a full report on China’s oil and ballistic missile-related transactions with Iran. This information will support robust sanctions enforcement and provide a path forward for additional legislative action,” Blumenthal said.

Graham called the bill “the first step in fully understanding how China and other nations prop up the Ayatollah’s war machine.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee removed key provisions of a bill designed to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization when it approved the legislation last week, prompting concerns from some conservatives. 

The bill was amended by a voice vote to strip out provisions mandating the designation of eligible Muslim Brotherhood branches and the entire Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, including backing from the committee’s chairman, Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL).

The original legislation, introduced in both the House and Senate, included language requiring that the secretary of state assess each branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and report to Congress on whether those branches meet the criteria for designation as a terrorist group under either of two authorities. 

It then mandated that the administration designate those branches that meet the criteria as terrorist groups and impose sanctions pursuant to those designations, and required that those sanctions remain in place for at least four years. It would also impose sanctions on the entire Muslim Brotherhood.

The amended legislation mandates only the assessment of Muslim Brotherhood chapters “that pose a threat to United States national security interests,” rather than all branches of the group — potentially allowing some branches of the group to duck scrutiny — and requires a report to Congress on whether those branches “ha[ve] been designated” as terrorist groups. Most significantly, it removes the specific mandate that the branches in question and the full Muslim Brotherhood be designated as terrorist groups and sanctioned pursuant to the findings of that report.

In effect, the changes remove key provisions that made the legislation broader than an executive order issued by the Trump administration last month, which authorized the designation of certain Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations, but did not mandate an assessment of all branches for terrorist activity or require that the entire organization be designated and sanctioned.

“The bill reported out of committee codifies the Trump administration’s bold efforts to counter the Muslim Brotherhood,” a House Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson told Jewish Insider, when asked about the changes. 

“This is one part of a broader process to work directly with the administration as they advance towards imposing a full designation. There should be no question about House Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans’ commitment to hold terrorist groups accountable, and we are in lockstep with the administration in doing so.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), the lead Republican sponsor of the bill, said he is “thrilled the bill made its way out of committee and is grateful to Chairman Mast for providing that opportunity,” adding that discrepancies between final House and Senate legislation would need to be worked through in a conference committee. “We look forward to engaging throughout the process,” the spokesperson added.

An official at a pro-Israel organization, reflecting concerns about the amended legislation among some conservatives, said that the legislation should be stronger.

“While the legislation is still a step in the right direction, the version approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee lacks the teeth of the original House bill as well as the current legislation in the Senate put forward by Senator [Ted] Cruz,” the official told JI. 

“President Trump has been crystal clear about the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. When President Trump says that we will not tolerate those who fuel and fund radical terrorism, it should be backed up with the strongest possible legislation that will cement his legacy on this issue.”