Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and John Hickenlooper (D-CO) are set to introduce the Safer Spaces for All Act, which would modify and expand the federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program to allow institutions to use grant funding for additional purposes.

The legislation is a companion to a bill in the House by Reps. Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Don Bacon (R-NE). It would allow institutions to use grant funding to pay full-time security staff, pay off-duty police officers to provide security and spend 5% of grant funding to pay administrative staff to apply for and manage grant funding.

“In light of the recent surge in anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and other violent hate-based incidents in the United States, the importance of programs that provide religious communities with increased security cannot be overstated,” Bennet said in a statement. “We have a responsibility to confront prejudice everywhere, and the Safer Spaces for All Act is an essential step forward for Colorado.”

The bill is being supported by local Jewish and Islamic groups. It follows a firebombing attack last year on an Israeli hostage awareness march in Boulder, Colo., which killed a Holocaust survivor, Karen Diamond.

“Antisemitism, Islamaphobia, and other forms of hate have no place in our country,” Hickenlooper said in a statement. “Unfortunately, we see hate rear its ugly head all too often. This bill will ensure that Americans feel secure when they enter their places of worship.”

JEWISHColorado and the local Jewish Community Relations Council said in a statement that the bill “would provide institutions the flexibility to use NSGP funding where it can have the greatest impact — making the program more accessible, responsive, and effective.”

Rafaat Ludin, the executive director of the Downtown Denver Islamic Center, said that having off-duty police on site for prayers has been crucial to creating a safe environment.

“Having an off-duty Denver Police Officer present during our daily and Friday prayers transformed our security landscape. While physical fortifications are essential, they cannot replace the immediate deterrence and peace of mind that a trained officer provides,” Ludin said. “For our community to truly feel secure while fulfilling our daily worship, grant programs like the NSGP must allow funding for active security personnel.”

Nineteen Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), introduced a bill on Wednesday that would impose sanctions on companies, individuals and others involved in the construction and development of Israeli settlements in the E1 area of the West Bank, which the lawmakers argue would be a severe blow to the viability of a Palestinian state.

The far-reaching sanctions would also target financial institutions and government officials and entities involved in supporting or facilitating E1 settlement construction.

Coons’ leadership on the legislation is especially notable because he has historically been seen as one of Israel’s strongest allies on Capitol Hill and he’s in line to be the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee  in the next Congress — potentially chairing the influential panel if Democrats take the majority, where he’d have significant latitude to work to advance the bill and other similar measures.

The bill would place mandatory sanctions on anyone “responsible for or complicit in, or [found] to have directly or indirectly engaged in or attempted to engage in” the construction of settlements or related structures in the E1 area; investing in or constructing infrastructure designed to serve the settlements including roads and utilities; or organizing or financing the transfer of Israeli settlers into such settlements.

The sanctions would also apply to those who “knowingly facilitated financial transactions related” to such settlement activity — targeting Israeli or international banks involved in the settlement construction —  as well as government entities and leaders involved in E1 settlement construction.

The bill also allows for discretionary sanctions on individuals or entities providing support to those who are sanctioned, and on entities owned or controlled by those sanctioned.

The sanctions authorities would terminate after seven years unless renewed.

Alongside Coons, the bill is being co-led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and is cosponsored by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Peter Welch (D-VT).

“For decades, American presidents from both parties have warned successive Israeli governments that construction in E1 threatened the viability of a Palestinian state and was unacceptable to the United States,” Coons said in a statement. “As Palestinian civilians face a campaign of devastation and fear from violent extremist settlers, the United States must send a strong message that this behavior is unacceptable and that it remains committed to freedom, security, prosperity, and self-determination for all Israelis and Palestinians.”

Warren described the E1 project as “a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank, and those who choose to facilitate settlement construction should understand that they risk losing access to the U.S. financial system.”

Wyden said that the expansion of West Bank settlements “crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult” and said the U.S. must “must stand up against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s campaign of violence and aggression against Palestinian civilians.”

Gallego said that, by severing east Jerusalem from the West Bank, E1 construction would “threaten a viable Palestinian state” and is a “step in the wrong direction.” 

“This legislation sends a clear message to Prime Minister Netanyahu: the United States stands firmly behind a two-state solution as the only path to real peace and security for all,” he said.

The bill follows the announcement of sanctions by the U.K. and other U.S. allies targeting Israeli settlements broadly, including both the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

J Street praised the bill, saying, “The era in which right-wing Israeli governments could ignore US demands to halt settlement expansion and expect American politicians to fall in line is over.”

Phil Gordon, who served as national security advisor to former Vice President Kamala Harris, also expressed support, saying, “If [President Donald’ Trump actually cared about addressing settlements or settler violence he could support that; if not his ‘mild’ response to UK means little.”

Despite objections from leading Democrats, the House on Wednesday passed a bipartisan bill to sanction Russia and extend existing sanctions on Iran, named for the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who spent his final months negotiating the legislation.

The bill now heads to the White House to be signed into law. It includes a five-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which was set to expire in 2026, a late-stage addition to the bill in the Senate after President Donald Trump demanded that the bill include provisions related to Iran.

The legislation received a significantly different reception from Democrats in the House than it did in the Senate, where the bill passed with strong bipartisan support. Fifty-eight House Democrats voted for the bill, while 152 voted against it. Seven Republicans opposed the legislation. The final tally was 262-159.

Democrats who opposed the bill generally raised concerns about the waiver authorities that the administration could use to avoid placing sanctions on Russia — arguing that Trump can’t be trusted to crack down on President Vladimir Putin — and about the tariff provisions included in the bill to target importers of Russian oil.

Democrats have warned that Trump could misuse those tariff authorities to target U.S. partners in trade disputes, unrelated to the war in Ukraine.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on the House floor. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions … contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day. That’s particularly the case because President Trump has shown great reluctance over the [past] 10 years … to actually side with the Ukrainian people.”

“Worse yet, what this legislation will do is give Donald Trump perhaps unfettered authority to unleash tariffs on the American people in ways that have already cost everyday Americans thousands of dollars in additional expense per year,” Jeffries continued, questioning why Congress would give Trump “unfettered authority to visit more tariffs on the world.”

Other top Democratic leaders, including Reps. Katherine Clark (D-MA), Pete Aguilar (D-CA) and Greg Meeks (D-NY), also opposed the bill.

But several prominent Democrats, including former Democratic leaders Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC), supported the bill.

“Nobody in this House believes that I am a defender of Donald Trump’s failure to address this issue head on and effectively. No one has opposed his tariff policies any more than I have,” Hoyer said earlier this week. 

But he emphasized that “nothing we do to pass this bill or defeat this bill” will encourage or discourage Trump from going “far beyond his legal strictures.” 

He said the bill will be “a statement by the Congress of the United States” —  “‘This is what ought to happen. Sanctions ought to be imposed, tariffs or penalize countries who are funding Russia’s ability to make war,’” declaring clearly that Congress supports Ukraine even if Trump’s support is unreliable.

“If we do not pass this bill, there will be great joy in the Kremlin and great devastation in Kyiv, who will see something that they thought they had in hand — a strong statement by the United States of America’s Congress — disappear because of a fight over tariffs,” Hoyer said. “Their morale will tank and we will be still, since April 2024, having not taken the action.”

House Republicans celebrated the bill’s passage.

“House and Senate Republicans are placing maximum pressure on Vladimir Putin and the Russian war machine,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said in a statement. “This legislation strengthens economic sanctions against the Russian government, its financial institutions, and the foreign governments that aid Russian aggression against Ukraine by purchasing cheap Russian oil and gas and helping the Kremlin evade other sanctions.”

AIPAC also praised the bill’s passage, noting, “The Iran Sanctions Act underpins most sanctions on the Iranian regime and was set to expire this year.” The pro-Israel group also urged Congress to quickly pass the Enhanced Iran Sanctions Act, which passed the House earlier this year.

The American Jewish Committee, which has advocated strongly for Ukraine in addition to Israel, applauded the bill’s passage as well.

“We welcome the House’s passage of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, advancing legislation that would significantly increase economic pressure on Russia over its ongoing illegal war against Ukraine while extending sanctions against Iran,” the AJC said in a statement. “Russia and Iran continue to pose threats that extend far beyond their borders, including through their military cooperation and support for destabilizing actors.”

“This bipartisan action by Congress sends a clear message that the Russian and Iranian regimes must be held accountable for activities that threaten international security and stability,” the statement continued.

House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against a bill that would strip federal funding from colleges and universities engaged in boycotts of Israel, with just 33 Democrats supporting the measure.

The bill ultimately passed 237-169, with two Republicans voting against the measure along with the majority of House Democrats.

The Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, led by Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), would make colleges that participate in a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel ineligible to receive federal student aid funding, requiring them to certify annually that they are not engaged in such boycotts and instructing the Department of Education to annually publish a list of schools that fail to submit such certifications.

The law would apply to boycotts of Israel as a country or to companies and other entities operating under Israeli law, which would include settlements in the West Bank.

The Democrats who supported the bill were Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Gil Cisneros (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Don Davis (D-NC), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Jared Golden (D-ME), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), Greg Landsman (D-OH), George Latimer (D-NY), Susie Lee (D-NV), John Mannion (D-NY), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), Josh Riley (D-NY), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Hillary Scholten (D-MI), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Darren Soto (D-FL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Shri Thanedar (D-MI), Dina Titus (D-NV), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Eugene Vindman (D-VA) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).

Republican Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) opposed it.

“No student, no professor should be shut out of research, study abroad opportunities, or academic partnerships, or feel unwelcome in the classroom because of where they’re from or what religion they practice,” Gottheimer said in a statement ahead of the vote. “Yet that’s exactly what the boycott-divest-sanction movement seeks to do — targeting one country and one religion: Israel and Judaism.” 

He insisted the bill would not impact speech, protest or academic debate, but “simply says that if your university takes federal taxpayer dollars, it can’t discriminate against academic partnerships or investments with one country. That’s it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan bill.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called the bill a “poorly-written Republican bill” that would not oppose the BDS movement but instead “provide Donald Trump with the power to punitively launch political attacks on our colleges and universities.”

He pledged that a Democratic majority would “advance unifying legislation” to combat antisemitism.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a co-chair of the House Jewish Caucus, said that he strongly opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and believes that it “can veer into antisemitism.”

“But no matter how strongly I oppose the BDS movement, I also believe that those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so,” Nadler continued, calling the bill a “direct and gross violation of the First Amendment.”

He said it also “treats the entire West Bank as part of Israel, erasing the Green Line and undermining efforts to promote a two-state solution.”

A memo from Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), the ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, also urged Democrats to oppose the bill, warning that it could “potentially” restrict schools’ First Amendment rights and that it does not address a currently existing problem. It also notes opposition from J Street and the American Federation of Teachers.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America also opposed the bill, which it said is “an infringement on free speech and undermines efforts toward peace.”

AIPAC and Jewish groups, including the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, supported the bill.

AIPAC said in a statement, “This legislation helps protect pro-Israel students from discriminatory boycotts and efforts to deny them the ability to study in Israel or learn from Israeli professors, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”

The RJC noted, “insisting that universities join the BDS lynch mob was the key demand campus protesters confronted university administrators with during the period of antisemitic violence and unrest that swept American campuses after October 7, 2023.”

The bill’s prospects of passing the Senate in the remaining months of the current congressional term are unclear. It has no companion legislation in the Senate and there had not been much public attention on the legislation prior to its passage today in the House.

In a bipartisan vote pushed in part by President Donald Trump, the House passed the Sunshine Protection Act, making daylight saving time permanent, a situation that raises concerns for Orthodox Jewish groups that have long warned that such a move would have negative impacts for Jewish morning prayer and potentially raise dangers for school children who have to travel to school before daybreak.

The bill passed the House by a 308-117 vote, with 95 Democrats and 22 Republicans voting no. The issue has been a priority for Trump, and lawmakers have also included the same legislation in a must-pass transportation bill, with near unanimous support in committee.

Rabbi AD Motzen, the national director of government affairs at Agudath Israel of America, said that, in spite of the popular desire to eliminate time changes, “We are concerned, however, that by choosing permanent daylight saving time for the entire country it will put children at risk and affect our religious practices.”

Motzen emphasized that permanent daylight saving time would set up post-9 a.m. sunrises in parts of the country for several weeks a year, posing potential dangers to students who would have to travel to school in the dark. He also warned that extending daylight saving time “will create an extreme hardship on observant Jews,” making it “extraordinarily difficult — if not impossible — to arrive on time for a job and [effecting] the start time of our schools.”

Nathan Diament, the executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, said that making daylight saving time permanent would “raise safety issues for children who would be going to school in the pitch dark for many weeks of the year,” about which health experts have expressed concern.

He said that it would also “interfere with the ability of members of our community to engage in congregational prayers and get to their places of work on time.”

Motzen also emphasized that a previous change to permanent daylight saving time was quickly reversed after Americans experienced its actual impacts.

Attention for the bill’s opponents now turns to the Senate, where the bill has some vocal opponents.

Diament noted that some Senate lawmakers, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), expressed “firm opposition to this measure,” offering his thanks for their efforts.

Motzen also placed his hopes on the Senate blocking passage of the legislation.

“We are hopeful that the Senate will consider all of the effects of DST and compare them to the effects of permanent standard time or maintaining the status quo before rushing into this major change,” Motzen said.

Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) introduced a bill on Tuesday that directs the State Department to work with U.S. allies to dismantle and replace the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The “Replace UNRWA with Real Humanitarian Assistance Act” would give the secretary of state 180 days to submit a “comprehensive strategy, coordinated with international partners and allies,” to dismantle UNRWA, including a detailed timeline for the wind-down, identification of governmental or non-governmental entities responsible for taking over UNRWA’s portfolio, a funding plan and a transition plan.

The secretary would be required to begin implementing the plan within a year of submitting the strategy.

The legislation also demands oversight, accountability and neutrality mechanisms. 

The bill requires that “no interruption of critical humanitarian services occurs” during the transition period.

“UNRWA has repeatedly failed to meet the basic standards of accountability and neutrality that the international community should expect from any humanitarian organization,” Lawler said in a statement. “Humanitarian aid must reach those who need it, not strengthen organizations that undermine peace and security. This legislation provides a responsible path to replace UNRWA with trustworthy partners while ensuring critical humanitarian assistance continues uninterrupted.”

Groups including AIPAC, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, Christians United for Israel and FDD Action are supporting the bill.

“UNRWA is a deeply compromised organization that is beyond any capability for reform. It’s time for the U.S. to implement a serious plan to eliminate and replace UNRWA once and for all,” AIPAC said in a statement.

Matt Kenney, JINSA’s vice president of government affairs, said that UNRWA “has forfeited any claim to serve as a credible humanitarian partner in the Middle East,” citing the organization’s ties to terrorism. UNRWA employees were found to have participated in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and otherwise have ties to the terror organization.

“UNRWA does not resettle refugees; UNRWA recruits refugees. How an organization continues to exist for over half a century, despite receiving billions of dollars from the American taxpayer, yet has not managed to resettle one single refugee is beyond me,” CUFI Action Fund Chairwoman Sandra Hagee Parker said in a statement. She called UNRWA an “institutional failure.”

Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and James Lankford (R-OK) are set to introduce a bill on Thursday directing the Pentagon to develop a coordinated air- and missile-defense acquisition strategy with Israel, Abraham Accords members and other Middle East allies.

The Optimizing Acquisition Strategies for Integrated Security (OASIS) in the Middle East Act, which expands on existing legislative and administrative efforts to establish a coordinated air and missile defense system throughout the Middle East to protect the U.S. and its partners, would aim to ensure that the necessary resources are in place to protect the U.S. and its allies in future conflicts, sponsors said.

It builds on past legislation sponsored by the co-chairs of the Abraham Accords Caucus, including the DEFEND Act, and comes ahead of the Senate’s markup of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Previous Abraham Accords caucus projects have been incorporated into past years’ NDAAs.

“Iran’s reckless and destabilizing behavior underscores why we must work together to ensure we have sufficient air and missile defense resources to respond to Iranian aggression and keep our allies, like Israel, safe,” Rosen said in a statement, referring to Iran and its proxies’ attacks throughout the region. “Our bipartisan bill will provide a clear framework to support DOD’s efforts to develop an integrated air and missile defense acquisition strategy for the region.”

Lankford said that Iran’s “aggression cannot go unanswered.”

“The OASIS in the Middle East Act makes sure the Department of War has a coordinated strategy so Israel and our partners have what they need before the next attack comes, not after,” Lankford continued. “Standing with our allies is not optional; it is a core American commitment, and this bill ensures we back that commitment up with real resources and real strategy.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani exercised his veto power for the first time since entering office on Friday to block a bill that would standardize NYPD policy around protests at educational institutions.

Mamdani had just one day left to block the two “buffer zone bills” that the City Council passed last month: the other measure, backed by Council Speaker Julie Menin and passed with a veto-proof majority, compels the police commissioner to develop formal protocol for security perimeters that ensure access and egress from religious buildings during demonstrations. That proposal went untouched and passed into law automatically — but the schools bill, which contains similar language but did not pass with a veto-proof majority, was struck down.

Speaking to reporters after an unrelated event Friday morning, the mayor cited what he described as  “constitutional concerns” and union objections to possible infringement on their right to picket — even though the measure contained a carveout for labor action.

“It carries [these concerns] because unlike in the first piece of legislation, which is balancing the right to protest and the right to prayer — both of which are not just sacrosanct in our city but also constitutionally — the second does not have a counterbalance to the right to protest,” he said, suggesting that this exposed the proposal to legal challenge. “It also defines educational institutions in such a broad manner that it includes museums, libraries, teaching hospitals, things of that nature.”

The city’s leading Jewish groups issued a rare united response, highlighting the protests that have targeted yeshivas and gathering places for Jewish student groups in recent years.

“We are deeply disappointed by Mayor Mamdani’s decision,” said the UJA-Federation of New York, the Anti-Defamation League of New York/New Jersey, Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, American Jewish Committee New York, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the New York Board of Rabbis, Orthodox Union, The Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, StandWithUs and Teach NYS. “This veto is a profound failure of City Hall to demonstrate to all New Yorkers that our safety is a priority.” 

Bronx Councilman Eric Dinowitz, the lead sponsor of the bill, highlighted that it would merely obligate the NYPD to create a uniform policy for security perimeters, already frequently enforced during protests. He pushed back on claims that it would infringe on First Amendment rights.

“Students deserve safety as they enter and exit their school buildings, and New Yorkers deserve transparency from the NYPD,” Dinowitz said in a statement. “The mayor promised to keep New Yorkers safe and increase police transparency. By vetoing this bill, he is breaking yet another campaign promise.”

Sources indicated to Jewish Insider that they would try to whip votes to secure the necessary support from the City Council to override the mayor’s decision. The city bills are distinct from state-level proposals Gov. Kathy Hochul has endorsed that would establish a felony penalty for protesters who come within 25 feet of the doorways and driveways of religious institutions and abortion clinics.

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), joined by Rep. Max Miller (R-OH), introduced the SACRED Act this week, a new bill aimed at protecting attendees at religious institutions from harassment and threats by demonstrators — a phenomenon seen repeatedly outside synagogues that has spurred “buffer zone” legislation in New York and elsewhere.

The bill, which applies within 100 feet of a religious institution, would create criminal and civil penalties for individuals who attempt to intimidate or obstruct someone in a manner that causes reasonable fear for physical safety to prevent them from entering or exiting a place of worship. It also applies — within that 100-foot zone — to individuals who intentionally approach within eight feet of a person seeking to exercise their freedom to worship, for the purpose of intimidating or harassing them.

The bill builds on the existing FACE Act, invoked by the Trump administration in recent lawsuits, which bans the use of force, threats or physical obstruction to prevent an individual from exercising their religious freedom at a place of worship.

Unlike some legislation at the local and state level, the bill would not ban all protests within the 100-foot buffer zone, specifically permitting peaceful picketing and other non-disruptive demonstrations.

First offenders would be subject to fines or up to one year in prison, with repeat offenders subject to greater fines and up to three years in prison. The bill would also create a civil right of action for both victims of harassment as well as the Department of Justice and state attorneys general.

Suozzi told Jewish Insider the bill was prompted by constituents from various religious communities who have expressed concern about “aggressive action” against them at their places of worship.

The spate of incidents outside synagogues has been “very disturbing,” Suozzi said, adding that he’s been hearing an unprecedented amount of fear and concern from Jewish friends and supporters since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks — ”[they] have said things to me that I never heard before, things like ‘We don’t know what to do? What would we do if they came for us?’ People are genuinely scared, and we see this hateful behavior not just [against] Jews but against other religious minorities as well.”

He described the bill as a delicate, and carefully crafted, balance designed to uphold First Amendment rights to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

“This is a very, very sensitive topic that involves First Amendment rights and also people’s concern about their safety and their not only their right to free speech, but also their right to worship,” Suozzi said. He added that he had consulted with a constitutional scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School, in drafting the bill, who said it is compliant with the First Amendment.

“If you’re doing a peaceful protest and you’re leafleting or something like that — we don’t have a problem with that. It’s with these people that are going up to people and yelling at them and saying meanspirited, awful things with an intent to try to physically stop them from entering into their religious institution [that are the issue],” Suozzi continued, adding that even offensive but peaceful speech like opposing a religion or Zionism would be permitted.

“It would be [banned] if you came up close to people and you start yelling in their faces and saying, ‘you’re a Zionist pig,’ or something like that — trying to intimidate them,” he explained.

Miller said in a statement, “Every American deserves to practice their faith free from fear, intimidation, or harassment.”

“The SACRED Act ensures that people can access their place of worship safely and without obstruction, while still preserving First Amendment protections for peaceful expression,” he continued. “This commonsense legislation draws a clear line: intimidation and threats have no place in our communities.”

Suozzi emphasized that the bill is different from other recent state- and local-level buffer zone legislation, and he took pains to avoid modeling the bill after a Massachusetts law that was struck down in court which had banned all protests within a 35-foot zone. The eight-foot “floating buffer zone” was based on a Colorado law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, he said.

And, he said, “we’re only focused on people’s conduct, not their speech.”

In New York City, a slice of which falls within Suozzi’s district, the City Council recently passed buffer zone legislation for educational and religious facilities, but Mayor Zohran Mamdani is reportedly considering a veto. He has until the end of the week to do so, or the legislation will become law by default.

Suozzi said he sees much of the harassment at synagogues as linked to social media, which rewards extremism, and deliberate efforts by adversaries like Iran, China, Russia and North Korea to enhance division in the country.

“So we have to take new actions to try and address that. And this is a way to say, ‘You can disagree. You can protest. You can disagree completely with what I think — even though I think that you’re wrong, you’re completely allowed to do that, but you’re not allowed to come close to a person and try and scare them and try and prevent them from feeling safe to go practice their religion,’” Suozzi said.

Suozzi is set to be joined by Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt for a press conference on the bill at the Holocaust Memorial and Tolerance Center of Nassau County on Friday morning.

“No one should have to face harassment or intimidation as they are trying to pray in peace at a place of religious worship,” Greenblatt said in a statement. “This important and much-needed legislation reflects both the urgency of this moment and the fundamental principle that every person should be able to practice their faith freely and safely.”

Leaders from several communities impacted by antisemitic violence lobbied in favor of the bill on Capitol Hill earlier this week.

It’s also being backed by the American Jewish Committee, Orthodox Union, Hadassah, Hindu American Foundation, Islamic Society of North America, Jewish Federations of North America, UJA-Federation of New York, the Holocaust Memorial and Tolerance Center and Agudath Israel of America.

In a statement, AJC CEO Ted Deutch emphasized that the group’s recent national survey found that more than a quarter of American Jews said that an institution with which they are affiliated has been targeted in the last five years, and more than half have changed their behavior out of fear of antisemitism.

“At a time of rising threats against Jewish institutions, we applaud Representatives Suozzi and Miller for introducing the bipartisan SACRED Act to ensure safe access to houses of worship,” Deutch continued.

“Houses of worship are sacred spaces and visitors gathering there to pray or attend communal events should be free from harassment. The SACRED Act helps protect communities by creating a buffer zone around places of religious worship and individuals and imposes penalties for violations of this law,” Rabbi A.D. Motzen, the national director of government affairs for Agudath Israel, said in a statement. 

“Unfortunately, recent incidents in front of synagogues around the country highlight the need for additional protections,” Motzen continued.

Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, said, “Every American deserves to practice their faith free from intimidation, harassment, or fear at the doors of their place of worship. With incidents targeting synagogues and other houses of worship continuing to rise, we need this federal legislation to protect our fundamental right to religious freedom.”

“Intimidating and harassing people exercising their right to worship is unacceptable — anytime, anywhere,” said Carol Ann Schwartz, national president of Hadassah. “Hadassah has heard from Jewish women who are afraid to display symbols of their faith and who constantly watch their synagogue doors for attackers. The antisemitism these women face reflects the erosion of public safety at every place of worship, and we must act to keep sacred spaces safe.”

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.”