Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) are leading 28 colleagues in introducing a House version of the Jewish American Security Act, the package of antisemitism-related legislation introduced by Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) last month in the Senate.

The bill includes a proposal for significant increases in security funding, new oversight and administrative measures to address antisemitism on college campuses and new transparency  requirements for social media companies relating to antisemitism online.

The legislation is being co-sponsored by Reps. Grace Meng (D-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Maria Salazar (R-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Rudy Yakym (R-IN), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Don Bacon (R-NE), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Dan Meuser (R-PA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Tom Barrett (R-MI), Jen Kiggans (R-VA), Greg Landsman (D-OH), David Kustoff (R-TN), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Randy Weber (R-TX), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI) and John Moolenaar (R-MI).

“Words of condemnation are no longer enough,” Goldman said in a statement. “Since the October 7th attacks, there has been a systematic failure in Congress and in our communities to counter the threat posed by surging antisemitism across this country.”

Goldman, a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, said the bill would change that pattern: “Whether on campus, at synagogues, or online — the Jewish American Security Act will provide the tools necessary to help secure our at-risk communities to practice their faith without fear. American Jews cannot be asked to bear this burden alone. As Americans, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with those under siege by hate.”

Lawler, who is also the lead sponsor of the long-stalled Antisemitism Awareness Act, said in a statement that by providing additional resources for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, the bill would help safeguard constitutionally protected religious freedom and bolster Jewish institutions against attacks.

“This bill also delivers critical protections for Jewish students on college campuses through stronger Title VI enforcement, requires greater transparency from online platforms on antisemitic content, and establishes key threat assessments,” Lawler said. “We must act decisively so Jewish Americans can feel safe in their schools, synagogues, and online.”

The legislation is supported by a wide range of Jewish groups across the religious and political spectrum.

“[A]ntisemitism remains a serious threat to the safety and security of the American Jewish community. A piecemeal approach to combat this scourge of [antisemitism] is no longer sufficient. The Jewish American Security Act is a serious and comprehensive federal response to this epidemic of hate,” Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement. “We are grateful to Congressmen Goldman and Lawler for championing this bill in the House and showing that keeping Jewish Americans safe is a genuine bipartisan priority.”

Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, told Jewish Insider in a brief interview that, given the support in both the House and Senate and the Jewish community, “there’s never really been something like this at this level of comprehensiveness on Jewish security, with all the Jewish organizations working together.”

“People care, but they just don’t realize how bad it’s been. They don’t realize what’s happened in the last year. They don’t understand how Temple Israel was almost a disaster that would have changed the country,” Fingerhut continued. “This is really an important moment and we are all over this. There’s nothing that’s a higher priority.”

He said that if the bill passes, “we really have something that will make a difference for the Jewish community, which has been the target of a serious domestic terror crisis over this last year. So we’re grateful and we’re ready to work.”

American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch said in a statement that Americans should not need security to pray or be afraid to leave their homes and interact in their communities, “yet, that is exactly what Jews in this country are experiencing every day.” 

“We are at an inflection point. Surging antisemitism is not just a threat to the Jewish community; it is a crisis for our democracy and the values we cherish as Americans — pluralism, religious freedom, and the promise of equal protection,” Deutch said. “We thank Representatives Goldman and Lawler for their leadership and demonstrating that confronting this hatred is not a political issue, but a moral obligation.”

Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said that antisemitic violence “demands investments in a sustained, whole-of-government and whole-of-society response.” 

“The Jewish American Security Act helps us to meet that need by focusing on tools that we know work,” Spitalnick said. “A truly inclusive American democracy requires Jewish safety — and so too does our safety as Jews depend on protecting our democratic institutions and values and ensuring the safety and rights of each and every community.”

Nathan Diament, the executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, said that the organization “strongly supports” the bill and that the “unprecedented wave of antisemitism demands an unprecedented response by our government,” including increasing NSGP funding to $1 billion.

Rabbi Jonah Pesner, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said that “the need for meaningful steps to bolster security and the fight against hate is vital.”

“The Jewish American Security Act strengthens the government tools and funding that will be available to help us meet this moment and uphold the American commitment to religious freedom,” Pesner said.

William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, praised the bipartisan support for the legislation as well as the broad consensus around it in the Jewish community, urging the bill’s quick passage.

“It is deeply encouraging to see this bill come together with bipartisan, bicameral support at a time when that kind of consensus is all too rare. There is real meaning in Republicans and Democrats joining around the shared responsibility to protect Jewish Americans,” Daroff said.

“It is encouraging to see real consensus across Jewish organizations. Since October 7, engagement is up and coordination is stronger. That unity is both needed and significant.”

Weeks after the Coast Guard commandant personally called lawmakers to reassure them that swastikas and nooses would remain banned hate symbols within the service, the Guard quietly broke its pledge and diminished the severity of such displays as “potentially divisive” instead — the very language that had prompted outrage from lawmakers and the Jewish community.

Leading Democrats erupted in outrage on the news of the Coast Guard’s policy shift, while Republicans have thus far largely been silent.

The Washington Post first broke the news about the Coast Guard’s changed policy on hate symbols.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, under whose jurisdiction the Coast Guard falls, to demand the policy be reversed immediately.

“It is now clear that the Coast Guard had no intention of backing down, and today they quietly allowed this abhorrent policy to go into effect,” Blumenthal said. “This edict besmirches the Coast Guard’s honor, and DHS should be ashamed.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said in a statement that the policy “must be reversed immediately.”

“Allowing racism and antisemitism to fester in our armed forces is wrong, harmful to our military readiness, and makes all of us less safe. Americans across the country were disgusted when news about this proposed change broke last month. I had hoped the Trump Administration was sufficiently shamed into backtracking when it called that reporting an ‘absolute ludicrous lie and unequivocally false,’” Kaine said. “By moving forward with this absurdly dangerous policy, it’s clear this Administration will stop at nothing to reach a new low.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) called the policy “indefensible” and “a stain on our country” at a time of rising antisemitism.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said the administration should be “ashamed for downplaying the meaning of these symbols.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, said on Wednesday that the policy “shows complete tone-deafness on the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.”

“In light of the horrific events at Bondi Beach and as a Chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I will continue to stand against antisemitism in all forms. Admiral Lunday will have to clarify his Nov 20 memo condemning this policy in light of the now-enacted policy from the Commandant at his upcoming confirmation hearing,” Bacon continued.

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who introduced a House bill that aimed to codify the existing Coast Guard policy on the issue, expressed outrage at the reversal.

“The shocking news from the Coast Guard exposes a crisis of conscience enabled by the Trump administration’s stunning lack of moral clarity,” Torres told Jewish Insider. “Their move to downgrade swastikas and nooses to merely ‘potentially divisive’ was an absurd and disgraceful betrayal of every servicemember. We must pass my legislation immediately to codify a zero-tolerance ban and permanently crush this institutional bigotry.”

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force who signed a joint statement with fellow co-chairs in response to the initial change, told JI that the administration had lied when it said it would be correcting the policy.

“Antisemitism in all forms is unacceptable. The Trump Administration lied right to the American people’s faces when they indicated last month that they weren’t going through with this policy change,” Stevens said. “Downgrading the seriousness of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses — whether in the Coast Guard or any other arm of the U.S. government — is despicable and unacceptable. I will always stand with the Jewish community and fight back against attempts to delegitimize the evil of antisemitism and hate in our country.”

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), also a task force co-chair, told JI that the Coast Guard itself acknowledged that the swastika should not be accepted.

“As the Coast Guard previously acknowledged in initially reversing this terrible decision, these are quintessential symbols of hate, not ‘divisive symbols’ or abstract icons,” Goldman said. “The Coast Guard’s policy change is either blatant discriminatory or pure incompetence. It must be reversed.”

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), another task force co-chair, also highlighted that the Coast Guard had broken its word to lawmakers.

“Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Coast Guard told lawmakers it would reverse this policy. Now, they are doubling down on it,” Meng told JI. “Swastikas and nooses are not just ‘potentially divisive.’ They are symbols of hate, and their harassment policy should reflect that. There is no question that this decision should be reversed immediately.”

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), upon being told about the reversal, said that the change is “outrageous” and noted that — given the recent publicity — the issue is now known to the “highest levels” of the administration.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, emphasized that Coast Guard officials had come to the Hill last month to reassure lawmakers that the policy would not be implemented.

“It is abundantly clear an antisemite and racist in the Trump Administration is forcing this policy to be in place,” Nadler said. “This reprehensible decision must be reversed.”

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) said in a statement the latest policy change contradicted the “explicit message” of the Coast Guard just weeks ago.

“The confusion and contradiction that surrounds this debacle needs to be fixed completely and comprehensively, without any legalese,” Courtney continued. “The sacred reputation of the Coast Guard is at stake with this fiasco, and for the sake of its reputation and future standing, I join my other House colleagues in imploring Coast Guard leadership to act swiftly.”

The Anti-Defamation League said that the policy is “unacceptable” and that “the Coast Guard should immediately fix this policy and make clear that hate has no place in our military.”

Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, told lawmakers on Friday that existing federal law and procedures make it unlikely that any schools will lose their federal funding over antisemitic activity on their college campuses in the near term.

Some lawmakers have honed in on threats to colleges and universities’ federal funding as a method of pressuring or penalizing them over their failure to protect Jewish students. But Lhamon explained at a roundtable with congressional Democrats that pulling funding requires a yearslong litigation process under current federal statute.

Before seeking to revoke funding, Lhamon said that her department, the Office of Civil Rights, must first investigate and communicate a finding that the subject of an investigation has violated civil rights law, at which point she’s required to give schools the opportunity to voluntarily come into compliance.

If a school refuses, then the DOJ can take the matter to an administrative law judge. If the judge rules that the school is in violation, the subject can still appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only at the end of that process — which Lhamon acknowledged could take years — can funds actually be revoked, Lhamon said.

But, she added, most schools will agree to voluntarily take action — OCR is currently taking a discrimination case, related to disability issues, to a judge for the first time in 27 years.

Lhamon also acknowledged another gap in her office’s enforcement ability — she does not have the authority to require schools to dismiss problematic faculty.

Addressing the antisemitism that has pervaded campuses across the country over the past 11 months, Lhamon described herself as “shocked” by the comments she hears from school leaders professing to be unaware of their responsibilities to protect Jewish students from discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a situation she described as unacceptable.

“We are seeing kids assaulted. We are seeing kids stopped from going to class,” Lhamon said. “These are not close calls about whether a university should be responding to them, and yet our universities are treating them like there’s maybe something they don’t need to do, or there’s a byzantine process that a student needs to follow before they can get a university response. That’s not the law.”

Lhamon’s presentation to the lawmakers focused heavily on her office’s need for additional funding; she said that Congress “has never” provided sufficient funding.

The lawmakers who attended the event, Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Kathy Manning (D-NC), Grace Meng (D-NY), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Wiley Nickel (D-NC) and Kim Schrier (D-WA), are supporting a Goldman-sponsored bill that pushes for increased funding for OCR.

Lhamon said her office has around 400 investigative staff, the same number it has since the Bush administration. Complaints, especially in the wake of Oct. 7, have surged, however, from 6,000 per year to 19,201 in 2023, a record it is set to easily surpass this year, with around 24,000 so far.

Four hundred of those complaints were related to discrimination based on shared ancestry or national origin, some of those being antisemitism complaints. OCR currently has 162 such cases under investigation and many more go unreported, Lhamon said.

“I cannot manage that complaint volume with the staff that I have,” Lhamon emphasized, warning that talented and experienced investigators could leave the office. “Our staff are now carrying about 51 cases per person, and you cannot do civil rights work effectively with a caseload that is that high.”

Lhamon said that staff shortages are causing cases to drag on, leaving students to wait, in some cases until after they’ve graduated, for their cases to be resolved.

“That’s not protecting civil rights in the way Congress intended,” Lhamon said.

Lhamon said that the administration’s requested budget increase would allow the office to add 77 new investigators. She said that the ideal target would be 20 or fewer active cases per investigator. But it appears unlikely that Congress will fulfill the administration’s request.

“We don’t have any more efficiencies we can bring to this problem,” Lhamon added. Some lawmakers have argued the case backlog is an issue of improper procedures or prioritization at OCR.

She explained that there is a low bar to opening a formal investigation, which includes extensive document requests and interviews and often surfaces additional instances of examples of discrimination.

Even once cases are resolved, OCR staff are responsible for continued monitoring of schools that have settled with the office. For instance, schools entering into agreements relating to antisemitism are now being required to report every complaint of antisemitism they receive to OCR, so that federal officials can monitor how the schools respond.

Pressed by lawmakers on why her office does not provide specific detail about the nature of the shared ancestry cases it is investigating — such as how many relate to antisemitism — Lhamon said that most antisemitism cases ultimately grow to involve other areas of discrimination as well.

“Here’s maybe an ugly answer to that, but if a university is not handling antisemitism, it’s also not handling anti-Islam,” Lhamon said. “What we’re finding is, if a school doesn’t know or isn’t fulfilling its obligations under Title VI, it’s not doing it for people in general.”

Lhamon also lamented what she characterized as a failure on behalf of schools to take steps to inform students of the rights and protections they are entitled to and how to report cases of discrimination.

She offered, as an example, that she frequently sees information sheets inside bathrooms on campuses about how students can report sexual harassment and sex discrimination, but not similar information sheets about other forms of discrimination.

Lhamon suggested Congress could consider legal changes to address such gaps.

Seventy-four House lawmakers  wrote to the boards of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania on Friday demanding that they immediately fire their presidents in response to widely criticized congressional testimony they delivered on antisemitism on their campuses earlier this week.

The presidents of the three schools have come under increasing scrutiny this week amid growing speculation that their jobs could be on the line following their refusal to say earlier this week that calls for Jewish genocide would violate their schools’ codes of conduct.

“Testimony provided by presidents of your institutions showed a complete absence of moral clarity and illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities that your university presidents enabled,” the letter reads. “Given this moment of crisis, we demand that your boards immediately remove each of these presidents from their positions and that you provide an actionable plan” to ensure the safety of the Jewish community on campus.

“Anything less,” than the steps they requested, the lawmakers continued, “will be seen as your endorsement… and an act of complicity in their antisemitic posture.”

The letter was led by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who questioned the presidents on the genocide issue, and Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is the only other Democrat who signed the letter; the rest are Republicans.

The lawmakers said that the testimony makes it “hard to imagine” any Jewish or Israeli person feeling safe on their campuses when the presidents “could not say that calls for the genocide of Jews would have clear consequences on your campus.”

It adds that subsequent social media statements seeking to clarify or walk back those comments “offered little clarification on your campus’ true commitment to protecting vulnerable students in this moment of crisis,” describing them instead as “desperate attempts to try and save their jobs” and “too little too late.”

Shortly before the Stefanik-Moskowitz letter was released, a group of thirteen House Democrats wrote to the boards of the three schools urging them to re-examine their codes of conduct to make clear that calls for the genocide of Jews are not acceptable.

This second letter, led by Reps. Kathy Manning (D-NC), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and Susan Wild (D-PA), includes similar language to the bipartisan letter regarding the presidents’ testimony and how it would make Jewish campus members feel unsafe, but stops short of directly calling for the presidents to be fired.

The lawmakers wrote that they felt “compelled to ask” if the presidents’ responses “align with the values and policies of your respective institutions.”

“The presidents’ unwillingness to answer questions clearly or fully acknowledge appalling and unacceptable behavior — behavior that would not have been tolerated against other groups — illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities at your universities,” the letter continues. “The lack of moral clarity these presidents displayed is simply unacceptable.”

The lawmakers requested that the schools update their policies to “ensure that they protect students from hate” and describe their plans for protecting Jewish and Israeli community members.

“There is no context in which calls for the genocide of Jews is acceptable rhetoric,” the letter reads. “While Harvard and Penn subsequently issued clarifying statements which were appreciated, their failure to unequivocally condemn calls for the systematic murder of Jews during the public hearing is deeply alarming and stands in stark contrast to the principles we expect leaders of top academic institutions to uphold.”

The letter notes that federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination against Jews on campus, and that criminal law bans hate crimes, violence and incitement to violence.

“Students and faculty who threaten, harass, or incite violence towards Jews must be held accountable for their actions,” the lawmakers wrote. “If calls for genocide of the Jewish people are not in violation of your universities’ policies, then it is time for you to reexamine your policies and codes of conduct.”

Signatories to the Democratic letter include Manning, Wild, Auchincloss, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Grace Meng (D-NY), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

All of the signatories to the Democratic letter are either Jewish or deeply involved with Jewish community issues on the Hill. 

Earlier this week, a third letter by six House Republicans from Pennsylvania — Reps. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), alongside Congressmen John Joyce, M.D. (R-PA), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Dan Meuser (R-PA) — called for University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill specifically to be fired.

By Jacob Kornbluh & JI Staff