The members of the Congressional Jewish Caucus — every Jewish House Democrat — wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on Wednesday urging her to rescind new conditions — presumably related to immigration enforcement and diversity programs — instituted earlier this year on recipients of Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding.

“We are writing to you today to express our strong desire to ensure that the NSGP is adequately funded and unimpeded by new requirements that are unrelated to the security of grant recipients and their communities,” the letter reads. “Insufficient funding or unnecessary obstacles to obtaining grants could undermine the right of every religious community to freely and peacefully worship and congregate without fear.”

The lawmakers charge that new conditions for the grant program promulgated in April “create onerous new compliance requirements for recipients that will divert limited funds and restrict the religious conscience of synagogues, schools, and other institutions pivotal to our community,” and call on Noem to issue new guidance waiving any terms “that do not directly relate to the grant’s purpose, which is to help qualified institutions improve their security against increasing threats.”

The letter does not directly spell out which conditions the lawmakers are addressing, but congressional Democrats and some in the Jewish community have previously raised concerns about new language in some grant materials indicating that grants may be contingent on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and eliminating Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.

“[W]e reject any efforts to force Jewish and other houses of worship and institutions to choose between vital security funding and expression of their core religious freedoms, as well as their faith teachings and values,” the lawmakers wrote. “In this time of increased hate crimes against minorities, and in particular rising antisemitism, we believe it is crucial that NSGP remains a critical resource accessible to all communities in need and free from partisan politicization.”

The lawmakers also emphasized that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have supported a “streamlined, effective program with minimal red tape and compliance requirements.”

The letter was signed by Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL), the co-chairs of the Jewish caucus, and Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Becca Balint (D-VT), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).

“The Nonprofit Security Grant Program has been a lifeline as we face rising antisemitism, hate, and extremism — but these politically-motivated grant requirements threaten to force our communities to choose between their safety and their core religious values,” Jewish Council for Public Affairs CEO  Amy Spitalnick said in a statement about the letter, which specifically referenced the immigration and DEI language. “The fact is that the NSGP is simply too important to be politicized to advance the administration’s agenda..”

JCPA has previously urged the administration directly to repeal the conditions.

A coalition of major Jewish communal and security organizations, including the Jewish Federations of North America, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Anti-Defamation League, Secure Community Network, Community Security Initiative and Community Security Service issued a joint statement in September urging institutions to apply for the grants in spite of any concerns that they may have about the new criteria.

A group of Jewish House Democrats raised questions on Friday about the Pentagon’s decision to announce a $200 million contract with Elon Musk’s company xAI to utilize a version of its Grok artificial intelligence, days after the chatbot posted antisemitic and violent screeds on X. The legislators said they’re concerned about Musk’s potential influence on the program and lingering issues linked to the antisemitic outburst.

“These posts were not isolated but widespread, repeated, and shockingly detailed. They appeared immediately after Mr. Elon Musk, CEO of xAI, publicly stated on July 4 that Grok had been ‘significantly improved,’” the lawmakers said in a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. “The proximity of these events raises grave questions about Mr. Musk’s potential direct influence over the output of ‘Grok for Government,’ and the risk to American national defense from using a compromised product subject to the whims of an unaccountable CEO with clear extremist predilections.”

They said the contract also fits with “a broader and increasingly visible pattern of the Department turning a blind eye to antisemitism in its own ranks,” including Hegseth’s defense of Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon’s press secretary, against accusations of antisemitism.

“If Mr. Musk retains the ability to directly alter outputs from ‘Grok for Government,’ it poses a serious and unacceptable risk to national security and American constitutional values,” the letter adds.

The lawmakers asked whether Musk can “unilaterally access, modify, or influence” the Grok application to be used by the Pentagon to change outputs or access classified information, what safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized changes to the Pentagon’s Grok platform and whether the Department of Defense has audited Grok to ensure that issues similar to the incident of the antisemitic remarks will not occur in its own use of the program.

“Without clear guardrails, there is no reason to believe the behavior of ‘Grok for Government’ in military applications will remain stable or aligned with DoD security and ethics standards,” the lawmakers said. “Mr. Musk’s personal disregard for basic safeguards, combined with the Department’s own recent appalling tolerance for antisemitism, require the creation of far more technological and institutional transparency than we have seen to date.”

The letter, led by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA), was co-signed by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Sara Jacobs (D-CA) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).

A group of eight Jewish House Democrats called for action to advance the Antisemitism Awareness Act and increase Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding, in advance of votes on the House floor on a pair of resolutions condemning recent antisemitic attacks.

The statement highlights the recent string of antisemitic violence across the country and argues, “The Jewish community needs real action, not just resolutions.”

The lawmakers said that, “While the House will vote on two non-binding resolutions this week condemning the antisemitic attacks in Washington D.C., and Boulder, Colorado, the Jewish community is reeling, and we need Congressional leaders to come together and support real policy change.”

The statement was signed by Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Lois Frankel (D-FL).

“In just the last two weeks, our country has witnessed two back-to-back antisemitic terror attacks that have left two dead and 15 seriously wounded,” the lawmakers said. “These events are an escalation of ongoing antisemitic violence that has become more and more common since Hamas’s October 7th massacre.”

The statement calls on Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to bring a clean, unamended version of the Antisemitism Awareness Act to the Senate floor and for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to bring the bill up for a vote in the House.

“Codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism is long overdue, and is more urgent now than ever as we see one violent anti-Zionist terror attack after another,” the statement reads. “You cannot fight antisemitism if you are unwilling to define it.”

It also calls for President Donald Trump and members of the Appropriations Committees to provide “long-requested levels of $500 million” for the NSGP, arguing, “it will help [Jewish institutions] put in place additional security measures like security cameras, locked doors, security guards, and more that could thwart terror attacks like the one that transpired at the Capital Jewish Museum.”

The statement outlines a series of violent antisemitic incidents in the past year and a half, including the Capital Jewish Museum murders and the Boulder, Colo., attack, as well as the attempted arson of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home during Passover; the death of Paul Kessler, who was killed in November 2023 in Los Angeles by an anti-Israel demonstrator who hit him on the head; and the stabbing of a Jewish barber in Yonkers, N.Y. in August 2024, which the lawmakers say “underlie the need for urgent, serious action.”

The statement’s neutral tone on the two antisemitism resolutions reflects the fact that many House Democrats are condemning one of the resolutions, led by Republicans, which focuses heavily on immigration issues. Controversial language describing “Free Palestine” as an antisemitic slogan was pulled from the resolution ahead of the vote.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Monday that the resolution is a “desperate attempt to distract,” an “embarassment” and a “joke.”

The statement was also endorsed by Democratic Majority for Israel.

A group of pro-Israel Jewish House Democrats wrote to Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday warning that Iran must restore International Atomic Energy Agency access to its nuclear sites before any deal can move forward in earnest.

Under a reported proposal put forward by Iran, Iran would not allow such inspections to resume until well into the implementation of a nuclear agreement.

“Absent verifiable data on Iran’s current nuclear activities, it is not possible to conduct meaningful, comprehensive negotiations or assess compliance with any potential future agreement,” Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) wrote, in a letter obtained by Jewish Insider. “The failure to establish a true baseline undermines the credibility of the negotiating process and exposes the United States and its partners to strategic miscalculation.”

They said that international inspectors must regain “full, unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, before establishing final parameters of a possible agreement.”

The lawmakers argued that, because inspectors have been blocked from key sites in recent years as Iran has significantly increased its enrichment and stockpile of nuclear materials, the U.S. and its partners “lack reliable visibility into the scope and status of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Restoring inspector access is the necessary foundation for any serious diplomatic effort,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without verified insight into Iran’s current nuclear activities, the United States cannot credibly assess risks, define objectives, or safeguard the interests of our allies.”

The three Democrats said that better knowledge of Iran’s current activities and stockpiles is “particularly urgent” given recent assessments that Iran could quickly have sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons, its missile program continues to advance and it continues to support regional terrorism.

The letter is the latest in a series of signs in recent days that pro-Israel Democrats are alarmed by the Trump administration’s apparent interest in moving quickly toward a nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic.

Asked on Thursday about a New York Times report that the U.S. had rejected an Israeli plan to strike Iran, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told JI, “We should never play public footsie with the parent company of terror and one of our top adversaries. We should take the hardest line against Iran’s terror and nuclear programs.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) similarly expressed alarm a day prior about the Times story.

Iran International reported on Thursday the alleged parameters of a deal that Iran had put forward — a proposal similar to the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Under the deal, Iran would “temporarily” halt its enrichment to 3.67% in exchange for access to frozen assets and the ability to export oil. It would not restore IAEA inspections or “end high-level uranium enrichment” until the second stage of the deal, at which point the U.S. would be required to lift some sanctions and prevent the implementation of U.N. snapback sanctions on Iran.

Under the third phase of the proposed deal, Iran would move its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to a third country, while the U.S. would lift all sanctions on Iran. Iran would not be required to curtail its missile program or support for terrorism — which have prompted some of the sanctions in question. Iran is also demanding that Congress approve the deal. 

Iran International reported that Witkoff “welcomed the proposals,” to the surprise of Iranian negotiators. Some in the U.S. have worried that Witkoff, who has delivered mixed messages publicly on the U.S. position, would negotiate a weak deal.

The proposal saw immediate backlash from Iran hawks.

“Terrible proposal. Iran has no reason to enrich ANY uranium. 3.67% enriched is just a few weeks away from weapons grade. And Iran is proposing to only TEMPORARILY limit enrichment to this level,” Fred Fleitz, the vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, a pro-Trump think tank, said. “This is a Iranian cynical ploy to buy time and continue its weaponization program.”

Fleitz served for several months as chief of staff of the National Security Council in Trump’s first administration.

“The regime wants a return to the failed JCPOA, which President Trump rightly rejected. The U.S. response must be firm: dismantle your nuclear program completely and verifiably — or face consequences,” FDD Action, an advocacy group affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “Congress must reject any deal that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, said the proposal is “unserious and should be dead on arrival.”