A bipartisan group of 41 lawmakers wrote to the CEOs of Meta, TikTok and X on Friday urging them to take action in response to the spike in violent antisemitic content posted on their platforms following recent antisemitic attacks in Washington and Boulder, Colo.

“We write to express grave concern regarding disturbing and inflammatory content circulating on your platforms in support of violence and terrorism,” the lawmakers — the majority of whom are Democrats — wrote in the letter, highlighting the rise of rhetoric praising and justifying the two antisemitic attacks. “This content is effectively glorifying, justifying, and inciting future violence, mirroring the surge in hateful rhetoric and open calls to violence and support of terrorism observed after the October 7, 2023 [attacks], and the ensuing Israel-Hamas conflict.”

They urged the administration to take “decisive and transparent steps to curb these dangerous trends and protect all users from the effects of hate and incitement to violence online.”

There has been a “skyrocketing number of antisemitic conspiracy theories accusing the D.C. attack of being a ‘false flag’ operation” online as well as instances of users “glorifying” the D.C. shooter’s actions, the lawmakers said, arguing that this increases the chances of further violence.

“This is not merely a matter of policy enforcement but one of public safety and national security,” the letter reads. “We regard the unchecked spread of pro-terror content, extremist symbolism, and incitement to violence as a direct threat to U.S. national security and public safety … It is critical that social media companies do not allow coded praise of violence or hate speech to flourish unchecked, as this only encourages others to engage in similar acts.”

The letter draws a direct connection between “Failing to meaningfully curb hate speech, including antisemitic mis- and disinformation, and allowing antisemitic incitement to violence” and the attack in Washington.

The lawmakers asked the three platforms to provide clarity on how they plan to respond, including how they will address “coded language” promoting violence and terrorism, how they determine when content that has incited violence is allowed to remain on the platform, how they will be implementing their anti-terorrism policies and how they are addressing the spread of incitement to violence and terrorism in multiple languages.

The letter was led by Reps. Wesley Bell (D-MO) and Don Bacon (R-NE) and signed by Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), Gil Cisneros (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-KY), Jim Costa (D-CA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Don Davis (D-NC), Cleo Fields (D-LA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Grace Meng (D-NY), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Chris Pappas (D-NH), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Greg Stanton (D-AZ), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Shri Thanedar (D-MI), Dina Titus (D-NV), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Nikema Williams (D-GA) and Frederica Wilson (D-FL).

Bacon and Fitzpatrick were the only Republican signatories. Krishnamoorthi, Pappas and Stevens are all mounting bids for the Senate in their respective states.

The Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee supported the letter.

The Instagram page of the anti-Israel coalition Columbia University Apartheid Divest was disabled on Monday for the second time since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks, a spokesperson for Meta confirmed to Jewish Insider. 

The account belonging to CUAD, a coalition of at least 80 Columbia student groups that was formed in 2016 and has gained renewed support since Hamas’ attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, was initially suspended in December 2024. 

Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a member of the coalition, was banned from Meta in August 2024. At the time, a spokesperson for Meta, the company that owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, told JI that the account was disabled for repeated violations of Meta’s dangerous organizations and individuals policies. 

According to Meta’s policies, the company does “not allow organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence to have a presence on our platforms.”

The coalition has ramped up its anti-Israel demonstrations, as the university entered into ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration over its handling of antisemitism on campus. The White House cut $400 million from Columbia’s federal funding earlier this month over its failure to address campus antisemitism. 

Meta declined to comment on its latest decision to remove CUAD from the platform on Monday. CUAD remains active on several other social media platforms, including X and Telegram. 

“This comes after a long and concerted effort from corporations and imperial powers to erase the Palestinian people,” CUAD wrote on X, claiming that this time around Meta is giving “no option for appeal.” 

Four leading AI large language models — including Meta and Google —  display “concerning” anti-Israel and antisemitic bias, according to new research from the Anti-Defamation League. 

The ADL study — which the group calls “the most comprehensive evaluation to date of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias in major LLMs” — asked GPT (OpenAI), Claude (Anthropic), Gemini (Google), and Llama (Meta) to evaluate statements 8,600 times and received a total of 34,400 responses. The statements fell into the following categories: bias against Jews, bias against Israel, the Israel-Hamas war, Jewish and Israeli conspiracy theories and tropes (excluding Holocaust), Holocaust conspiracy theories and tropes and non-Jewish conspiracy theories and tropes. Some of the prompts included ethnically recognizable names and others were left anonymous, which resulted in a difference in the LLMs’ answers based on the user’s name or lack thereof.

The ADL said that all four of the LLMs had “concerning patterns” related to bias against Jews and Israel. But Meta’s Llama, the only open-source model in the group, demonstrates “pronounced” anti-Jewish and anti-Israel biases, according to the study. GPT was the lowest scoring model in categories of questions about broad anti-Israel bias as well as specifically about the war, and both GPT and Claude demonstrated particularly high anti-Israel bias. 

The research also found a discrepancy between how the LLMs answered non-Jewish conspiracy questions with Jewish and Israeli conspiracy questions. Every LLM, other than GPT, showed more bias on average in answering Jewish-specific conspiracy questions than other types of conspiracy questions.  

In a statement to Jewish Insider, a Meta spokesperson said that the report used an older model, and not the most current version of Meta AI. 

“People typically use AI tools to ask open-ended questions that allow for nuanced responses, not prompts that require choosing from a list of pre-selected multiple-choice answers,” Meta said. “We’re constantly improving our models to ensure they are fact-based and unbiased, but this report simply does not reflect how AI tools are generally used.”

Google raised a similar concern in a statement to Fox Business, noting that the version of Gemini used in the report was the developer model and not the consumer-facing product.

Neither Anthropic nor OpenAI immediately responded to requests for comment. 

Before last year, tech entrepreneur and venture capitalist Sam Lessin thought of himself as only slightly more engaged with Harvard than the average Cambridge graduate. In his 20s, he had served as an alumni interviewer; since then, he’s helped raise money from fellow graduates in the class of 2005. 

But Harvard was not his identity — Lessin didn’t make a habit of flying across the country to Harvard football games, nor was the former Facebook executive a major donor to the university, even after he likely made a windfall when Facebook went public.

That changed last fall, after the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks in Israel spurred a rise in antisemitism on American campuses, including at Harvard, and set off a ripple effect of bad decisions that would mire the Ivy League university in scandal and months of brutal headlines. Lessin stepped off the sidelines.

In late December, Lessin announced a long-shot write-in bid to be a candidate to serve on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, the university’s second-highest governing body. He came just a few hundred votes short of qualifying for a spot on the ballot, winning more support than any of the other outside candidates that had not been approved by the Harvard Alumni Association. 

“It actually was very invigorating in that you just do see this huge mass of alums coming out of the woodwork who do want change, and I’m optimistic that there can be change,” Lessin told Jewish Insider in an interview last week, in which he pledged to remain involved with university affairs ahead of another board campaign next year. 

He attributed his loss, despite winning the backing of some big names like former Harvard President Larry Summers, to Harvard’s difficult-to-use website, technical problems for alumni who voted and simply running out of time. 

The mounting controversies at Harvard in recent months — including student protesters disrupting classes and common spaces on campus, former President Claudine Gay’s disastrous Capitol Hill testimony and the resulting leadership vacuum — can be traced, in Lessin’s estimation, to “mission creep” at Harvard. He thinks his alma mater has shifted from an institution whose raison d’etre is academic excellence to a place that has tried to accommodate too many goals, and to make itself too many things to too many different people. 

“You need to get the president and the [Harvard] Corporation to reaffirm that very clearly the school is an academic school and academic excellence is the only goal,” Lessin said. “It’s not that and six other goals.” 

He decried a yes-man culture among Harvard’s lay leaders, many of whom are large donors or prominent Harvard boosters, who have governed the school with an utter lack of transparency even as the world’s attention has turned to Cambridge in recent months. 

“That can work when things are easy,” said Lessin. “When things are hard, those are not necessarily the right voices to be leading. The reason is simple, which is, they have so much political liability, and they have very little willingness to push back.” 

Lessin described himself as a moderate seeking to avoid the culture wars in which Harvard has become entangled, a position that he viewed in contrast to Harvard’s loudest critic: hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.

“I worry that he’s politicizing this even more, in certain ways, putting forward right-wing voices against left-wing voices. I’m much more of a centrist, is the way I would approach it,” said Lessin. Instead, he earned the endorsement of another billionaire who studied at Harvard — Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg. (As a Harvard dropout, Zuckerberg was not able to vote for Lessin.) 

Harvard, like other prestigious universities, has over the past decade made a concerted effort to increase diversity in its student body. Lessin said the way the university has emphasized diversity has in turn led to “factionalism” rather than “academic excellence.” 

“If you’re looking at the admissions essays, ‘What makes you diverse, and then what do you intend to do with that, like, your Harvard education to help the world?’” Lessin asked. “It became very, very tribal, in terms of people saying, ‘I’m here as the token X,’ or ‘I’m here to represent my community Y,’ and it’s not to learn and be part of society and help people integrate into the melting pot of society. Instead it’s like, ‘I’m here to defend that group.’”

The goal of the university, then, should be to get back to promoting academics as the school’s top goal, including absolute freedom of expression in an academic setting, as Lessin sees it. He extends that thinking even to the most abhorrent anti-Israel rhetoric Harvard has seen since Oct. 7. 

“I believe strongly that there should be free speech in the classroom towards the goal of academic excellence. If people want to make a civil argument about why rape and murder is OK, inside of the classroom — from my personal perspective, I think that’s fair game,” he said. “That is the thing I think is nuanced about this, and I might not agree with every Jew about.” 

But what happens outside of the classroom is another story. This is where he thinks Harvard has a responsibility to act much more strongly against antisemitic student protests, which he views as “more of a symptom than a root cause.” The answer is not “treating it as a one-off,” but rather, according to Lessin, revamping the way Harvard thinks about freedom of expression. 

“What you say in the Boston Common is a different situation. If you want to have protests there, that is a space for free speech. Private property at a private university with a purely academic mission is actually a place you don’t have free speech for the sake of free speech,” said Lessin. “Any speech to shut down other people, or to keep them from participating in academic endeavors, or to block academics, is completely unacceptable on private property.” Policies, he continued, must be “enforced and strengthened” so protests in Harvard Yard cannot disrupt people walking to class. 

“It’s private property, full stop,” Lessin said. During his six-week campaign for a seat on the board, he engaged alumni across the world, including among Harvard’s Jewish community; during college Lessin occasionally attended Hillel or Chabad Shabbat dinners, but was not a regular at either.

“Sam’s emergence as someone who wants to help correct and change the narrative and to restore the dignity of Harvard, and help elevate the discussion and challenge the status quo that that allowed for this rise of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric on the campus couldn’t have come at a more important moment,” Harvard Chabad Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi told JI.

Jewish alumni and donors are exerting influence on campus affairs in new ways. One group of Jewish alumni lowered their annual donations to $1, to send a message that they care about the university but disagree with its actions in recent months. Other big-name donors have ceased giving entirely. Zarchi, who has worked at Harvard for more than two decades, has never seen this level of engagement from Harvard alumni. 

“I don’t expect that to decline,” he said. “For larger purposes, even beyond their care for Harvard, they want to stay engaged because of the outsized influence that Harvard has in the public conversation.”