H.R.6186 - No Antisemitism in Education Act
H.R. 6186 was introduced on 11/20/25 by Representative Randy Fine (R-FL-6). It is currently pending before the House Committee on Education and Workforce, and has 0 co-sponsors.
Related legislation: H.R. 1006
Bill Summary: H.R. 6186, introduced on November 20, 2025, by Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL-6), requires all federally funded public elementary schools, secondary schools, and higher education institutions to treat, “discrimination motivated by antisemitism” identically to discrimination motivated by race. The Bill defines antisemitism by importing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, not only including but expanding its illustrative examples to include focusing human rights investigations on Israel and holding Israel responsible for any interreligious or political tensions. These examples define antisemitism as any criticism of Israel that would be applied as normal criticism to any other state. While haphazardly including an addendum that antisemitism does not include criticism of Israel that is similar to any other country.
Context: H.R. 6186 follows a concerning trend within the 119th Congress of adopting broad definitions of antisemitism that risk being used to suppress free speech. The IHRA definition that the Bill imports and expands upon has been widely criticized by free speech and civil rights advocates, and even Kenneth Stern, one of the original drafters of the IHRA definition, has warned that its expansive scope can be used to label legitimate criticism of Israel, as antisemitic. Evidence suggests the IHRA definition is increasingly employed in ways that suppress political speech. By conflating criticism of the Israeli government or calls for Palestinian human rights with antisemitism, this approach chills academic freedom, activism for Palestinianian human rights, and open debate on college campuses while meeting its own definition of antisemitism by conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
The Bill includes an exception stating that antisemitism “does not include criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism towards any other country.” However, this exception is directly contradicted by the Bill’s own examples, which classify many forms of routine political critique as antisemitic, including focusing human rights scrutiny on Israel or attributing interreligious or political tensions to Israeli government actions. Because the Bill treats the, “focusing human rights investigations only on Israel” as antisemitic; students, academics, or researchers who cite, reference, or protest Israeli human rights violations mentioned in any of the State Department’s annual human rights report, which includes country-specific assessments of Israel, would find their academic work, classroom speech, or student advocacy/activism in direct tension with the Bill’s purposefully broad language.
Moreover, human rights investigations routinely focus on individual countries as part of standard international practice and not unique to Israel. The ICC’s investigation into abuses in the Philippines, the UN’s reporting on Bangladesh, and U.S. sanctions imposed on Iranian officials for human rights violations all singled out specific governments for scrutiny through country specific investigations. Under H.R. 6186, however, a federally funded school or student who cites or discusses these kinds of investigations would risk being labeled antisemitic only when scrutiny is applied to Israel.
The practical effect is clear: speech and academic work related to criticism involving the Israeli government, even when evidence-based, widely recognized, or comparable to scrutiny applied to other nations, will be labeled racist and subject to an antisemitic designation; ultimately chilling legitimate analysis and protected speech..
American Values Analysis: This Bill undermines the Constitution by conflating protected political speech with violations of civil rights laws. As courts have already ruled that the IHRA definition is a violation of Americans’ freedom of speech, it is inherently against American values.
American Interest Analysis: Suppressing legitimate debate weakens U.S. democratic institutions and harms America’s credibility abroad. The United States routinely criticizes censorship in authoritarian states; legislation that suppresses political speech at home undermines that moral authority.
A New Policy’s Recommendation: OPPOSE
A New Policy opposes H.R. 6186 because it not only undermines the existing framework of civil rights law in America, it also relies on an overly broad definition of antisemitism that would categorize legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with discrimination against all Jewish people. This thereby would wrongfully suggest that Jewish people are responsible for the Israeli government’s actions, which makes Jewish Americans less safe.
For more information please contact: Tariq Habash (202) 770-0055, info@anewpolicy.org
