S.558 & H.R.1007 - Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025
H.R. 1007 was introduced on February 5, 2025 by Representative Lawler (R-NY). It is currently pending before the House Judiciary Committee.
S.558 was introduced on February 13, 2025 by Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). It is currently pending before the Senate HELP Committee, and has 45 cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. An April 30th Committee mark up of the Bill resulted in several substantive amendments and as such a vote on Committee passage of the Bill was withdrawn. The Bill remains pending in Committee.
Related legislation: H.R. 6090 (118th Congress)
Bill Summary: S.558 & H.R. 1007 establish the broad definition of antisemitism and specific examples of antisemitism, including certain criticism of the state of Israel, established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities.
Context: The Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025 has been introduced over the last several Congressional sessions but has not been enacted into law due to its controversial text which has raised concerns throughout the civil rights community, as well as with first amendment advocates. This Bill maintains many of the same concerns that have been raised by these communities, undermining existing civil rights law and relying on an overly broad definition for antisemitism that conflates protected political speech with discrimination.
Specifically, The IHRA definition explicitly includes examples that equate criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism. This could chill legitimate political discourse, particularly in academic settings where robust debate on U.S. foreign policy, human rights, and international law is essential. Students, faculty, and activists advocating for Palestinian rights have faced institutional investigations and sanctions for protected speech that is critical of Israel but does not target Jewish individuals or communities. Further, as we have seen under the current Trump Administration, these efforts to conflate nonviolent political speech with antisemitism have already been weaponized to unlawfully remove students and legal permanent residents, as well as efforts to sanction institutions of higher education who do not repress such speech.
In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that political speech, even controversial or offensive speech, is protected under the First Amendment. If enacted, H.R. 1007 would create a precedent where the federal government endorses a definition that restricts certain viewpoints, raising serious constitutional challenges. Universities could feel compelled to discipline students or faculty members for speech that would otherwise be protected, out of fear of losing federal funding or facing legal consequences, as we have already seen in responses to the Trump Administration's weaponization of existing civil rights law toward Columbia, an institution that has been found to repeatedly censor its students and faculty for peaceful, anti-war political speech. More recently, in October 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found in Students for Justice in Palestine v. Abbott that an executive order directing all Texas higher education institutions to update and enforce campus free speech policies to address antisemitic speech and apply the IHRA definition of antisemitism likely violates the First Amendment.
Finally, H.R. 1007 would mark the only instance where Congress legislates a specific definition of discrimination, and one where it conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’s actions with hate speech against an entire group of people – while not applying similar definitions to anti-Black, anti-Asian, or anti-Arab hate. By doing so, the Bill sets a precedent that elevates protections against one form of discrimination over others, which could be seen as both inequitable and politically motivated. The absence of such definitions while prioritizing one form of discrimination undermines equal protection principles.
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: As Americans support free dialogue and equal rights around the world, this Bill would encourage further repression here at home and undermine democratic American interests.
A New Policy’s Recommendation: OPPOSE
A New Policy opposes S. 558 and H.R. 1007 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 people less safe.
For more information please contact: Tariq Habash (202) 770-0055, info@anewpolicy.org
