Fighting Antisemitism Should Not Come at the Expense of the First Amendment
The Antisemitism Awareness Act threatens the First Amendment by empowering federal bureaucrats to police political and religious expression.
The perpetrators of antisemitic violence and murder, which I abhor and condemn, should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. The killings of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim as well as the terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, are nauseating examples of antisemitic brutality.
Furthermore, it is intellectually and morally repugnant for anyone to shout support for the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Civilized people across the political spectrum appropriately condemn these vile and inexcusable apologies for mass murder. What Hamas carried out that day was not a political statement—it was barbarism. Rape, torture, murder of civilians, and the taking of hostages should never be met with anything but moral clarity and universal condemnation.
Despite the increase in antisemitism, it is still inappropriate for the United States Senate to respond by imposing sweeping restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. That's exactly what the Antisemitism Awareness Act threatens to do.
During a recent markup in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, I opposed this legislation—not because I take antisemitism lightly, but because I take the First Amendment seriously. This bill poses a grave threat to free speech, as it would grant unelected federal bureaucrats the authority to police speech, theology, and political thought, particularly on college campuses.
The bill requires the Department of Education, when investigating discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, to apply the working definition of antisemitism devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This is not symbolic. Schools and universities found to have permitted discriminatory harassment may lose federal funding. That means institutions could be punished for what students or professors say, especially when those views involve the Israeli government, Jewish history, or religious doctrine.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is overly broad. Using this definition would regulate speech that that "den[ies] the Jewish people their right to self-determination," "draw[s] comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," or "appl[ies[ double standards by requiring of [Israel] behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." These are political arguments. Whether one agrees or disagrees, they are constitutionally protected speech. Debating the actions of foreign governments or the details of religious history is not hate speech—it's the exercise of free inquiry.
Should speech that advocates a one-state solution or secular governance in Israel be banned? Would comparing Israeli policies to historical state violence be treated as a federal civil rights violation? If that's the new standard, what do we make of the countless times Democrats have compared President Donald Trump to Hitler?
The bill also opens the door to federal interference in religious expression. The IHRA's working definition includes specific examples of actions the organization considers antisemitic, including "claims of Jews killing Jesus." This topic is found in Scripture and discussed in religious contexts. Would quoting the Gospel of John, which recounts Jesus' crucifixion and the roles of Jewish leaders, now be investigated as a civil rights violation? Would pastors or seminary professors be punished for citing these texts?
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, warned that this legislation could be used to target "the simple preaching of the gospel." He's right. Taken literally, the bill could label the New Testament itself as hate speech. James Carroll, in his book Constantine's Sword, rejected the notion that Jews are responsible for Jesus' death but didn't deny that some Jewish leaders opposed him. These debates aren't antisemitism; they're history, theology, and interpretation. We don't defeat dangerous ideas by banning them—we challenge them in the open.
Even Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the IHRA definition, publicly opposes the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Stern testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that its use in law would chill legitimate debate and had already been misused to suppress campus speech. Stern never intended for the IHRA's definition to become a legal instrument for censorship—and yet that's exactly what this bill proposes.
If we follow this logic, then advocating a one-state solution could be deemed antisemitic. Criticizing the Israeli military could trigger federal investigations. Questioning the religious or ethnic nature of the Israeli state could be considered hate speech.
This is how authoritarian regimes operate. In places like North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Russia, and Iran, vague laws are used to punish dissent. Even Western democracies such as the U.K. and Australia have adopted "hate speech" laws that criminalize unpopular religious or political views. In those nations, quoting Scripture or opposing government policies can result in fines or imprisonment. Is that really the model we want for America?
America was founded on dissent. Our nation's birth was not a quiet affair, but a defiant act of rebellion—against monarchy, against censorship, and against unchecked authority. The very first amendment to our Constitution was not an afterthought—it was a deliberate statement that in this country, the government does not control the speech of its people. We don't defeat hatred by banning speech. We defeat it by speaking more, by debating more, and by having the confidence that the truth is strong enough to win in the public square.
A society fortified by the First Amendment is not only strong enough to hear ugly or ignorant remarks—it is empowered to respond with better, wiser arguments. We're either a free society governed by the Constitution, or we're not. We need to challenge hate with reason, not censorship.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court made it clear that inflammatory speech may be restricted only if it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Not if it offends. Not if it challenges orthodoxy. Not if it makes someone uncomfortable. We abandon this constitutional standard at our peril.
I strongly condemn antisemitism and support Israel in the face of terror. But I also support the Constitution. And I will not stand by while fear and politics are used to justify censorship. If we surrender the First Amendment in the name of safety, we will lose both.
