As the Trump administration takes an aggressive stand against antisemitism by withdrawing $400 million in grants from Columbia University, seeking to deport a pro-Hamas leader of campus protests at Columbia in the United States on a green card and ramping up federal investigations of campus antisemitism, the Democrats seem more interested in accusing Republicans of partisanship than addressing the problem.
Despite having two outspoken antisemites in their congressional ranks, Democrats refuse to condemn or expel them, allowing antisemitism to fester at the highest levels of their party. Their reluctance to act has normalized anti-Jewish bigotry, particularly on college campuses.
After the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act passed the House last May by an overwhelming vote (320-91), it seemed a no-brainer for the Senate to send it to President Joe Biden to become law. Yet Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), often referred to as the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in American political history, refused to allow a vote. Schumer, who called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an obstacle to peace and essentially called for his overthrow, proved to be the impediment to codifying Jew-hatred as a prohibited form of discrimination on campuses when Jewish students felt under siege.
Why?
The answer is a combination of the antisemitism within the party and Schumer’s spinelessness. He feared that because the bill adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism the party’s rotten underbelly would be exposed. The IHRA definition, already recognized by the U.S. government and 46 nations, explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic.”
Nevertheless, progressives reject it because it exposes their demonization of Israel for what it is: antisemitism.
The House bill was sure to pass the Senate, even though some Republicans might have opposed it over free speech concerns and the idea that it was anti-Christian because the IHRA definition regards accusations of Jews killing Jesus as antisemitic. Ultimately, Schumer was afraid of being embarrassed by having the legislation adopted thanks to Republican votes to offset Democrats’ opposition.
A similar debate occurred when the Biden administration released its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Left-wing Jewish groups and progressive activists fought to exclude the IHRA definition. The administration caved—acknowledging IHRA as “prominent” but welcoming alternative definitions. Worse, they enlisted the openly antisemitic Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a partner in the strategy.
The Biden administration also sought to shield universities from penalties for Title VI civil-rights violations related to their failure to protect Jewish students’ rights. In the wake of the antisemitic tsunami that swept the campuses, dozens of complaints were sent to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Knowing the Trump administration planned to take a firmer position on violations, OCR rushed out a series of last-minute settlements in which universities made token promises to address discrimination against Jewish students without suffering any consequences.
In contrast, Trump has quickly made clear that the law, which allows for the termination of government funding, will now be applied more strictly.
The most recent example of the Democrats’ approach to antisemitism was revealed when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the matter. Instead of inviting recognized leaders in the fight against antisemitism, Democrats chose Kevin Rachlin and Meirav Solomon to testify. Rachlin is the head of the Nexus Leadership Project, which produced a definition of antisemitism meant to replace the IHRA’s, which is an apologia for antisemitism.
In his statement, Rachlin expressed opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act, asserting that it would criminalize antisemitic speech and chill legitimate debate. This is the usual nonsense we hear from critics of Israel and antisemites whose views are omnipresent. He also falsely claimed that the IHRA definition “conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism,” which is a standard deflection used by Israel’s fiercest critics. He also seemed to dismiss the committee’s work as an attempt “to weaponize antisemitism for partisan gain.”
Solomon is a Tufts University student and J Street U leader who has argued against conflating pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism. She pulled the “AsAJew” card by proclaiming herself “a proud Jewish American, the daughter of two rabbis.” Like Rachlin, she presents a straw man by suggesting the committee was interested in shutting down legitimate debate and equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. She objected to the administration dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs—apparently unaware of their discrimination against Jewish students. She also misleadingly claimed that the OCR was suspending investigations when it had intensified them, as evident from the warning letter sent to 60 schools. She focused on right-wing antisemitism while ignoring that on campuses, nearly all antisemitism comes from the left. She nonsensically claimed, “The current approach will decimate our ability to access the education we deserve.”
Rather than taking a firm stand against campus antisemitism, Democrats picked two individuals who represent virtually no one and appeared interested primarily in preventing the adoption of measures to protect students.
History has shown that only public outrage, donor pressure and strong action—like Trump’s funding cuts to Columbia—force universities to take antisemitism seriously. Yet too many Democrats apply a double standard, taking Jewish concerns lightly while aggressively defending other persecuted groups. Until that changes, their claims of fighting antisemitism will ring hollow.