Security funding for Jewish institutions should follow vulnerability, not just organizational form.
For decades, the default image of Jewish security has been associated with a synagogue, a day school or a Jewish community center. Those institutions absolutely need protection. But on today’s college campuses, Jewish life often happens in less formal, more exposed spaces: fraternity and sorority houses, student apartments, classroom buildings and lawn tables, late-night meetings and Shabbat dinners organized by students who know one another by name.
That reality has exposed a growing gap in America’s security infrastructure. The federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) was created to help vulnerable nonprofits harden facilities and prepare for terrorist or extremist attacks. FEMA’s FY2025 program provided $274.5 million for physical security improvements, cybersecurity enhancements and preparedness measures. Yet eligibility is generally limited to organizations recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
That framework works for many synagogues, schools, Hillels and Jewish community organizations. It does not work for many of the student-led organizations where Jewish life actually takes place.
Jewish fraternities and sororities, for example, are legally structured as 501(c)(7) social organizations. Other student-formed Jewish groups may lack IRS status altogether or be unable to maintain a 501(c)(3) designation because of their activities and governance structure. As a result, some of the most visible Jewish organizations on campus are categorically excluded from federal security funding—not because they face less risk, but because they have a different tax classification.
The problem is especially urgent because campus antisemitism is no longer theoretical.
Since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Jewish students have experienced unprecedented levels of harassment, vandalism, intimidation and threats. They occur in residence halls, student gathering spaces, chapter houses, sidewalks, social events and campus organizations. When threats move through dorms, group chats and student-centered spaces, a security model focused exclusively on traditional 501(c)(3) institutions leaves too much Jewish life uncovered.
Some students, like AEPi members, do not live exclusively within institutions staffed by professionals and organized under a particular IRS designation.
Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi), the Jewish fraternity, along with the other historically Jewish fraternities and sororities, illustrates the challenge clearly. They are not fringe organizations. On many campuses, they are among the largest providers of Jewish student housing, Jewish programming, leadership development, holiday observances, Israel education initiatives, social gatherings and Shabbat experiences. They are physical, local, highly visible spaces. They host students. They gather students. They advertise their locations. They place Jewish identity squarely in the public life of a campus.
That visibility is precisely why they are vulnerable.
Many Jewish student organizations have documented rising incidents of antisemitic vandalism, threats, intimidation, doxxing, assaults and property damage. Yet they remain ineligible for the very security measures that Congress has deemed essential for other high-risk institutions: cameras, reinforced doors, alarms, access-control systems, emergency communications equipment, security personnel, preparedness planning and training.
This is not fundamentally a funding problem. It is an eligibility problem.
Congress has rightfully recognized the need for stronger protections through legislation such as the Jewish American Security Act, which would expand and strengthen the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. That effort is an important step forward. But unless eligibility rules are addressed, increasing funding alone will not solve the problem for Jewish students. The organizations facing some of the most direct campus-based threats will remain locked out of the program.
The solution doesn’t require rewriting the tax code or transforming the nature of the grant program. Congress could close the gap through a targeted bill that expands eligibility to include high-risk 501(c)(7) organizations with religious, cultural or identity-based missions; student-formed organizations serving specific religious, cultural or ethnic communities; and campus-based organizations that can demonstrate elevated security risk.
Security funding should never subsidize parties, membership dues, entertainment or general operations. Any eligibility expansion should be limited strictly to protective measures such as window film, cameras, lighting, reinforced doors, access-control systems, emergency communications, threat-reporting tools, security training, and coordination with campus and local law enforcement.
The same accountability standards that govern existing recipients can apply here. Require vulnerability assessments. Require proof of campus recognition or good standing. Require security plans, receipts, audits and clawback provisions for misuse. Require coordination with university public safety officials. Prohibit spending on entertainment or social programming. Make grant awards viewpoint-neutral and faith-neutral so that any student organization facing credible identity-based threats can apply.
The argument for Jewish student organizations is not special treatment. It is that they meet the very risk profile that security programs were created to address.
Large Jewish organizations remain indispensable. Jewish Federations, synagogues, Hillels, day schools and community security networks should continue receiving robust support. But they should not be the only eligible recipients or intermediaries.
A more effective approach would establish a dedicated campus-community security pathway that allows qualifying student organizations to apply directly or through a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, subject to appropriate review and oversight.
Such a system would not only improve security but also encourage responsibility. Student leaders who receive security training learn how to identify threats, document incidents, de-escalate confrontations, communicate with the authorities and protect their communities. That benefits not only Jewish students but the entire campus.
Security policy should be built around where people actually gather.
On college campuses, Jewish students do not live exclusively within institutions staffed by professionals and organized under a particular IRS designation. They live in peer networks and chapter houses. They live in student organizations that may appear informal to policymakers, but function as the front line of Jewish communal life.
The question should not be whether a threatened Jewish student group has the most familiar tax status. It should be whether it faces a credible threat, has a legitimate security need and can be held accountable for using public funds responsibly. If the answer is yes, then 501(c)(7) status should not be a barrier.
Protecting Jewish life means protecting the places where Jewish life actually happens. On campus, that means putting security funding closer to students themselves.
