Jewish organizations are increasingly divided on the issue of whether governments should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Jewish Legal News is closely monitoring this divide, tracking the positions of both organizations and politicians regarding their stance on the IHRA definition and its implementation at governmental levels.
Click here to view JLN’s IHRA position tracker.
The IHRA definition, widely praised by many as a robust tool to combat antisemitism, includes examples that highlight where criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitic rhetoric. For instance, the definition identifies the “double standard” where Israel is uniquely singled out for actions that other countries are not equally held accountable for. Additionally, it stresses that criticism of Israel that overlaps with or disparages Jewish identity—such as vilifying pride in Jewish connection to Israel—can also constitute antisemitism.
These examples have drawn praise from numerous Jewish organizations, which see the definition as a critical instrument for combating the modern mutations of antisemitism, particularly those related to anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel’s existence. Supporters argue that it helps governments, universities, and other entities better understand and act against antisemitic behaviors that have become more prevalent in recent years.
25 other national and California-based Jewish groups wrote an open letter to urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism for the state. The groups wrote a letter dated Oct. 17 to Newsom, urging action on the matter 10 days after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel. On Dec. 20, the organizers publicized the letter in a press release, after the governor’s office did not respond.
However, not all Jewish organizations favor government adoption of the IHRA definition. Some believe that prioritizing the definition may detract from addressing other pressing issues. They also argue that the definition’s focus on Israel-related examples could potentially overshadow other important forms of antisemitism.
As this debate unfolds, Jewish Legal News is working to document the positions of political leaders and organizations alike. Key to this conversation is the ongoing relevance of Executive Order 13899, issued in 2019, which made the IHRA definition a legally binding part of federal anti-discrimination law in the U.S. This executive order requires federal agencies to consider the IHRA definition when evaluating whether recipients of federal funds—such as universities—are in violation of anti-discrimination laws under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, has long protected Jewish communities due to the shared ethnic and national origins associated with Jewish identity. The IHRA definition, alongside Title VI, provides an important tool for identifying antisemitic discrimination based on ancestry and ethnicity, even when connected to religious identity.
Through this tracking initiative, Jewish Legal News seeks to shed light on how organizations and political figures are shaping the future of antisemitism legislation and how they interpret the IHRA definition’s role in addressing one of the world’s oldest forms of hatred. The debate over the definition’s use—and the broader questions of how antisemitism should be defined and fought—remains central to the Jewish community’s advocacy and to ensuring effective legal responses to rising antisemitism globally.
