In the News

Contact For More Information: Steve Rabinowitz Steve@BlueLightStrategies.com The Jewish American Security Act (JASA) Senate Bill 4576 and House Bill 9211 Statement Statement Submitted to the United States Senate and House of Representatives On Behalf of the Jewish Electorate Institute Senators and Represetatives: Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI) regarding the bipartisan Jewish American Security Act introduced by Senators Jacky Rosen and James Lankford. The legislation represents one of the most serious and comprehensive congressional responses to antisemitism in recent memory, addressing a crisis that has become impossible to ignore in American public life. We strongly support it. The United States is confronting an alarming rise in antisemitic incidents across multiple domains of civic life: on college campuses, at houses of worship, online, and in public spaces. The statistics are sobering, but beyond the statistics lies a deeper reality felt daily by millions of Jewish Americans: a growing sense that open Jewish life in America increasingly requires vigilance, security infrastructure, and institutional self-protection in ways that many believed belonged to an earlier era. This is not simply a Jewish problem. It is an American problem. The measure of a democratic society is not whether the majority feels secure. It is whether minorities can participate fully, openly, and confidently in civic life without fear of intimidation, exclusion, or violence. Antisemitism threatens not only Jews, but the broader constitutional and civic order that depends upon pluralism, equal protection, and freedom of conscience. The Jewish American Security Act appropriately recognizes this reality by approaching antisemitism not as a symbolic or rhetorical concern, but as a concrete public-policy challenge requiring enforceable protections, institutional accountability, and strategic investment. The legislation is especially valuable because it grounds its response in concrete empirical findings rather than abstract rhetoric. Congress notes, for example, that although Jews comprise roughly two percent of the American population, anti-Jewish incidents represented approximately sixteen percent of all reported hate crimes and nearly seventy percent of religion-based hate crimes in 2024. The bill further cites over 9,500 antisemitic incidents documented by the Anti-Defamation League in 2024 alone—the highest number ever recorded by the organization and an increase of 344 percent over the prior five-year average. Importantly, the legislation recognizes the connection between online radicalization and real-world violence. The findings section explicitly references attacks in Harrisburg, Washington, Boulder, Jackson, and West Bloomfield, connecting antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories to escalating acts of intimidation and terror. These references are important because they acknowledge what Jewish communities increasingly experience directly: antisemitism is not merely a matter of offensive expression, but a genuine security threat with potentially lethal consequences. At the same time, the legislation correctly avoids treating antisemitism as a uniquely isolated pathology detached from broader democratic concerns. The bill explicitly recognizes that antisemitism “undermines democracy and threatens the safety and rights of all Americans.” That observation is historically and politically important. Antisemitism has often functioned as a warning sign of broader civic deterioration, institutional mistrust, conspiratorial thinking, and democratic fragmentation. The legislation addresses three interconnected arenas in which antisemitism has become especially acute: higher education, communal security, and online radicalization. In each area, the bill seeks to strengthen existing federal obligations while improving coordination and transparency. First, the legislation’s focus on Title VI enforcement on college campuses is both timely and necessary. American universities occupy a unique role in democratic society. They are places where intellectual disagreement must be protected and robust debate encouraged. But they are also institutions bound by civil-rights law. The distinction between protected expression and discriminatory conduct is therefore critically important. In recent years, many Jewish students have reported environments in which harassment, intimidation, exclusion, or threats were tolerated or minimized under the language of political expression. Universities have often struggled to distinguish between legitimate political advocacy and conduct that creates a hostile educational environment. Inconsistent enforcement has contributed to confusion, distrust, and escalating tensions. The legislation’s requirement that the Department of Education develop a comprehensive Title VI framework regarding antisemitism is therefore an important step toward clarity and consistency. One of the bill’s most significant contributions is its effort to regularize and professionalize Title VI enforcement within educational institutions. Rather than relying solely on ad hoc investigations after crises erupt, the legislation would require federally funded institutions to designate trained Title VI coordinators, establish formal grievance procedures, maintain records, publish reporting mechanisms prominently online, and provide annual notice of students’ civil-rights protections. These requirements are not punitive. They reflect basic institutional responsibilities already expected in other areas of civil-rights compliance. Indeed, much of the frustration surrounding campus antisemitism in recent years has stemmed not from the absence of law, but from inconsistent implementation, procedural confusion, and administrative drift. The legislation attempts to address precisely that problem. Particularly noteworthy is the bill’s requirement that the Department of Education conduct biannual reviews of unresolved antisemitism complaints and develop resolution plans for complaints pending more than 180 days. This provision recognizes that delayed enforcement can itself function as a form of institutional failure, leaving students uncertain whether their concerns are being taken seriously. The legislation also establishes a Federal Title VI Clearinghouse on Safety, Security, and Best Practices designed to consolidate and disseminate institutional best practices concerning campus safety, dialogue, and mutual understanding. This is a constructive and underappreciated feature of the bill. Universities often operate in isolation, improvising responses amid crisis conditions. A centralized clearinghouse may help institutions learn from one another while developing more coherent and transparent standards nationwide. Critically, such a framework need not—and must not—serve as a mechanism for suppressing lawful speech or unpopular political viewpoints. Universities should remain spaces of vigorous intellectual exchange, including sharp criticism of governments, ideologies, political leaders, and political movements. But civil-rights protections are not negated merely because discriminatory conduct occurs within a politically charged context. The challenge is not whether debate should occur. The challenge is whether Jewish students are afforded the same protections routinely expected for other protected groups under federal law. The answer must be yes. A properly implemented Title VI framework can help institutions distinguish more effectively between speech that is protected, speech that is offensive but lawful, and conduct that crosses into targeted harassment, intimidation, or discriminatory exclusion. Universities require clearer standards not because free inquiry is unimportant, but because ambiguity has too often produced paralysis and selective enforcement. Second, the legislation’s emphasis on communal security funding addresses an unfortunate but undeniable reality: Jewish institutions in the United States increasingly function under persistent security threat. Synagogues, schools, community centers, and cultural institutions routinely devote substantial financial resources to physical security measures that many other religious or civic communities do not require at comparable levels. Armed guards, reinforced entry systems, surveillance infrastructure, and emergency preparedness have become normalized features of Jewish communal life. This normalization itself should disturb every American. The legislation’s reforms to the Nonprofit Security Grant Program are substantive and overdue. The bill would authorize $1 billion annually from fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for nonprofit security assistance, a dramatic increase reflecting the scale of contemporary threats facing Jewish institutions. Equally important, the legislation attempts to improve administrative functionality by streamlining reimbursement timelines, increasing technical assistance, clarifying eligible costs, and ensuring that states process reimbursement requests within ninety days absent extraordinary circumstances. These procedural reforms matter because security grants are only effective if vulnerable institutions can realistically access and implement them. Importantly, these investments should not be viewed as favors to a particular community. They are part of the government’s obligation to ensure that religious freedom is meaningfully exercisable in practice, not merely protected in theory. Religious liberty does not exist solely as an abstract constitutional principle. It exists when individuals can gather openly, worship publicly, educate their children, and participate in civic life without reasonable fear of violence. The legislation also wisely includes explicit neutrality provisions prohibiting ideological or religious discrimination in the administration of security grants. That language is critical. Security assistance should be allocated according to threat assessments and public safety needs—not partisan preference or ideological fashion. The necessity of these protections has become tragically clear through repeated attacks targeting Jewish institutions and individuals in the United States over the past decade. From Pittsburgh to Poway to hostage-taking incidents in synagogues and escalating threats against schools and community centers, antisemitism has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to move from rhetoric into violence. The legislation recognizes that prevention requires not only condemnation after attacks occur, but proactive investment before they occur. Third, the bill’s attention to online antisemitism reflects an overdue recognition that digital ecosystems increasingly shape real-world radicalization and harassment. Online antisemitism is not merely offensive content appearing in isolated corners of the internet. Social media platforms now function as accelerants for conspiracy theories, extremist narratives, harassment campaigns, and ideological mobilization. Antisemitic narratives travel rapidly across ideological subcultures, often merging older prejudices with contemporary political grievances and algorithmically amplified outrage. The bill’s online transparency provisions deserve particular attention because they reflect a sophisticated understanding of the contemporary information environment. Rather than mandating viewpoint censorship, the legislation primarily requires disclosure: platforms with more than fifty million monthly users would be required to publish regular transparency reports regarding antisemitic content moderation, algorithmic amplification, bot activity, foreign-linked manipulation, and enforcement practices. This is a notably restrained and democratic approach. Transparency requirements allow researchers, policymakers, civil-society organizations, and the public to better understand how online ecosystems contribute to radicalization without placing the federal government in the position of directly regulating lawful political speech. At the same time, the bill appropriately acknowledges that online environments increasingly function as incubators for offline violence. Antisemitic harassment campaigns, conspiracy theories, and dehumanizing rhetoric rarely remain confined to digital space. They shape perceptions, intensify polarization, and can normalize acts of intimidation or violence against real people. The legislation also appropriately recognizes antisemitism as both a domestic and transnational security concern. By requiring annual joint threat assessments from the FBI, DHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center regarding antisemitic violent extremism, Congress acknowledges that antisemitic networks increasingly operate across digital and international boundaries. These assessments may prove especially valuable in identifying the interaction between foreign disinformation campaigns, algorithmic amplification, extremist subcultures, and real-world mobilization. Antisemitism today often functions as a connective ideological tissue linking otherwise disparate extremist movements, making coordinated intelligence analysis essential. Indeed, one of the central strengths of the Jewish American Security Act is its bipartisan nature. At a moment when public trust in institutions is eroding and political polarization often paralyzes Congress, bipartisan cooperation on antisemitism sends an important message: the protection of minority rights and religious liberty must remain above factional politics. This matters because antisemitism has historically thrived when political actors treated Jews instrumentally—either as symbols in broader ideological struggles or as convenient targets through which social frustrations could be channeled. The refusal to reduce antisemitism to a partisan issue is therefore itself a democratic achievement. At the same time, successful implementation of this legislation will require prudence, balance, and ongoing oversight. Any expansion of federal authority in areas touching speech, education, or online regulation must remain attentive to constitutional protections and civil liberties. Policymakers should ensure that enforcement mechanisms are transparent, viewpoint-neutral, and carefully tailored to address discriminatory conduct rather than lawful expression. Similarly, universities must avoid approaches that transform civil-rights enforcement into ideological policing. Academic freedom and intellectual pluralism remain essential democratic values. Protecting Jewish students and protecting free inquiry are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing when institutions operate with clarity, consistency, and fairness. Likewise, social-media transparency requirements should focus on accountability and disclosure rather than political censorship. Democratic societies must resist both antisemitic radicalization and the temptation toward expansive state control over lawful expression. The Jewish American Security Act is strongest precisely because it largely avoids false choices. It recognizes that one can simultaneously defend civil liberties and take antisemitism seriously; support free expression and insist on equal protection; oppose political violence while preserving democratic openness. That balance is essential. Finally, it is important to understand the emotional and civic significance of this moment for American Jews themselves. For much of the postwar period, American Jews often understood the United States as exceptional among diasporic experiences: a society in which Jewish flourishing, civic participation, and national belonging were genuinely possible at scale. That confidence rested not on naïveté, but on decades of integration into a constitutional order that broadly upheld pluralism and equal citizenship. The recent resurgence of antisemitism has shaken that confidence for many American Jews, particularly younger generations. When Jewish students feel unsafe displaying visible signs of Jewish identity; when synagogues require armed protection; when conspiracy theories spread widely online; when harassment becomes normalized in civic or educational spaces—the result is not only fear, but erosion of trust in institutions themselves. Legislation alone cannot solve this problem. Antisemitism is ultimately a cultural, social, and moral challenge as much as a legal one. But law matters. Institutions matter. Public signals matter. By advancing a comprehensive bipartisan response, Congress has the opportunity to reaffirm a foundational democratic principle: that Jewish Americans are entitled to the same security, dignity, and equal participation promised to every other citizen. The Jewish American Security Act represents a meaningful step toward that goal. We, the Jewish Electorate Institute, therefore, urge Congress to move this legislation forward thoughtfully, carefully, and expeditiously. Thank you for your consideration. JEI is the foremost non-partisan resource on Jewish voter political preferences, producing the top research, studies, programming, polling, and analysis critical to understanding the Jewish electorate.

The survey was released one week after another conducted by the Mellman Group and commissioned by the Jewish Electorate Institute found that a majority of American Jews have “not heard much” about the role that pro-Israel lobbying groups have played in this year’s early midterm primaries.  The poll, which surveyed 800 registered Jewish voters March 13-23, found that just 11% of American Jews had heard a “great deal” about “the role pro-Israel groups have played in the early 2026 primaries,” while 27% said they’d heard “some” about it. Meanwhile, 62% said they’d either heard “not much,” “none at all” or that they don’t know.

Democrats’ internal feud over Israel is rearing its head on the party’s biggest stage — again.  Critics of Israel’s military actions and the pro-Israel lobby’s interference in recent Democratic primaries are setting up thorny test votes at the Democratic National Committee’s spring meeting in New Orleans on Thursday, where members will debate resolutions recognizing a Palestinian state, conditioning military aid to Israel and condemning the “growing influence” of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other dark-money groups.

A majority of Jewish Americans disapprove of President Donald Trump’s decision to wage war against Iran, according to a new national survey released Monday by the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI). The poll, conducted in mid‑March among 800 registered Jewish voters, found that 55 percent disapprove of U.S. military action against Iran, while 32 percent approve, and the remainder say they are undecided or conflicted. 

A Mellman Group pollon behalf of the Jewish Electoral Institute (JEI) found that 32% of Jewish voters back the current military action against Iran, while 55% disapprove and 13% remain undecided. Support tracked closely along partisan lines, with 83% of Republicans, 49% of independents and 13% of Democrats approving the war. 

The Jewish Electorate Institute poll largely conforms with surveys of the general U.S. public, which have found that most Americans oppose the war against Iran, with sharp partisan divisions between Republicans and Democrats. 

Most American Jews oppose the U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran, according to a poll released on Monday. The Jewish Electorate Institute found that 55% of Jewish respondents said that they opposed the war, 32% approved and 13% were undecided.  When asked for a more detailed breakdown of their feelings about the stated objectives of the conflict, a similar number of Jews (31%) said that they supported action against Iran, because the Islamic Republic cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and 41% said that they were opposed, “because we should not go to war without clear provocation” and objectives.

JEI's work continues to be noted in national-level debates, and is proud to continue to be recognized in national media, including The New York Times this month. Our grassroots work is resonating in national-level policy conversations. As policy debates evolve, JEI remains committed to fostering informed civic engagement, interfaith dialogue, and community mobilization. "...Mr. Goldman and Mr. Espaillat also represent districts with substantial Jewish populations, according to research by the Jewish Electorate Institute . (Mr. Goldman’s district also includes large pockets of immigrant Muslim voters from Bangladesh and other countries.)" Continue to the article here

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2025 Media Contact: Steve Rabinowitz Bluelight Strategies steve@bluelightstrategies.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 13, 2025 Media Contact: Steve Rabinowitz Bluelight Strategies steve@bluelightstrategies.com  JEI joins communities across the world in heartfelt gratitude as hostages return home from Gaza.

JEI Voices Hope as Israel and Hamas Move Forward with Peace Framework

August 8,2025 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Steve Rabinowitz Email: steve@bluelightstrategies.com Phone:202-265-3000 JEI Denounces Deeply Concerning Comments by VA House Education Chair Washington, DC — The Jewish Electorate Institute denounces the deeply concerning statements by Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul (D-Roanoke), who also serves as the appointed Chair of the Education Committee in the Virginia House of Delegates, and who labeled Zionism “evil” and a “supremacist ideology.” Zionism represents the Jewish people’s fundamental right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland—framed within the context of democratic legitimacy and moral clarity. This mischaracterization undermines Jewish identity and distorts a core democratic value. As a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to understanding and empowering the American Jewish electorate through research, polling, and civic engagement, we urge Virginia’s leadership to reaffirm standards of responsible public service and to reject rhetoric that fuels division. Political discussion should challenge policies, not legitimate identity or core values. ###  ABOUT THE JEWISH ELECTORATE INSTITUTE (JEI) JEI is an independent, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization that surveys, interprets, reports, and educates policymakers and the public about the perspectives, voting behaviors, and motivations of the American Jewish electorate. JEI undertakes all its work and reports its findings without bias or favor concerning any political group or particular ideology. Through its polling, studies, seminars, focus groups, and educational programming, JEI is the leading non-partisan voice explaining the positions and voting behaviors of the American Jewish electorate.

In the nearly two years since Hamas’s brutal Oct. 7 attack on Israel, American Jews have watched a disturbing rise in antisemitism take place across America — and crucially, among some of our longtime allies. For decades, Jewish Americans stood at the forefront of progressive causes, marching for civil rights, fighting for reproductive freedom and advocating for immigrants and the marginalized. My Jewish faith is what first drove me to public service. The Jewish concept of tikkun olam — our responsibility to repair the world — is not just a religious tenet but a moral call to action. It’s why we’ve always shown up to defend others. Yet now, as antisemitism surges to record levels, many progressive organizations and leaders who once stood with us have gone quiet; or worse, turned their backs entirely. It’s no longer just about Israeli policy. The line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism has been crossed so many times it’s barely a line at all. “Zionist” has become a stand-in for “Jew,” and the message is clear: Unless you disavow the world’s only Jewish state, your place in many progressive spaces is no longer welcome. The picture is sobering. There have been calls to ban “Zionists” from Pride events. Many women’s groups have shrugged at Hamas’ rape of Israeli women. And the Democratic nominee for mayor of America’s most populous city has a pattern of antisemitic rhetoric and has refused to condemn the hurtful call to “globalize the intifada,” a rallying cry that has been used to incite violence against Jews. This didn’t happen overnight, but the silence from many who claim to fight for justice has been deafening and deeply painful. I know what it feels like to be targeted for who you are. In January 2020, shortly after I became the first woman and the first Jewish Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, the FBI uncovered a plot to assassinate me. Two members of a neo-Nazi domestic terrorist group had targeted me. It was the most serious of many threats I received during my time as Speaker. Thankfully, law enforcement intervened in time. But the threat was real, and it reminded me that hatred knows no single party or ideology. We’ve long seen this kind of extremist hate on the right, but today that same danger is rising on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. Antisemitism spreads under different names but with the same devastating consequences. Now, with the recent war between Israel and Iran, we’re likely to see a fresh wave of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. It is already giving rise to a new round of dangerous conspiracy theories laced with antisemitic tropes: accusing American Jews of dual loyalty; suggesting we control foreign policy; and portraying Jewish political engagement as part of a shadowy cabal influencing Washington. This is a moment of moral testing. Will our leaders speak clearly and forcefully against antisemitism, even when it’s politically inconvenient? Will those who champion diversity and inclusion apply those values to Jews as well? And will we be honest about how bad actors have exploited division, stoked extremism and enabled those who traffic in hate? Just as many Americans oppose President Donald Trump’s leadership while still loving this country and believing in its promise, the same is true for Israel. You can criticize or reject Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government and still support Israel’s right to exist, to defend itself and to thrive as a Jewish and democratic state. That distinction matters. Criticizing a government is not the same as condemning a people; but when it comes to Israel, that line is too often deliberately blurred. We must be able to hold leaders accountable without fueling hatred or questioning a nation’s fundamental legitimacy. Antisemitism is not merely a problem faced by Jews — it is a bellwether for the health of our democracy. When a society tolerates hatred against one group, it gives license to hate others. When threats against public servants go unchallenged, violence becomes normalized. I was reminded of that tragic reality when my friend and former counterpart, former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, was executed in her home along with her husband, Mark. Authorities say her killer was a politically motivated extremist who had compiled a list of Democratic lawmakers. Melissa was a principled leader and a friend. Her death was a heartbreaking loss and a flashing red warning sign for the tolerance of hate in our democracy. We cannot afford to treat this moment as normal. It is time for our allies to rejoin us. To speak up when we are threatened. To see antisemitism for what it is: a growing, dangerous force that must be confronted head-on. Because if we wait until it affects everyone, it will already be too late. Eileen Filler Corn is a JEI Board Member and Former Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, and the only ever Jewish speaker in VA

July 1, 2025 U.S. House Committee On The Judiciary 2142 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Now in our ninth year, the nationally and internationally recognized Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI), an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization, continues to serve as the barometer for the Jewish electorate. We are therefore honored to submit the following Comments for the Record to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee in support of its June 24, 2025, hearing on antisemitism - Rising Threat: America’s Battle Against Antisemitic Terror. This hearing, punctuated by the moving testimony of Matt Nosanchuk, reminded us that Jewish safety in America is not a political football - it is a national imperative. Nosanchuk, a former senior official in both the Obama and Biden Administrations and a lifelong advocate against antisemitism, laid bare the stark realities we face. The murder of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, who were attending a Jewish community event just blocks from his home, brought the crisis home - literally and painfully. It also underscored a chilling truth: this could have been any one of us. Antisemitism today does not discriminate based on geography, profession, or even political identity. Nosanchuk rightly challenged both ends of the political spectrum. From the right, we've seen rising indulgence of white nationalist rhetoric, normalization of Nazi imagery, and an embrace of conspiracy theorists. When antisemitism is tolerated—or worse, weaponized—by public officials and influential institutions, it emboldens violence and undermines the rule of law. The example of the pardoning of the person wearing a “Camp Auschwitz” shirt at the riot on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not just shocking to the Jewish community – it was symptomatic of a deeper, corrosive tolerance for hate. From the left, antisemitism also too often masquerades as political critique. When Jews are asked to renounce their ties to Israel to participate in coalitions, or when pro-Palestinian activism turns violent against Jews, with intimidating targeted rhetoric and violence, that’s not solidarity – it’s exclusion and scapegoating. Our Jewish identity should never be a precondition for political participation. What we need is not partisan grandstanding, but comprehensive action. That includes implementing the Biden Administration’s well-thought-out National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, restoring funding for civil rights enforcement at the Justice Department, and condemning hate, regardless of its ideological source. Nosanchuk’s call for education, prevention, and cross-community solidarity is exactly right. In closing, it’s our view at JEI that using antisemitism as cover for draconian immigration or university policies erodes the democratic institutions that have allowed Jewish life to flourish. Fighting hate must not become an excuse to violate civil liberties - ours or anyone else’s. Our safety as Jews has always been linked to the safety of others. In this perilous moment, we must demand more than soundbites. We must demand seriousness, solidarity, and above all, solutions. We are grateful to the Committee for having held this vital hearing at a perilous moment for American Jews. Sincerely, Barbara Goldberg Goldman Chairperson The Jewish Electorate Institute