House Judiciary subcommittee hears witnesses on surge in antisemitic attacks and campus incidents

Chairman Jeff Van Drew opened a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Oct. 27 by saying the session would confront “an alarming and a dangerous escalation” in antisemitic incidents in the United States and citing 2023 as the highest year on record for such incidents.

The panel heard four witnesses who described overlapping and sometimes competing explanations for the rise in threats and violence targeting Jewish Americans, and who urged a mixture of stronger federal enforcement, restored funding for prevention programs, and closer scrutiny of online and campus organizing.

The hearing matters because members and witnesses linked recent fatal and violent incidents—including the shooting outside the Capitol Jewish Museum in Washington, the Boulder attack and an arson attempt at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home—to broader trends in hate speech, campus protests and changes in federal counter‑extremism staffing and grants.

Chairman Jeff Van Drew, in his opening remarks, said the committee convened “to confront a crisis that threatens the very fabric of the United States” and cited FBI figures for 2023. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin said antisemitism has “mutated in ever more dangerous ways” and called for action beyond denunciations. Representative Jim Jordan, chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, and other members recounted recent violent incidents and supported aggressive measures to protect Jewish institutions and students.

Witnesses gave differing emphases. Deborah Cooper, chief of digital activism at End Jew Hatred, told the panel that the wave of antisemitic activity accelerated after Oct. 7, 2023, and described what she called organized campus and community activity by groups she named, including Students for Justice in Palestine and others. Cooper testified that, in her view, the movement had been enabled by “the prior administration’s failure to take meaningful action” and said college and K–12 instruction and some unions had permitted narratives she described as demonizing Jews.

Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and CEO of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, urged a “whole-of-government” approach and warned that campus protests had in some cases been part of “a broader well resourced campaign,” citing examples such as Hamilton Hall at Columbia University and an encampment at UCLA. Marcus called for legislative and executive measures to strengthen enforcement and highlighted what he described as misuse of diversity initiatives that excluded Jewish perspectives.

Dan Schneider, vice president for free speech at the Media Research Center, focused on media and platforms, saying a small number of large information intermediaries "create, curate, and distribute information to an unprecedented degree" and argued that biased coverage or platform practices can amplify antisemitic narratives. Schneider singled out legacy media, certain style‑book practices and large platforms as problems to be investigated.

Matt Nosenchuk, a former senior official in the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), described the spike in antisemitic incidents reflected in federal data and recommended restoring funding and staff cut from federal prevention and civil‑rights units. Nosenchuk said the government should combine rapid OCR remedies with longer civil‑enforcement efforts to prevent harassment before it escalates into violence.

Members questioned witnesses about specific causes and remedies. Some Republican members and testimony linked the rise in violent incidents to changes in immigration and border enforcement and argued that lax vetting allowed extremists to enter the country; witnesses who raised those points were asked to provide evidence. Several Democrats and witnesses emphasized that the greatest immediate domestic terrorism threat has often come from white‑supremacist actors and warned against using antisemitism as a pretext for policies that would curtail civil liberties.

Several witnesses and members urged restoring funding for programs mentioned in testimony, including the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), the Justice Department’s community‑engagement units and the Department of Education’s OCR, which handles Title VI complaints alleging discrimination in federally funded schools. Kenneth Marcus and Matt Nosenchuk both recommended rebuilding capacity for prevention grants and rapid OCR responses; Nosenchuk said federal civil‑rights tools had in places become “very weak.”

There was bipartisan agreement among many members that antisemitism must be condemned and addressed wherever it appears. Members also differed on whether shifting enforcement tools between agencies (for example, expanding DOJ’s role versus a rapidly staffed OCR) is the most effective approach.

Without objection, the committee entered the opening statements into the hearing record, and members were given five legislative days to submit additional questions. The hearing concluded after questioning and the witnesses’ five‑minute statements were entered into the record.

Proponents of stronger federal action asked lawmakers to pursue a combination of (1) restored and expanded funding for prevention and security grants; (2) quicker civil‑rights enforcement on campuses where harassment occurs; (3) investigations into outside funding and coordination of campus encampments; and (4) scrutiny of platform moderation and the role of large media organizations in shaping public narratives.

Opponents of some proposed remedies cautioned against conflating criticism of Israel or protest activity with antisemitism and urged preservation of First Amendment protections. Several members and witnesses said that effective policy must be even‑handed and avoid politicization.

The hearing record includes multiple specific claims, statistics and named organizations that lawmakers and reporters will likely probe further in follow‑up oversight, including the scale of reported incidents, the role of campus groups and unions, the staffing and grant decisions at CP3 and other agencies, and platform moderation policies.