Antisemitism Awareness Act: IHRA Definition, Status, and Speech Concerns

The Antisemitism Awareness Act is a proposed federal bill that would require the U.S. Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when investigating discrimination complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not law. The House passed it in May 2024, the Senate never voted on it, and reintroduced versions are pending in the 119th Congress.

Where the Bill Stands in Congress

The original bill, H.R. 6090, was introduced in October 2023 amid a sharp rise in reported antisemitic incidents on college campuses. The House passed it on May 1, 2024, by a vote of 320–91, with 187 Republicans and 133 Democrats voting in favor.¹ The Senate received the bill the following day but took no further action before the session ended, and the bill died without a Senate vote.²

Lawmakers reintroduced the measure in the 119th Congress in early 2025 as H.R. 1007 in the House and S. 558 in the Senate.³ The House version was referred to the Judiciary Committee in February 2025, and the Senate version went through a committee markup session in April 2025.⁴ As of mid-2025, neither version has reached a floor vote. The substantive text mirrors H.R. 6090, and the IHRA definition remains unchanged from the earlier version.

What the Bill Would Actually Do

The bill directs the Department of Education to “take into consideration” the IHRA definition when reviewing complaints involving a person’s “actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics.”⁵ It does not create a new right to sue, and it does not add a new protected class. It gives the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) a specific framework for evaluating whether conduct was motivated by antisemitic intent, as part of the Title VI analysis OCR already performs.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal money.⁶ Title VI does not list religion as a protected category, but longstanding federal policy treats antisemitic discrimination as a form of national-origin or ancestry-based discrimination, meaning it already falls within Title VI’s reach.

The institutions covered are broad. Title VI applies to any entity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Education, including public K–12 schools, charter schools, community colleges, public universities, and private colleges that accept federal grants or participate in federal student loan programs.⁷ A school that fails to address a hostile environment could ultimately lose its federal funding, though that outcome is rare and involves a lengthy process.

The IHRA Definition It Would Adopt

The IHRA adopted its working definition on May 26, 2016. It describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” including rhetorical and physical acts directed at Jewish and non-Jewish people, Jewish community institutions, or religious facilities.⁸ The definition itself is short. Its specificity comes from a set of illustrative examples published alongside it.p>

Some examples cover classic forms of anti-Jewish hatred: advocating violence against Jews in the name of an extremist ideology, promoting stereotypes about Jewish power or control, denying or minimizing the Holocaust, and accusing Jews of causing their own persecution.

Others address rhetoric tied to the State of Israel, and these are the examples generating the most debate:

Claiming Jewish citizens are more loyal to Israel than to the countries where they live.
Arguing that Israel’s existence is inherently a racist project.
Applying double standards by expecting behavior from Israel not demanded of other democracies.
Equating current Israeli policy with Nazi actions.
Holding all Jewish people responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

The IHRA itself describes these as examples that “could, taking into account the overall context,” serve as illustrations, and it adopted the definition as a non-legally binding tool.⁸ The bill would give these examples legal weight in one specific context: Title VI investigations by the Department of Education.

The Executive Order Already in Place

Federal agencies are already directed to consider the IHRA definition. Executive Order 13899, signed in December 2019, instructs every agency that enforces Title VI to consider the IHRA’s working definition and its contemporary examples “to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.” The order includes its own First Amendment safeguard, stating that agencies “shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment.”⁹

The distinction matters mostly for durability. An executive order can be revoked by any future president. The Antisemitism Awareness Act would embed the same requirement in a federal statute, making it far harder to undo. For schools and OCR investigators on the ground today, the practical framework is largely the same. Supporters of the bill argue that statutory backing provides more lasting protection than executive action alone.

Free Speech Concerns and the Carve-Out

The bill includes an explicit carve-out: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”⁵ This language mirrors the safeguard already in Executive Order 13899.⁹

Supporters argue the bill is a modest step that codifies a framework federal agencies already use and provides consistent standards for identifying when campus harassment crosses into antisemitic discrimination. The bill’s congressional findings state that antisemitism is “on the rise in the United States and is impacting Jewish students in K–12 schools, colleges, and universities.”⁵

Opponents raise First Amendment concerns that they say the carve-out does not resolve. The core objection is that several IHRA examples involve speech about Israel, and the bill would pressure schools to police political speech to avoid risk to federal funding. Critics argue the concern is not literal OCR prosecution of a classroom argument but a chilling effect: administrators pre-emptively shutting down events, disciplining speakers, or flagging student organizations. Civil liberties groups have also pointed to federal court litigation where applying the IHRA definition to campus speech was challenged as viewpoint discrimination. A federal court in Students for Justice in Palestine v. Abbott addressed the issue, though the broader constitutional question of whether statutory adoption of the IHRA framework survives First Amendment scrutiny has not been definitively resolved by an appellate court.

There is a pragmatic argument on the other side too: antisemitic harassment is already illegal under Title VI, and OCR already has the tools to investigate it. Critics argue the bill does not add enforcement power but adds a definition whose Israel-related examples go beyond what is needed to fight anti-Jewish bigotry.

Filing an Antisemitism Complaint Under Title VI Now

Whether or not the bill becomes law, OCR is already investigating antisemitism-related complaints under Title VI using the IHRA framework directed by the executive order. Anyone who experiences or witnesses antisemitic discrimination at a federally funded school can file a complaint with OCR by submitting an electronic form through the OCR Complaint Assessment System or by downloading a fillable PDF and sending it by email or mail.¹⁰

The critical deadline is 180 calendar days from the date of the discriminatory incident.¹¹ OCR can grant a waiver in limited circumstances. If you were pursuing the matter through your school’s internal process, you get 60 additional days after that process concludes.¹² Missing the deadline without a valid reason typically means OCR will not investigate, so documenting incidents promptly matters. Title VI also prohibits retaliation, so a school cannot punish you for filing a complaint or participating in an OCR investigation.⁷

1
House Clerk’s Office. Roll Call 172 Bill Number HR 6090
2
Congress.gov. H.R.6090 – Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023
3
Congress.gov. H.R.1007 – Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025
4
Congress.gov. S.558 – Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025
5
Congress.gov. H.R.6090 – Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000d – Prohibition Against Exclusion From Participation in, Denial of Benefits of, and Discrimination Under Federally Assisted Programs on Ground of Race, Color, or National Origin
7
U.S. Department of Education. Education and Title VI
8
United States Department of State. Defining Antisemitism
9
Federal Register. Combating Anti-Semitism
10
U.S. Department of Education. File A Complaint
11
U.S. Department of Education. Office for Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint Form
12
U.S. Department of Education. Questions and Answers on OCR’s Complaint Process