DOJ weaponizes antisemitism to attack free speech

 By Amber Halvorsen, Veer Mahajan, Ekasha Sikka & Warren Su

Introduction

Following the intensification of the Israel-Gaza conflict in 2023, pro-Palestinian protests have swept college campuses nationally. At the same time, though not necessarily as a direct effect of the protests, antisemitism has increased rapidly in the US. In 2024 alone, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported more than 9,300 antisemitic incidents nationally. As a response, the Trump administration initiated a slew of rushed Department of Justice (DOJ)-led investigations into colleges. However, the blurred line between antisemitism and political protest has resulted in the arrests of numerous pro-Palestinian activists, deportation of immigrant students, and threats to funding and safety across universities. The current administration equates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, weaponizing the word “antisemitic” while simultaneously demonizing pro-Palestinian supporters. This false equivalency poses a threat to both the Jewish-American community and student activists who choose to practice free speech. 

Politicization of definition 

Antisemitism has been weaponized as a result of the politicization of the definition itself. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism characterizes it primarily as “hatred toward Jews” and “toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities,” but names examples that include certain criticisms of the state of Israel, such as “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” Trump uses this definition in his January 2025 Executive Order 14188, Additional Steps to Combat Antisemitism, establishing it in a legal and political context. The association of Jewish identity and the Israeli government within the IHRA definition enables it to be manipulated and misused to silence political dissent and threaten First Amendment-protected free speech. The creator of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, wrote in an op-ed in The Guardian that it was never intended to be used as a de facto hate speech code. Free speech is a cornerstone of democracy: broad restrictions on it, even those intended to prevent hate, only pave the way for more suppression. The weaponization of antisemitism’s definition not only leads to unwarranted legal punishment, but it also suppresses student activism, contradicting higher education’s purpose to facilitate open learning environments. 

Free Speech Attack & Immigration Enforcement 

Following Hamas’ attack on Israel in 2023 and the war in Gaza, pro-Palestinian protests swept US college campuses, prompting several instances of federal crackdowns and controversial arrests. In September 2025, UC Berkeley disclosed to the Trump administration the names of 160 faculty members and students who were linked to Gaza-related protests as a part of an investigation into alleged antisemitism. The release of these names goes against the fundamental right to protest: student activists should be free to protest without the risk of surveillance, retaliation, deportation, and career loss. Student activists should not be put at risk, especially without being informed of the nature of their alleged involvement. When institutions rush to equate dissent with hate speech and label peaceful protest as discrimination, an unhealthy environment is created where students feel pressured to stay silent rather than voice their opinions. 

The silencing effect is not isolated. A July 2025 testimony in an ongoing federal lawsuit revealed that the Department of Homeland Security used Canary Mission, a website that lists the names and information of pro-Palestinian activists, to identify thousands of individuals to target for immigration enforcement. Prominent non-citizen student activists were detained as a result, including Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University Ph.D. student, and Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student. Ozturk, a Turkish citizen with a pending immigration status, was targeted after co-authoring an op-ed criticizing her university’s association with Israel in her campus newspaper. Khalil was arrested and held for three months under threat of deportation. Both incidents reveal Trump’s growing restrictions on free speech under the guise of a response to antisemitism. 

DOJ Investigations 

The DOJ’s primary response to antisemitism in universities came in March 2025 when it launched a series of rushed investigations into UC based on complaints of antisemitism that violated the Civil Rights Act. Citing concerns about political motivations behind the investigation, nine DOJ attorneys resigned in December 2025, according to an LA Times investigation. Several of the attorneys said they had been told to justify a lawsuit before the facts were made clear. “It was clear to many of  us that this was a political hit job,” an attorney assigned to the UC Davis and UC Los Angeles cases said.

In October 2025, Trump’s DOJ attacked UC once more, demanding a $1.2 billion settlement that included discriminatory policy changes. One such change was denying admission to international students based on the likelihood of them engaging in “anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions,” reflecting the Trump administration’s motive of federally regulating free speech on campuses. 

With more than $17 billion in federal funding in the 2023-24 fiscal year, the UC system relies heavily on government grants for research and academia. Trump uses this dependence to threaten the universities rather than actually attempt to combat prejudice, fulfilling the role not of a president, but a school bully. 

Concern about antisemitism and efforts to fight it do not go hand-in-hand with these politically motivated threats to university funding and free speech. In a study by the University of Rochester and UC Berkeley of 1,166 Jewish adults, 72% believe Trump is wrongly using antisemitism claims to attack universities, and 72% are personally concerned about antisemitism in colleges. Jewish people — whom Trump seeks to protect through the DOJ — are just as opposed to the DOJ’s actions as those being directly threatened by them. It is clear that the Trump DOJ does not seek to deal with antisemitism in any serious way, but instead to use it as a tool to combat dissent. 

Undermining genuine efforts against antisemitism 

Weaponizing antisemitism through the DOJ harms college environments, immigrant communities, and true efforts to combat antisemitism. In April 2025, ten organizations representing Jewish people released a joint statement claiming the government “used the guise of fighting antisemitism to strip students of their due process rights.” The Jewish community represented by the statement is also concerned with the fact that “students have been arrested [without] transparency [and are] being punished for their constitutionally protected speech … [These actions] only make us less safe.” Furthermore, by cutting funds, the government eliminates college  administrations’ power to protect Jewish students. These unpopular changes shift the blame to Jewish students, further hurting the fight against antisemitism. 

Conclusion

Trump’s response to antisemitism harms not just activists, but also the community it ostensibly seeks to protect: it manipulates the term in Trump’s favor to suppress free speech and distract from real efforts against the issue. All prejudice must be countered, but the present response  is counterproductive and hurts far more than it helps. Students must recognize the fundamental issue of antisemitism, but question the vested interests behind federal crackdowns, and seek to inform their own opinion on how to best combat it. As the political climate increasingly intertwines with cultural discourse, establishing a clear distinction between political protest and hate speech is vital. Without such a divide, antisemitism stands  between true progress that benefits the Jewish community and the government’s masking of political dissent.