The Trump administration declared last week that "harassment of Jewish students is unacceptable" when it suspended $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University. University President Alan Garber responded Monday, saying that while he, "as a Jew and an American," is fully aware of the rise in anti-Semitism, defunding Harvard is not a solution.

The Trump administration has frequently cited anti-Semitism to justify its decisions to cut funding to prestigious universities, deport foreign students accused of anti-Jewish sentiment, and seek greater control over what is taught in American schools and universities.

While some American Jewish leaders hail President Donald Trump's efforts as the most aggressive fight against anti-Jewish bigotry in American history, others fear that Trump is politicizing the fight against anti-Semitism by using it to further his agenda—which could harm Jews in the long run, especially as Trump dismantles other anti-discrimination efforts. At the state level, lawmakers—mostly Republicans—are moving forward with bills that include a controversial definition of anti-Semitism that critics say discourages legitimate criticism of Israel. This disagreement has exacerbated long-standing tensions between liberal and conservative Jews, whose views increasingly differ about the Israeli government, and in some cases, Israel itself, as well as about which side of the political divide best represents their values and interests.

“Anti-Semitism is real, and it requires strong, constructive solutions,” Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Public Affairs Council, told the Washington Post. “But what is happening now is exploiting the Jewish community’s legitimate and genuine concerns about anti-Semitism to undermine the rule of law, due process, educational institutions, and our democracy.” Morton Klein, national president of the right-wing Zionist Organization of America, disagreed, claiming that Trump is enforcing a federal anti-discrimination law as previous presidents should have done.

According to a number of polls, anti-Semitic acts have also increased in the United States, and the White House said that Trump is responding appropriately to this.

“If combating anti-Semitism is controversial to President Trump’s critics, their frustration has reached new lows,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement last week. “No leader has been a stronger ally of the Jewish people than President Trump. His administration is fully committed to enforcing law and order, protecting civil rights, and ensuring that pro-Hamas extremists face the full weight of the law in our critical fight against anti-Semitism.”

While the Trump-Harvard feud has garnered significant attention, the broader battle shows no signs of slowing down. The Trump administration has similarly targeted other universities, from Princeton to Northwestern, and continues its crackdown on immigrants suspected of making anti-Israel statements.

While Trump and his opponents wage their battles nationally, a more subdued debate is taking place in six conservative states where anti-anti-Semitism bills have been introduced in recent months.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel and pro-two-state solution organization, stated in a press release last week that this push to criminalize criticism of Israel at the state level has been ongoing for years, but accelerated after the October 7 attacks and was intensified by the Trump presidency.

Ben-Ami, president of J Street, is concerned about the free expression implications of many of the proposals.

“There is a deeply disturbing pattern of state and local laws—as well as attempts at the federal level—codifying a definition of antisemitism that includes criticism of Israeli government actions and policies, potentially not only stifling free speech but criminalizing it,” Ben-Ami said.

The flashpoint, as is often the case these days, especially since October 7, is the question of when criticism of Israel becomes anti-Semitism. The Hruza bill adopts a definition of anti-Semitism that includes examples such as applying a "double standard" to Israel or describing it as racist.

Missouri Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Foxx said such language threatens free speech and punishes legitimate criticism of Israel. Foxx added, "It changes the way universities interpret speech. It changes and reshapes the definition of anti-Semitism, conflating real concerns about anti-Semitism with talk of war and what happened in Palestine after the October 7, 2023 massacre."

It's worth noting that the definition of antisemitism drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016 is increasingly controversial. The draft stipulates that Israel may be criticized like any other country, but targeting it "as a Jewish group" constitutes antisemitism.

The definition provides examples of language that crosses the line, such as comparing Israel to the Nazis or blaming all Jews for Israel's actions. These examples are incorporated into many state laws.

Kenneth Stern, the chief drafter of the IHRA definition, strongly opposes codifying the examples in this way, saying they were intended for guidance only, and that enshrining them in law violates the First Amendment by penalizing views about Israel.

"I think it's bad policy, and as a lawyer, I think it's unconstitutional discrimination based on viewpoint," Stern told The Washington Post on Sunday. "I'm a Zionist, and Israel is important to me, but there are young Jews whose Jewishness leads them to a different viewpoint."

Congress has not yet incorporated the IHRA definition into US law, despite repeated proposals to do so. However, Trump signed an executive order in 2019, during his first term, directing government agencies to consider adopting it.