SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rand paul
Pro-Israel Senators Show Their Hand By Opposing Free Speech Protections in Now-Delayed Antisemitism Bill
The Antisemitism Awareness Act has never been about countering antisemitism or protecting Jewish students from discrimination; it is about silencing pro-Palestine students and protecting the Israeli government from criticism.
May 06, 2025
When Senate Republicans brought the so-called Antisemitism Awareness Act up for a committee vote last week, they were expecting an easy win. After all, the bill had the support of Senate Republican leaders, most Israel advocacy groups, and even some Democrats.
Yet the bill faced an unexpected problem that may ultimately doom its passage. During a markup hearing of the HELP Committee, two Republicans broke ranks, joining all Democrats in approving free speech amendments that undermined the true goal of the bill: requiring colleges and universities to conflate criticism of the Israeli government and Zionism with antisemitism.
The first amendment considered was HELP Chairman Sen. Bill Cassidy's (R-La.)manager amendment, which affirmed that “Nothing in this Act shall be constructed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
While that vague reassurance passed with bipartisan support, most Republicans refused to support substantive amendments that explicitly referenced Gaza as an example of free speech, laid out examples of protected student speech, and prohibited retaliation against dissent.
If the true purpose of the Antisemitism Awareness Act was protecting Jewish students from illegal anti-Semitic discrimination, then none of these amendments should have been a problem.
At start of the hearing, ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned, “Unfortunately and unacceptably, the Antisemitism Awareness Act we are considering today would label speech that criticizes the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s horrific war in Gaza as antisemitic and a violation of civil rights laws, and that is an extremely dangerous precedent.”
Sanders then offered several amendments designed to reduce the risk that government agencies and educational institutions can use the bill as a new tool of censorship.
His first amendment clarified, "no person shall be considered antisemitic for using their rights of free speech or protest under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ... oppose Benjamin Netanyahu's led war effort, which has killed more than 50,000 and wounded more than 113,000, 60 percent of whom are women and children” and "oppose the Israeli government's devastation of Gaza..."
All Democrats voted in favor, which was itself a surprise given how many Democratic politicians have desperately avoided any criticism of the Israeli government. The bigger surprise came from Senator Rand Paul. He broke ranks with other Republicans and supported the amendment, ensuring its passage.
A second Sanders amendment declared that the federal government cannot force any school, college, or university to adopt a policy that a branch of the federal government may compel a school "to violate the rights of a student, faculty, or staff member under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
In a sane world, every Republican senator would have supported such a basic amendment. Yet all opposed it except for two: Sen. Paul and Sen. Susan Collins (D-Maine).
The third Sanders' amendment clarified that speech, such as distributing flyers, inviting guest speakers, or engaging in classroom discussions, is protected unless it involves true threats or incitement of violence. Again, Paul and Collins were the only Republicans to break with their colleagues to support it.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced an amendment prohibiting the federal government from detaining or deporting students based on protected political speech. That amendment passed by a single vote, thanks again to Senator Paul. Markey stated, “When a young person writes an op-ed in the student newspaper and get whisked off of the streets of Tuffs University to a prison in Louisiana with no charges that is what we are debating today.”
If the true purpose of the Antisemitism Awareness Act was protecting Jewish students from illegal anti-Semitic discrimination, then none of these amendments should have been a problem. They should have received universal support, and their approval should not have derailed the bill.
Yet the fate of the legislation is now up in the air.
HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said during the hearing that, “Supporting these amendments is an effort to kill this bill.”
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Ok.) responded the next day by telling Jewish Insider that “Rand Paul totally killed that bill.” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) also said, “These amendments are dealbreakers.”
Why? Because the Antisemitism Awareness Act has never been about countering antisemitism or protecting Jewish students from discrimination; it is about silencing pro-Palestine students and protecting the Israeli government from criticism.
The bill would require government agencies and schools to enforce federal civil rights law using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism—a vague and widely disputed standard that poses a mortal threat to First Amendment freedoms.
Kenneth S. Stern, the original drafter of the IHRA definition, has testified to Congress that, "My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress–rather than answer–political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Stern has repeatedly stated that the definition was never meant to be enforceable law and that doing so risks unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That is precisely what this legislation seeks to achieve.
The IHRA definition declares that any student describing the founding of Israel as a "racist endeavor" has engaged in antisemitism punishable by their school and the government of the United States—even though racist militias and terrorist groups like the Irgun subjected Palestinians to a horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass murder during the founding of Israel.
IHRA also declares anyone “applying double standards” to Israel is antisemtiic. If someone criticizes the Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza but hasn't made time to criticize the RSF's war crimes in Sudan, they must be antisemitic. Ditto for anyone “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” comparisons that--while controversial—have even been made by far-right supporters of the Israeli government.
As Sen. Paul noted during the hearing, these and other examples establish a dangerous double standard. No other foreign government is granted this level of immunity from criticism under U.S. civil rights law. If enforced through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, these vague and politically motivated examples would transform legitimate political critique into grounds for federal investigations, and dissent into a punishable offense.
If passed, this bill—even in its watered-down form—would open the door for the Israeli government and its supporters to misconstrue American civil rights laws.
CAIR, like many other civil rights groups, has called on congress to not pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act into law, as it would give the Department of Education—under a Trump administration already targeting, arresting, detaining, and attempting to deport anti-genocide protesters—even more power to investigate, silence, and punish speech on campus critical of Israel. We are already seeing the consequences. More than 1,700 student visas have been revoked since January. Students like Columbia’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts’ Rumeysa Ozturk remain in ICE custody for nothing more than participating in peaceful, protected protest and speech. Others face deportation for daring to speak out. This is not theoretical. This is not speculative. It is happening now.
In its original form, the Antisemitism Awareness Act would have given the Trump administration even more power to escalate its attack on free speech for Palestine. Even with the addition of Sanders' amendments, the now-contradictory bill still threatens free speech protections by including the IHRA definition.
That's still not good enough for most Senate Republicans and pro-Israel groups pushing the bill. Now that the bill cannot be so easily weaponized to silence dissent against Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza or its founding ideology, at least some of its key backers are threatening to abandon it.
Congress must reject this bill in full. No amendment can salvage legislation built on an anti-democratic foundation. Americans have the right to speak out against injustice, whether it occurs in our own country or in Gaza.
We must be absolutely clear about what is at stake. If passed, this bill—even in its watered-down form—would open the door for the Israeli government and its supporters to misconstrue American civil rights laws. That is not only a betrayal of free speech. It is a threat to American sovereignty.
Americans must unequivocally oppose antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and all forms of hate. But conflating antisemitism with opposition to Israel’s military occupation, apartheid policies, or the ongoing genocide in Gaza is not just dishonest. It is dangerous.
Congress must reject this bill in full. No amendment can salvage legislation built on an anti-democratic foundation. Americans have the right to speak out against injustice, whether it occurs in our own country or in Gaza.
Silencing speech does not stop hate. It only deepens injustice. And we should not stand by while our government attempts to criminalize moral clarity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Cowardice': House GOP Sneakily Tries to Shield Trump Tariff Powers
"It is a gross betrayal of their constituents," said Democratic Rep. Don Beyer.
Apr 09, 2025
House Republicans have reportedly inserted language into a procedural measure that would effectively prevent the chamber from voting on resolutions to curtail U.S. President Donald Trump's authority to impose tariffs unilaterally, a move that Democratic lawmakers condemned as spineless.
"This is cowardice of a kind our predecessors in this body frankly could not have imagined, and it is a gross betrayal of their constituents," Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said in a statement ahead of the planned vote, which is expected to take place late Wednesday afternoon.
The vote will come after Trump announced on his social media platform that he is pausing for 90 days the higher "reciprocal tariffs" he announced last week, while leaving in place the 10% universal tariffs on imports. One exception to the 90-day pause is China, which Trump said will face a 125% tariff "effective immediately."
Trump's decision to pause some of his tariffs came amid mounting backlash within the U.S. and abroad, including from Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
On Tuesday, a group of House Democrats led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced a privileged resolution that, if passed, would terminate the national emergency Trump declared on April 2 in order to impose his sweeping tariffs, which are unpopular with the American public.
Privileged resolutions in the House typically must receive floor consideration within two legislative days. But the language that House Republicans included in the procedural measure would "turn off privilege for any resolution dealing with the April 2 trade emergency," Punchbowl's Jake Sherman reported Wednesday.
The provision states that each day between April 9 and September 30 of this year "shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the president on April 2, 2025."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has vocally criticized Trump's tariff scheme, ripped House Republicans for shielding the president by declaring that "days don't exist anymore."
"They have passed a rule saying that, you know, not that day is night, but the days don't exist at all, that we aren't going to have any calendar days, because miraculously, by rule, we have decreed there are no days," said Paul, who earlier this week
joined a group of Senate Democrats in introducing a privileged resolution that would end Trump's emergency declaration.
Beyer said Wednesday that a vote for the House GOP rule "is a vote for Trump's tariffs."
"Anyone who claims to want to retake congressional authority over trade and tariffs must vote against this rule," he added.
The rule vote, if successful, would pave the way for consideration of the House GOP's budget resolution, which would advance the party's plan to slash taxes for the rich while cutting Medicaid and other key federal assistance programs.
During a fundraising event on Tuesday, Trump instructed House Republicans to blindly support his policy agenda.
"Close your eyes and get there," the president said, a message directed at the handful of Republicans who have wavered on supporting the budget resolution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Labor Secretary Pick Vows to Defend Anti-Union 'Right-to-Work' Laws
"How very not pro-worker of you," the Philadelphia Council AFL-CIO said in response to Lori Chavez-DeRemer's remarks.
Feb 19, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Labor made clear during her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday that she no longer supports legislation known as the PRO Act, which would bolster worker organizing and dramatically weaken anti-union "right-to-work" laws currently in place in over two dozen states.
Asked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) whether she still supports the Protecting the Right to Organize Act—a bill she co-sponsored while in Congress—former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) said she signed onto the bill because she "wanted to be at that table," not because she was fully supportive of its provisions.
Chavez-DeRemer answered "yes" when Paul—the lead sponsor of the National Right to Work Act—specifically asked her to confirm that she no longer supports "the aspect of the PRO Act that would have overturned state right-to-work laws."
"The right to work is a fundamental tenet of labor laws, where states have a right to choose if they want to be a right-to-work states," said Chavez-DeRemer.
"How very not pro-worker of you, Lori," the Philadelphia Council AFL-CIO wrote in response.
Watch the exchange:
Rand Paul: "You no longer support the aspect of the PRO Act that would have overturned state right to work laws?"
Trump Labor Secretary Nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer: "Yes, sir." pic.twitter.com/L5v9StcEhD
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) February 19, 2025
In so-called right-to-work (RTW) states, employees in unionized workplaces can opt out of paying union dues while still benefiting from the union's collective bargaining efforts.
An Economic Policy Institute study published last year found that RTW states "have lower unionization rates, wages, and benefits compared with non-RTW states."
"RTW laws are designed to diminish workers' collective power by prohibiting unions and employers from negotiating union security agreements into collective bargaining agreements, making it harder for workers to form, join, and sustain unions," the study noted. "Consequently, workers in states with RTW laws have lower wages, reduced access to health and retirement benefits, and higher workplace fatality rates. On average, workers in RTW states are paid 3.2% less than workers with similar characteristics in non-RTW states, which translates to $1,670 less per year for a full-time worker."
In her opening remarks to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Wednesday, Chavez-DeRemer said her job if confirmed "will be to implement President Trump's policy vision"—which has thus far been glaringly anti-worker.
"In his first few weeks back in office, Trump fired the [National Labor Relations Board's] acting chairperson, leaving the board without a quorum to enforce laws that protect workers' right to unionize," Steven Greenhouse, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, wrote Tuesday. "Trump has designated [Elon] Musk, a vehemently anti-union billionaire, to launch an all-out war against the federal bureaucracy and workforce, and Trump and Musk have essentially treated the nation's 2 million-plus federal employees as if they were disposable, low-quality widgets."
Trump also removed former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who was strongly pro-labor. The president's acting replacement has moved quickly to roll back NLRB guidance issued during Abruzzo's tenure, including a memo declaring that anti-union "captive audience meetings" amount to an "unlawful threat" aimed at deterring union organizing.
During Wednesday's hearing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised Trump's termination of former NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, who argues her dismissal was illegal and is suing Trump in federal court.
Sanders said he also views Wilcox's firing as unlawful and asked Chavez-DeRemer if she agrees.
In response, Chavez-DeRemer said that Trump "has a right to exercise his executive power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular