Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Addresses antisemitism on college campuses through federal education policy measures.
The problem
Incidents of antisemitic harassment and discrimination on college campuses have increased, raising concerns about Jewish student safety and freedom from hostile environments.
The proposal
The bill would establish federal guidelines or requirements for colleges to address antisemitism, potentially through Title VI enforcement, reporting mechanisms, or institutional accountability measures.
The impact
Affects college students, universities, and Jewish communities. Students gain protections; colleges face compliance requirements; antisemitism confrontation becomes institutional priority.
Creates clear standards for campuses to prevent and respond to antisemitic incidents. Helps ensure Jewish students can attend college without harassment or discrimination.
Makes universities responsible for addressing antisemitism through federal oversight. Encourages institutions to take complaints seriously and take action.
Federal action draws attention to antisemitism as a campus problem. Encourages dialogue and education about antisemitic tropes and behaviors.
Federal standards clarify what constitutes antisemitism and unacceptable conduct. Helps institutions understand their obligations under civil rights law.
Federal enforcement could restrict criticism of Israeli policies or political speech. May inadvertently limit legitimate political discourse on college campuses.
Defining antisemitism broadly might capture protected speech or political opinions. Could punish statements not intended to harm Jewish students.
Federal control over campus conduct expands government involvement in college operations. May conflict with institutional autonomy and states' educational authority.
Colleges must create new compliance systems and policies, costing time and resources. Enforcement mechanisms could be complex and inconsistent across institutions.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.