Jewish American Security Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 7, 2026
Bottom line
This bill proposes a multi-pronged federal approach to address rising antisemitism through educational initiatives, enhanced community security funding, and increased accountability for online platforms.
What it actually does
The Jewish American Security Act aims to combat antisemitism by strengthening federal efforts in three key areas: protecting Jewish students, securing Jewish communities, and documenting online antisemitism. It mandates new training and awareness campaigns for schools, designates an antisemitism coordinator at the Department of Education, amends the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to increase funding and streamline processes, authorizes grants for policing support to houses of worship, requires joint annual threat assessments of antisemitic extremism, and mandates online platforms to submit transparency reports on content moderation.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary and comprehensive response to the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents in the United States, particularly following recent events. They emphasize the importance of protecting Jewish students from discrimination, enhancing the physical security of Jewish institutions, and holding online platforms accountable for the spread of antisemitic content that often incites real-world violence. They believe it implements a "whole-of-government and whole-of-society" approach as outlined in national strategies.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that some provisions could infringe on free speech rights, particularly those related to online content moderation or the definition of antisemitism. Concerns could also be raised about the scope of federal intervention in educational institutions or the potential for overreach in monitoring online discourse. Some might also question the effectiveness of certain measures or the financial burden on federal agencies and online platforms.
The bill is moderately complex but manageable for an informed reader within a reasonable timeframe, allowing for a substantive evaluation.
Sec. 4(b), (c)
Enhanced Title VI Training and Awareness for Schools
This provision requires regional offices of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to offer annual trainings to recipients of federal financial assistance (schools) on their Title VI responsibilities regarding antisemitism. Additionally, it mandates the Secretary of Education to conduct a public awareness campaign for students, informing them about their rights under Title VI and the responsibilities of educational institutions to protect against discrimination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these measures are crucial for ensuring schools understand and enforce civil rights protections against antisemitism, creating a more inclusive and safe environment for Jewish students.
Critics contend
Some might argue that existing Title VI mechanisms are sufficient, and these additional mandates could create unnecessary bureaucracy or be overly prescriptive for educational institutions.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the need for clear guidance and enforcement with concerns about administrative burden on schools.
Sec. 4(d)
Annual Written Reminder of Title VI Obligations
This section mandates the Secretary of Education to issue annual written reminders to recipients of federal financial assistance. These reminders will summarize a recipient's Title VI responsibilities to address antisemitism and provide specific examples of discrimination, including examples of different treatment and harassment, and of K-12 curricula that could create a hostile environment for Jewish students.
Sec. 4(e)
Department of Education Antisemitism Coordinator
This provision requires the Secretary of Education to designate an employee as the "antisemitism coordinator" within 90 days of the Act's enactment. This coordinator will serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary on countering antisemitism, oversee the Department's efforts, provide technical assistance, ensure public information on filing complaints, and conduct biannual reviews of antisemitism-related complaints and annual reviews of strategies.
Sec. 4(f)
Enhanced Campus Hate Crime Data Reporting
This section amends the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act to require institutions of higher education to disaggregate hate crime data based on bias category and motivation, as used in FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It further mandates that these detailed statistics be made available to the Department of Education's newly designated antisemitism coordinator.
Sec. 4(g)
Mandated Title VI Coordinator and Grievance Procedures for Recipients
This provision requires all entities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Education to designate a Title VI coordinator, adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and establish a Title VI grievance procedure. The procedure must include supportive measures, an investigation process, online posting of policies, annual notice to students and employees, and maintenance of records for 7 years. This aims to standardize and strengthen civil rights enforcement.
Sec. 5(a)
Enhanced Nonprofit Security Grant Program
This section significantly amends the Nonprofit Security Grant Program by increasing the maximum percentage of a grant usable for management and administration from 5% to 10%. It reauthorizes appropriations at $1,000,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2027-2031. It also mandates FEMA to ensure sufficient personnel, streamline processes, increase technical assistance, coordinate with states for swift reimbursement, prohibit state limits on security personnel funding (with fraud exceptions), and require annual reporting on personnel allocation and public availability of grant data.
Sec. 5(b)
Grants for Policing Support to At-Risk Religious Institutions
This provision authorizes the Attorney General to collaborate with and award grants to State and local law enforcement agencies. The purpose of these grants is to enhance security measures for at-risk religious institutions and address the precipitous increase in religion-based hate crimes. Funds can be used for increased policing presence, patrols, training, and other forms of assistance, utilizing existing funds from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
Sec. 6(a)
Mandated Online Platform Transparency Reports on Antisemitic Content
This provision requires "online platforms" (defined as large entities with 50M+ monthly U.S. users that host user-generated content and deliver ads) to submit to the FTC and publicly publish transparency reports every 180 days. These reports must detail content moderation practices, efforts to detect and remove antisemitic content, data on violative content (including views, responsive actions, and algorithmic amplification), and accounts suspended for antisemitism. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act.
Requires the Department of Education to include "specific examples of discrimination, including examples of different treatment and harassment, and of K-12 curricula that could create a hostile environment for Jewish students" in its annual written reminder to recipients of Title VI obligations.
Sec. 4(d)(2)
Why it matters:Could be standard legislative detail, but the specific mention of "K-12 curricula" has significant implications that might be less prominent than the general anti-discrimination mandate.
Case for: Proponents would argue that curricula can indeed contribute to hostile environments, and providing examples helps schools identify and rectify such issues, ensuring Jewish students feel safe and included.
Case against: Critics might argue this could lead to self-censorship in educational content, particularly regarding sensitive geopolitical topics, out of fear of being deemed discriminatory, potentially infringing on academic freedom.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on curriculum development and review processes in K-12 schools nationwide, affecting how sensitive topics are taught.
Directs the Administrator of FEMA to issue guidance prohibiting states from imposing limits or percentage caps on the use of Nonprofit Security Grant Program funds for contracted or proprietary security personnel, while allowing for limits to prevent misuse or fraud.
Sec. 5(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail addressing a specific administrative hurdle or state-level practice that grant recipients might face. It's a practical fix rather than a broad policy statement.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures flexibility for nonprofits to use funds for the most effective security measures, as contracted personnel are often a critical component of security plans, and state-imposed caps can hinder effective protection.
Case against: Some might argue that state-level caps are in place for legitimate reasons, such as ensuring a balance of security investments or preventing excessive spending on personnel over other security enhancements.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for nonprofits, allowing greater discretion in allocating substantial security funds, leading to more tailored security solutions.
Requires online platforms to report the percentage and total amount of antisemitic platform content that was promoted, suggested, amplified, or shared by the platform's recommendation algorithm.
Sec. 6(a)(2)(I)
Why it matters:This is a highly technical and specific data point, but it addresses a core concern about how platforms' internal mechanisms contribute to content spread.
Case for: Proponents argue that algorithmic amplification is a key driver of harmful content spread, and this data is essential for understanding and mitigating the problem, holding platforms accountable for their design choices.
Case against: Online platforms might argue that accurately tracking and reporting this specific metric is technically challenging and could reveal proprietary algorithmic information, or that it unfairly places blame on algorithms rather than user behavior.
Estimated impact: Potentially transformative for understanding the role of algorithms in spreading hate speech, leading to pressure for platforms to redesign recommendation systems.