Texas House Passes Antisemitism Bill Amid Fierce Debate Over Free Speech.

The Texas House has passed Senate Bill 326, which cleared the Senate earlier this year.

The measure mandates that public schools and universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when reviewing student conduct cases.

Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign the bill into law.

“Antisemitism will not be tolerated in Texas,” Mr. Abbott said recently, underscoring his administration’s strong backing of the legislation.

What the Bill Does

The new law does not create new categories of misconduct.

Instead, it requires that existing violations of student conduct codes be reviewed for possible antisemitic motivation using the IHRA’s definition.

That definition controversially includes certain forms of criticism of the Israeli government.

Senator Phil King, who authored the bill, defended its language.

“Texas must lead the way in protecting Jewish students and making sure hate has no home in our schools,” he said during floor debate.

Supporters Say It’s About Protection

Supporters argue that with antisemitic incidents rising nationwide, schools need clear, consistent guidance to identify and respond to antisemitism.

“We’ve seen too many cases where antisemitic actions were brushed aside or mischaracterized,” said Rep. Craig Goldman (R-Fort Worth), who sponsored the bill in the House. “This gives educators and administrators the tools they need to recognize and stop it.”

Critics Warn of Free Speech Risks

Not everyone agrees the bill strikes the right balance.

Some lawmakers and civil liberties groups worry that adopting the IHRA’s language could suppress legitimate political speech, especially criticism of Israeli policies.

Among the most prominent critics was Representative Jon Rosenthal (D-Houston), the only Jewish member of the Texas House.

“It may surprise some of you to learn that Jewish communities do not uniformly support this bill,” Mr. Rosenthal told his colleagues.
“The IHRA definition dangerously conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’s policies with antisemitism. This could actually bolster and reinforce antisemitic tropes and stereotypes of Jews as privileged and influential.”

Mr. Rosenthal initially opposed the bill but ultimately voted for it after an amendment clarified that it was not meant to restrict constitutionally protected speech.

“I could not support the bill without that amendment,” he explained.
“With that safeguard in place, I felt it was important to address antisemitism, even while continuing to advocate for free expression.”

A Broader National Debate

Texas joins a growing number of states adopting the IHRA definition in some form.

Similar measures have passed or are under consideration in Florida, Tennessee, and New York.

The legislation comes at a time when many universities face rising tensions over the Israel-Palestine conflict, campus protests, and accusations of antisemitism.

The debate over how to define and combat antisemitism without infringing on free speech, shows no signs of easing.

“This is not a perfect bill,” Mr. Rosenthal acknowledged.
“But it’s a step toward confronting a real problem while trying to preserve the rights and freedoms we all value.”

Global Definition, Local Controversy

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism now required by Senate Bill 326, has gained global traction.

It’s been embraced by over 1,200 entities worldwide, including national governments, universities, and international organizations.

Yet it has also sparked considerable debate.

Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) champion the definition as a comprehensive tool for identifying antisemitism.

Others, including Jewish Voice for Peace and some chapters of J Street, argue it could suppress legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and infringe on free speech.

Rising Antisemitism and First Amendment Concerns

The Texas bill comes amid a troubling rise in antisemitic incidents nationwide.

The ADL reported record-high levels of antisemitic harassment, vandalism, and assaults in both 2023 and 2024.

College campuses have become frequent hotspots for controversy and conflict.

Civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), warn that laws like SB 326 could cross constitutional boundaries.

They fear such measures may punish speech protected by the First Amendment — particularly in academic settings where political debate is often robust and controversial.

Texas’ Legislative History and Ongoing Debate

Texas lawmakers have actively shaped how schools address both discrimination and free speech.

In 2019, the state passed a law requiring public universities to uphold free expression rights and banning restrictive “free speech zones.”

This history makes SB 326’s potential impact on campus speech especially sensitive.

Representative Jon Rosenthal’s role has been especially noteworthy.

As the only Jewish member of the Texas House, he initially opposed the bill, fearing it could conflate political criticism with bigotry and reinforce harmful stereotypes.

After securing amendments to protect constitutionally protected speech, he ultimately supported the measure — a decision reflecting the complex balance lawmakers must strike.

A Deeply Polarized Moment

The resurgence of the Israel-Palestine conflict in 2024 and 2025 has only intensified national discussions around antisemitism and free speech.

As protests and heated debates continue on campuses and beyond, Texas’ new legislation places the state at the center of a broader cultural and legal struggle.

At issue is how best to define and respond to hate in an increasingly polarized environment — while preserving the fundamental rights of free expression.

Texas House Passes Antisemitism Bill Amid Fierce Debate Over Free Speech