Jerry Nadler, a prominent voice in the House of Representatives, has leveled strong accusations against Donald Trump, asserting that the former president is exploiting the fight against antisemitism to exert undue influence over American universities. Nadler characterizes Trump as a “would-be dictator” who is using the guise of combating anti-Jewish sentiment to justify attacks on institutions like Columbia, Harvard, adn Brown.
In an interview, Nadler criticized Trump’s actions, stating, “Trump obviously doesn’t give a damn about antisemitism, this is just an expression of his authoritarianism.” He argues that Trump’s administration is leveraging genuine concerns about antisemitism to undermine academic independence.
The Trump administration has recently escalated its scrutiny of Ivy League and other universities, challenging their autonomy through investigations and funding suspensions. In April 2025, approximately $210 million in research grants to Princeton University were suspended by the departments of Energy and Defense, and NASA, citing concerns about “antisemitic harassment”. Similarly, the administration announced a review of $9 billion in federal contracts and grants to Harvard University and placed $500 million in federal funds to Brown University under threat. These actions follow the cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University.
Nadler released a statement condemning these attacks, accusing the president of “weaponizing the real pain American Jews face to advance his desire to wield control over truth-seeking academic institutions.” He warns that Trump’s efforts to restrict free speech on campuses could disproportionately harm Jewish individuals.
“Whenever freedom is curtailed, Jews in particular become victims,” Nadler said. “That’s the history.”
Nadler further cautions that Trump’s actions, ostensibly aimed at combating antisemitism, could paradoxically endanger American Jews. “There are always antisemites looking for an excuse to react, so this is risky and it certainly dose not help at all.”
Nadler claims that if Trump were genuinely committed to protecting Jewish people,he would address the “numerous antisemites he has appointed to some of the highest positions in government.” He specifically names Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, as an example. Wilson has been criticized for amplifying far-right conspiracy theories on social media about Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman who was lynched in 1915 after being wrongly convicted of murder.
Nadler also criticizes trump’s decision to fire numerous investigators in the Education Department’s civil rights office, wich is responsible for addressing anti-Jewish hate on campuses. “If he were serious about antisemitism, trump would be bringing cases in front of the Office of civil rights rather than destroying it.”
Despite being a staunch supporter of Israel and a “committed Zionist,” Nadler has increasingly criticized the heavy-handed response to pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses, which intensified following the conflict in Gaza.
“From my point of view, the protesters are expressing obnoxious opinions, I don’t agree with them.But they’re entitled to those opinions,” nadler stated.Nadler recently signed a letter condemning the Trump administration’s detention and attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. “I disagreed with the encampment, but nonetheless Khalil is entitled to free speech and shouldn’t be deported for his opinions.” nadler referenced the 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which states that speech can only be punished if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”. He believes that the pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses generally did not meet this threshold and were therefore protected under the First Amendment.Nadler has also voiced concerns about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by the Department of Education and several universities. He argues that the IHRA definition can be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies.
“The problem with the IHRA definition is that it leads to the conflation of anti-Israel expressions with antisemitism. You can be anti-Israel, and not antisemitic.”
Nadler’s stance on the IHRA definition has evolved over time. In 2018, he co-sponsored the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which mandated the use of the IHRA definition in federal investigations of antisemitism on campus. However, he now opposes the legislation, arguing that it would effectively ban anti-Israel sentiment on US campuses. “I was wrong in 2018 – it was a mistake”.While many congressional Democrats continue to support the Antisemitism Awareness Act, Nadler has urged his colleagues to reconsider their position, calling their actions “dangerous to the first amendment”.
Nadler also called on universities to resist pressure from the Trump administration, even if it means facing financial consequences.
Several universities have already made concessions in response to Trump’s tactics. Columbia University, such as, agreed to relinquish faculty control over Middle East studies and adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Harvard University has also dismissed faculty leaders at its Center for Middle Eastern Studies and is reviewing programming on Israel-Palestine. In contrast, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber has publicly stated that he will not yield to federal government coercion.
“We have to be willing to speak up, and we have to be willing to say no to funding if it’s going to constrain our ability to pursue the truth,” Eisgruber said.
Nadler praised Princeton’s resilience and urged other universities to follow suit.
“If the Trump administration makes good on its threats, then Princeton should go to court. It would get a preliminary injunction, as this is a clear speech violation, and then I would try to get members of Congress to support the lawsuit by filing an amicus brief.”
Nadler emphasizes the importance of due process and the potential for legal challenges to the administration’s actions. “Federal agencies can place conditions on money given to universities, but they have to carry out a legal process. There are ample grounds to sue.”
