Federal Agencies Must Adopt Specific Antisemitism Definition: What It Means for Civil Rights Cases and Free Speech

The “Define to Defeat Act of 2025” is straightforward: it mandates that the entire federal government adopt one specific definition of antisemitism—the one used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)—for training, investigations, and even court cases. This isn't just about semantics; it means that if you’re a federal employee getting anti-bias training, or if a federal agency is looking into a civil rights complaint, they must use this exact definition, including its specific examples (Sec. 3, Sec. 7).

The New Rulebook for Federal Training

Think of this as standardizing the playbook. Right now, different agencies might use slightly different guidelines when defining anti-Jewish bias. This bill says, nope, everyone uses the IHRA definition. Section 3 requires every federal department head to ensure that all anti-discrimination training materials incorporate this official definition of antisemitism. For the average federal worker, this means the required annual or periodic bias training will now include specific examples of what the government considers antisemitism, which could range from classic tropes to certain forms of criticism directed at Israel.

When Civil Rights Investigations Change

This is where the rubber meets the road for everyday people interacting with federal agencies. Section 5 states that when a federal agency—like the Department of Education or the Department of Justice—is reviewing or investigating a civil rights complaint related to race, religion, or national origin, they must now consider whether the alleged violation was motivated, “even partially,” by antisemitism as defined by the IHRA. This applies to major existing civil rights laws (Sec. 7). For instance, if a student files a complaint about harassment at a university, the agency investigating that complaint now has a specific, legally mandated lens through which to view the role of antisemitism. The goal is to make sure antisemitism isn't overlooked, but the practical effect is that it introduces a very specific, detailed metric into what can be complex investigations.

The Free Speech Friction Point

The biggest friction point with the IHRA definition has always been its inclusion of specific examples related to Israel, such as claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor. The bill’s supporters argue these examples are necessary to combat modern antisemitism. However, critics worry these provisions could “chill” protected speech. While Section 6 explicitly states that this Act doesn't diminish existing First Amendment rights—like freedom of speech or religion—the reality is that if a federal agency is required to use a definition that includes political criticism as a potential form of antisemitism, people might self-censor to avoid investigation or scrutiny. This creates a challenging gray area where political speech, especially on college campuses or in public forums, might be perceived as crossing a line defined by the federal government.

Defining Terms for the Jury

One less common but critical change is found in Section 4, which dictates what happens in federal court. If a federal criminal or civil case involves antisemitism, the judge must now provide the jury with the IHRA definition when giving them instructions before deliberations. Usually, judges have some discretion in defining terms for the jury. By mandating this specific definition, the bill ensures that the legal standard used in civil rights investigations is also the standard used in the courtroom. This could potentially influence the outcome of bias-related lawsuits, especially since the IHRA definition is highly detailed and specific, leaving less room for the jury to interpret the term based on broader context or common understanding.