Among President Donald Trump’s many norm-defying efforts in his new term, two policy decisions stick out as particularly extraordinary: detaining and moving to deport legal residents because of anti-Israel speech and cutting billions of dollars of federal funding to some of the country’s top research universities.
Both, the administration says, are attempts to crack down on the “scourge of antisemitism” that erupted in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.
But what if Trump’s moves backfire — and further fuel antisemitism in the United States?
That’s what worries Alex Pascal, who helped craft the Biden administration’s massive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
“By directly linking billions of dollars of federal research funding to ostensibly combating antisemitism, I think it plays very much into long-standing tropes about Jews wielding financial leverage to pursue their so-called interests,” he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine.
Before working as a senior policy aide in Joe Biden’s White House, Pascal served on the National Security Council staff under former President Barack Obama; he’s now a senior fellow at the Allen Lab at Harvard. The university recently took a stand against Trump’s demands that it change an array of policies and is now locked in a fierce battle with the administration.
Pascal said the problem of antisemitism in America is very real — on campus and off — but argued Trump’s approach was not the solution in the long run.
“We need to be very vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties,” Pascal said, “because that is the best defense against antisemitism, not the protection of the strongmen.”
This interview took place over two phone calls and has been edited for length and clarity.
As one of the architects of the Biden administration’s antisemitism strategy, what are your reactions to the Trump administration’s moves to threaten funding for universities and to try to deport pro-Palestinian activists? Will they work?
I think, fundamentally, that those two extraordinary policies are counterproductive and quite dangerous.
They’re dangerous because they are eroding the fundamental freedoms and pillars of American democracy in terms of attacking free institutions and free people and are eroding our civil liberties. They’re also making life more dangerous for Jewish people on college campuses.
In a recent piece in the Forward, you wrote that Trump’s moves could actually backfire and fuel tropes about Jews “pulling the strings of government.” Say more about that.
By directly linking billions of dollars of federal research funding to ostensibly combating antisemitism, I think it plays very much into long-standing tropes about Jews wielding financial leverage to pursue their so-called interests. I think that parallel is quite obvious.
That’s where I’m worried about the administration taking those actions in order to ostensibly protect Jewish people and fight antisemitism. It’s the connection with financial leverage.
Tell me about the Biden administration’s “National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism” and how it differs from Trump’s approach.
The Biden strategy differed in several fundamental ways. First and foremost, the animating feature of President Biden’s strategy was the recognition that a strong democracy that safeguards our fundamental rights and the equal protection of the law and values America’s diversity is the very best defense we have against antisemitism and other forms of hate. Secondly, the Biden approach was collaborative, not divisive. It was built on finding common ground and unity among targeted groups and building inclusion for Jews on campus and more broadly in society. It was not the divisive approach of this current administration, using threats and intimidation.
The Biden approach also consulted extremely broadly across American society, across the breadth and diversity of the American Jewish community and beyond, to inform its strategy. This was a rigorous approach. Over six months, we consulted with over 1,000 stakeholders from across all walks of life to understand what the nature of the problem was, how people were experiencing it on the ground, and to solicit their ideas for how to tackle it. And that resulted in hundreds of actions the Biden administration took, and hundreds of actions that it called on others across society to take.
The Trump administration seems extremely focused on college campuses, and that’s a real problem, but antisemitism is much bigger than a problem on college campuses. It’s a societal problem, and it requires a whole society solution, which is what the Biden administration pursued.
Antisemitism is undoubtedly on the rise in the U.S., but one of the things that makes this topic so complicated is that antisemitism can be difficult to define. For example, many pro-Palestinian protesters — some of whom are Jewish — say they are anti-Zionist but not antisemitic, a distinction the Trump administration does not appear to recognize. How should policymakers grapple with that?
This is a difficult question. There are a number of definitions of antisemitism that are used to consider action to remediate it. The vast majority of the time, antisemitism is self-evident. Everybody knows it when they see it, and action should be taken to counter it in those instances. There are some times when anti-Zionism can bleed into antisemitism. What I think is important is that the label of antisemitism not be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy, and that we expend the vast majority of our efforts combating the antisemitism that is blatantly obvious and is so pernicious across American society. On the other hand, I do want to acknowledge that there are people who cloak their antisemitism in very harsh anti-Zionism. I want to acknowledge that both ends of the spectrum exist.
It’s important that policymakers and everyone not get wrapped around the axle of the exact definition of antisemitism, so that it distracts us from fighting the very obvious antisemitism that is out there in the world. It can become a very circular, distracting conversation.
Trump has a very close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has floated some controversial ideas for what to do with Gaza and the Palestinians living there, including posting to Instagram an AI-generated video of “Trump Gaza.” What do you make of this messaging?
What concerns me about it is that Donald Trump is encouraging and enabling the most extreme version of what Israeli policy toward Gaza and toward the Palestinians could be. And I worry that that is going to backfire and continue to backfire on Jews in America, as well as, obviously, on the Palestinians.
The United States has long been Israel’s best friend in the world, because it’s been in a position to counsel caution and consideration and deliberation around Israeli policy. But Trump, on the other hand, is sort of egging Israel on. He and his administration are giving it blank check support, and what that’s doing is encouraging Israel to pursue the most extreme and aggressive policies that it could.
Whatever one thinks about how Israel responded to October 7, and American Jews are divided on that, I think it’s not debatable that when conflict erupts in the Middle East, when there is a greater humanitarian crisis among the Palestinians, that attacks against Jews outside of Israel increase. And when Israel feels a completely free hand, and frankly, the encouragement of its greatest benefactor, to pursue extreme policies, that is going to boomerang in a very bad way on American Jews here in the United States.
I’m wondering if you see the Trump administration’s strategy as about something more than antisemitism. What other agendas could be at play here?
I think the Trump administration’s so-called campaign against antisemitism is pretty transparently not at all about antisemitism. I think what it’s about is going after institutions of higher education, trying to weaken and kneecap colleges and universities, as well as going after immigrants and foreign students. It concerns me deeply that the administration is using Jews and using the guise of antisemitism to erode our civil rights, to erode and attack institutions of higher education and free thought. And that worries me deeply, for the sake of American democracy and for the sake of the safety of Jewish people in America.
Do you see this as an attempt by Trump to use Israel as a wedge issue to divide American Jews?
I think American Jews are divided already and have a diversity of opinions about the state of Israel and Israeli policy. I don’t know that this is a particular intention of the Trump administration to use Israel as a wedge. I think it was already using Israel as well as a wedge, going back to the campaign and even before. But what particularly worries me is that the administration’s policies on antisemitism on campus are endangering Jewish people in America and are eroding the pillars of American democracy and civil society. That concerns me more than anything about using Israel as a wedge issue for American Jewish voters.
The Anti-Defamation League has been largely supportive of the Trump administration’s effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil. What do you think of that? Are leaders of the American Jewish community missing the moment?
I think it’s really important that American Jewish leaders across the spectrum speak out with moral courage and stand in defense of American democracy and freedoms and civil liberties and diversity. And I think democracy is the best defense that American Jews and people of all of all stripes have against persecution and intimidation.
My hope is that American Jewish leaders stand in defense of American democracy, and civil rights, and the rule of law, and the equal protection of the law. I am encouraged when they do so, and I think it’s really important at this time that leaders speak out with moral courage.
Anything else you wanted to add?
Obviously there’s a spectrum of opinion in the American Jewish community about the administration, and I respect that. The thought that I would want to leave folks with is that, while [the Trump effort] feels good — and I can certainly understand people who feel vulnerable and insecure, particularly after October 7, because of the rise of antisemitism, I very much sympathize with that — it’s important to recognize that what feels like protection and safety today, because of some of the actions the administration has taken, can disappear in a heartbeat. Today’s “protection” can be tomorrow’s persecution. We need to be very vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties, because that is the best defense against antisemitism, not the protection of the strongmen.
I really do feel sympathy with a lot of Jewish people who feel threatened and unsafe. I have friends who send their kids to college who feel excluded, who feel intimidated sometimes and unsafe. That is a real feeling, and antisemitism is a real threat to a lot of people, not just to Jews, but to Americans of all stripes. We need to acknowledge that problem. We need to understand that people feel threatened and insecure and we need to find the wherewithal to defend our democracy.
The last thing I’d say is that I am proud of Harvard for standing up and for refusing to be bullied. That is a morally courageous and patriotic decision, and it also carries great risk, and it requires real sacrifice. I’m proud that Harvard stood up, and is hopefully inspiring others in civil society to stand up for the morally courageous and patriotic thing to do.
Read the full article here
