The Trump administration’s actions have often been criticized for manipulating existing issues. This manipulation extends even to seemingly noble causes, such as tackling antisemitism on university campuses. A Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, under the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, spearheaded initiatives that appeared commendable but were, in reality, dubious in intent.

Primarily targeting pro-Palestinian movements protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza, the administration’s claims of rampant antisemitism were found to be exaggerated. This misrepresentation overshadowed genuine antisemitic occurrences on campuses, which require attention.

In early 2025, the task force initiated an investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It examined allegations of antisemitic discrimination and harassment at 60 institutions, including leading Ivy League colleges such as Harvard, Columbia, and Brown. Although these actions were based on real incidents, the severity of the charges was overstated. The accusations collapsed, failing to meet the needs for enforcement under Title VI.

A former attorney from the Justice Department reported to Congress that the investigations were a pretext for demanding money from universities. The procedure had multiple irregularities and did not respect the legal requirements of Title VI or the First Amendment. This politically driven effort sought massive financial penalties from universities.

Despite a lack of evidence for widespread antisemitism, the administration froze federal grants to targeted institutions. Columbia and Brown eventually settled by paying $270 million. Northwestern University settled similar claims by paying $75 million. Harvard, however, refused settlement and faced legal action, which a federal judge dismissed. The court acknowledged isolated antisemitic incidents but ruled them insufficient to imply widespread discrimination.

Both the court and the whistleblower report recognized the seriousness of antisemitic occurrences but asserted that the events were too incidental to meet Title VI thresholds. Under a more principled administration, a report might have been issued detailing actual instances of anti-Jewish actions, avoiding extortion masked as civil rights enforcement.

The administration’s harsh approach has inadvertently trivialized genuine antisemitic incidents linked to Gaza encampments. This should have been a chance to educate, differentiating political advocacy from threatening speech. However, the administration’s aggressive stance compromised this opportunity.

Students who participated in antisemitic chants, such as “Globalize the Intifada,” offended many. Although protected by the First Amendment, the slogan is seen by Israelis and many Jews as promoting violence against Jewish individuals and institutions globally.

Examples from global events illustrate the implications of such rhetoric: in Manchester, England, an attack on a synagogue during Yom Kippur; in Sydney, Australia, the Bondi Beach massacre during a Hanukkah celebration; and in Mumbai, an attack on a Jewish community center. These incidents underscore the slogan’s impact on Jews, echoing the symbolism of the Confederate Flag for African Americans.

The hope remains for a rational dialogue about these chants. Yet, the Trump administration’s exploitation of antisemitism as a tool against universities complicates such conversations, leading to broader suffering.

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.