Who Opposes IHRA Codification — And Who Funds Them

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism has been adopted by 47 countries, 38 U.S. states, and more than 1,300 entities worldwide. The Antisemitism Awareness Act — which would codify IHRA into Title VI enforcement at the Department of Education — passed the House 320–91 in May 2024 and was reintroduced in February 2025 as both H.R. 1007 and S. 558.

It has not become law. A network of Jewish organizations has worked to prevent that. Who they are, what they say, and where their money comes from is the subject of this map.

The Legislative Stall

The Antisemitism Awareness Act cleared the House on May 1, 2024 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer never brought it to a Senate vote. The 119th Congress reintroduced it in February 2025. Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy scheduled a markup for April 30, 2025. The session ran two contentious hours. Sen. Rand Paul joined Democrats to attach amendments — including one stating that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic — and the committee adjourned without a final vote. As of August 2026, the bill remains in committee.

Separately, the Trump administration began using IHRA administratively. In April 2025, DHS announced it would screen social media for antisemitism using the IHRA definition to guide immigration enforcement — a use the definition's critics, and its original drafter, call a distortion of a monitoring tool into a punitive instrument.

Three Tiers of Jewish Opposition

Jewish organizations opposing IHRA codification fall into three distinct categories — with different motivations, different funding sources, and different relationships to the broader Jewish community. The distinctions matter. Tier 1 endorses the definition. Tier 3 rejects it. Treating them as a single bloc misrepresents the landscape.

Tier 1: Endorse IHRA, Oppose Codification

These organizations accept the IHRA definition as a useful monitoring and awareness tool but oppose writing it into enforceable law. Their stated concern: codification could trigger punitive action that circumscribes speech, particularly on campuses.

Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). The largest Jewish denomination in North America. In January 2021, the URJ, CCAR, Women of Reform Judaism, and ARZA jointly affirmed the IHRA definition but stated it "should not be codified into policy that would trigger potentially problematic punitive action to circumscribe speech." This was an explicit dissent from the Conference of Presidents' position. Rabbi Rick Jacobs: keeping it nonbinding "is a strength and makes it more effective."

National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW). Opposes codification on free-speech grounds while endorsing the definition itself.

Funding: Membership-based and denominational revenue. These organizations are not primarily foundation-dependent.

Tier 2: Oppose Codification, Challenge the Examples

The Progressive Israel Network (PIN) issued a joint statement opposing IHRA codification in January 2021, citing "strong potential for misuse." Their objection goes further than Tier 1: they argue that IHRA's 11 contemporary examples — seven of which reference Israel — risk equating legitimate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism. PIN members are generally Zionist or liberal-Zionist.

Signatories: Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror North America, Hashomer Hatzair World Movement, Jewish Labor Committee, J Street, New Israel Fund, Partners for Progressive Israel, Reconstructing Judaism, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.

J Street. The liberal pro-Israel lobby, rejected from Conference of Presidents membership in 2014. Signed the PIN statement.

T'ruah. Published its most detailed position paper in September 2025. T'ruah's core argument: there are no codified definitions of racism, sexism, or Islamophobia, and codifying one for antisemitism alone would be a category error. Cites Kenneth Stern's congressional testimony that legislative use of the definition is "an attack on academic freedom and free speech."

New Israel Fund (NIF). Contributed over $36 million in grants in 2024, primarily to Israeli civil-society organizations. Several NIF grantees — including Adalah, B'Tselem, and Breaking the Silence — signed a 2023 letter urging the United Nations to reject the IHRA definition. NIF's Progressive Jewish Fund distributed grants to 256 NGOs in 2023, including IfNotNow. NIF itself receives funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Reconstructing Judaism. The denominational organization of the Reconstructionist movement. Published the PIN statement on its institutional website.

Funding: Mixed. J Street and NIF draw from both Jewish donors and progressive foundations. NIF holds $53.3 million in total assets. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a documented NIF funder.

Tier 3: Reject the Definition Entirely

These organizations oppose both codification and the IHRA definition itself. Most are anti-Zionist or non-Zionist. Their argument: IHRA was designed to shield Israel from accountability, and any version of it — binding or nonbinding — suppresses Palestinian advocacy.

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action. Led its own letter opposing IHRA codification in March 2024, co-signed by Americans for Peace Now, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, NIF, Partners for Progressive Israel, Reconstructing Judaism, and T'ruah. Bend the Arc opposes any government use of the definition — not merely its codification into statute. In New Jersey, Bend the Arc joined a coalition with CAIR and American Muslims for Palestine to oppose state-level IHRA legislation.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). Self-described as the largest progressive Jewish anti-Zionist organization in the United States. JVP opposes IHRA and endorses the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. JVP considers itself the "Jewish wing of the Palestinian solidarity movement." The organization does not publish detailed funding sources on its website.

IfNotNow. Founded during the 2014 Gaza War by young Jews opposed to what they called the "overwhelmingly hawkish response of American Jewish institutions." Signed the anti-IHRA PIN statement. The organization discloses no donor information publicly.

The Funding Map

The organizations in Tier 3 — and several in Tier 2 — share a common set of institutional funders. These funders are not Jewish membership organizations. They are not governed through Jewish communal structures. They are large private philanthropies with broad progressive portfolios, for which Israel-Palestine grantmaking is one program among many.

The following table compiles documented funding relationships from foundation grants databases, IRS 990 filings, and recipient disclosures.

The Layered Structure

Some of these relationships are direct: RBF grants money to JVP, and both oppose IHRA. Others are layered. RBF funds NIF. NIF's Progressive Jewish Fund distributes grants to IfNotNow. Both NIF and IfNotNow oppose IHRA codification. In 2024, NIF declined to disclose recipients of Progressive Jewish Fund grants.

The direct flow: Rockefeller Brothers Fund → Jewish Voice for Peace (~$490,000). Rockefeller Brothers Fund → IfNotNow ($160,000). Ford Foundation → Bend the Arc ($5,000,000). Open Society Foundations → Bend the Arc ($1,033,500).

The pass-through flow: Rockefeller Brothers Fund → New Israel Fund → IfNotNow ($35,000 via Progressive Jewish Fund, 2019–2021). Rockefeller Brothers Fund → New Israel Fund → 256 undisclosed organizations (Progressive Jewish Fund, 2023).

The Overlap Pattern

This is not a conspiracy. It is a funding ecosystem with observable structure.

The same foundations fund multiple organizations in this map. Several organizations appear in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 — Americans for Peace Now and Partners for Progressive Israel signed both the PIN statement and Bend the Arc's letter. NIF bridges Tiers 2 and 3 as both a signatory and a pass-through funder. Daniel Levy, co-founder of J Street, has served as an RBF trustee while J Street received RBF funds — and while RBF funded organizations in the BDS movement that J Street officially opposes.

The Jerusalem Declaration — The Alternative Some Endorse

Several Tier 3 organizations — notably JVP — endorse the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), released in March 2021 by approximately 200 scholars working under the auspices of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. The JDA defines antisemitism in 16 words: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews."

The JDA's critical difference from IHRA: it holds that calling for the elimination of the State of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, and that BDS advocacy is a form of political speech that should not be classified as antisemitism. Professor Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland has called this the JDA's essential deficiency — to hold in 2021 that calling for the end of Israel is not antisemitic disconnects the definition from political reality.

No country has adopted the JDA. No U.S. state has adopted it. No federal agency references it.

The Drafter Who Turned

Kenneth Stern, who served as the American Jewish Committee's director of antisemitism programs and is widely identified as the lead drafter of the text that became the IHRA definition, has been the opposition's most-cited authority. Stern has testified before Congress and the Canadian Senate that the definition was created for European data collection — not for legislative enforcement. He has called campus codification "an attack on academic freedom" and compared IHRA-based legislation to McCarthy-era loyalty oaths.

Stern's co-authors dispute his characterization. Rabbi Andrew Baker, Deidre Berger, and Michael Whine published an open letter rebutting what they called Stern's exaggerated claim to authorship. The Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has documented this dispute in detail. Stern now directs the Bard Center for the Study of Hate.

What This Map Shows

The constitutional argument against IHRA codification is not frivolous. First Amendment scholars, the ACLU, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have raised concerns about viewpoint discrimination in educational settings. A U.S. District Court in Texas ruled that incorporating the IHRA definition into university policy constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The Antisemitism Awareness Act faces real constitutional questions that serious people take seriously.

That is a separate question from who funds the advocacy against it.

The largest institutional funders of Jewish anti-IHRA organizations — Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Tides Foundation — are not Jewish membership organizations. They are not governed through Jewish communal structures. They do not elect boards through Jewish federations, denominations, or congregational bodies. Their Israel-Palestine grantmaking sits within broad progressive portfolios that also fund organizations advocating BDS, opposing Israeli military operations, and supporting Palestinian solidarity campaigns.

Funding does not prove control. Organizations make their own decisions. But when the same small set of foundations provides documented millions to multiple Jewish-branded organizations that oppose the same definition — the one adopted by 1,334 entities in 47 countries — the funding pattern is itself a fact worth reporting.

Here are the organizations. Here is what each says about IHRA. Here is who funds them. Here are the dollar amounts.

Draw your own conclusions.

Sources

Legislative Record

S. 558, Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025, congress.gov.

H.R. 1007, Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025, congress.gov.

H.R. 6806, Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act of 2025, congress.gov.

Jewish Insider, "Senate HELP committee to vote on Antisemitism Awareness Act," April 24, 2025.

Punchbowl News, "Big hurdles for the Antisemitism Awareness Act," May 5, 2025.

Organizational Positions

Union for Reform Judaism / Religious Action Center, joint statement, January 25, 2021.

Progressive Israel Network, joint statement, January 2021.

Bend the Arc, "Bend the Arc opposes codifying the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism," March 2024.

T'ruah, "Why T'ruah Opposes Codifying the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism," September 10, 2025.

Funding Documentation

Ford Foundation grants database, Bend the Arc grant #127128.

Open Society Foundations grants via InfluenceWatch / ProPublica 990.

NGO Monitor, Rockefeller Brothers Fund profile.

NGO Monitor, IfNotNow profile.

NGO Monitor, "Jewish Voice for Peace's Funding Network," November 2023.

NGO Monitor, New Israel Fund profile.

Tablet Magazine, "Bending the Jews," May 2020.

ADL, "Who is Funding U.S. Anti-Israel Groups?" June 2025.

New Israel Fund, Form 990 via Instrumentl.

IHRA Adoption Data

Combat Antisemitism Movement, "Global Support for IHRA Antisemitism Definition Grew in 2025, Surpassing 1,300 Adoptions," July 2026.

CAM database of IHRA adoptions by U.S. states.

Definitions & Authorship

Kenneth Stern, written testimony before Senate HELP Committee, October 2025.

Kenneth Stern, testimony before Canadian Senate, December 2025.

Brandeis Center, "Who Wrote the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism?" June 2023.

Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, March 2021.