NEW ORLEANS — Mayors and city officials gathered Dec. 2-4 for the 2025 North American Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism, where the Combat Antisemitism Movement promoted a new “Municipal Antisemitism Action Index” urging cities to adopt the IHRA definition and write it into local ordinances, contracting rules and law-enforcement practice. Supporters call it a practical, measurable way for City Hall to respond to rising antisemitism, but critics warn the IHRA definition is being packaged into a policy checklist that could chill — and in edge cases criminalize — protected pro-Palestine speech, Dec. 4, 2025.
CAM pitches the index as a way to “classify and rank” municipalities by how effectively they respond to antisemitism, offering what it describes as practical playbooks, model ordinances and sample resolutions. But the same ingredients that make it plug-and-play for mayors — definitions, enforcement triggers and procurement levers — are what alarm civil liberties groups and Palestine advocates who say the line between combating hate and policing viewpoints can blur fast.
Why the IHRA definition is at the center of CAM’s municipal playbook
The IHRA definition is short, nonbinding and widely cited, with accompanying examples that often touch on Israel. In the U.S., it was elevated in a federal directive when the Trump administration told agencies to “consider” it in civil-rights enforcement; the order quoted the definition’s core language and referenced the IHRA examples as possible evidence. Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism also stated agencies should not infringe First Amendment rights — a caveat that has not stopped fights over how the IHRA definition is used in practice.
CAM’s municipal push goes further by recommending local governments operationalize the IHRA definition at the street level. Its Municipal Antisemitism Action Index action plan calls for integrating the IHRA definition (including its examples) into city code and hate-crime policy, then pairs that with proposals that reach beyond condemnation statements and security grants:
Hate-crime framework: Use the IHRA definition in the “identification and investigation” of potential hate crimes and consider enhanced penalties.
Protest controls: Create “bubble zones” restricting demonstrations near “sensitive areas” such as schools and houses of worship, and adopt anti-masking rules for public protests.
Anti-BDS policy: Bar a city from doing business with entities that boycott or divest from Israel — a move critics say can function as a political litmus test in public contracting.
Education and messaging: Encourage Holocaust and Jewish American heritage education, include Israel and Middle East history in curriculum, and call for disciplining educators over Holocaust and Oct. 7 denial or distortion.
Critics say the IHRA definition is becoming a speech filter
Free-speech advocates argue the danger isn’t defining antisemitism — it’s locking a disputed definition into enforcement systems where officials may feel pressure to treat certain political viewpoints as presumptively suspect. The ACLU has warned, in a parallel battle over how the IHRA definition is used in civil-rights enforcement, that overbroad standards can punish protected speech critical of Israel and create viewpoint discrimination. Critics of CAM’s city-level plan say the same dynamic could play out through municipal permitting, policing and procurement — even if a city never explicitly bans a slogan.
That tension is already turning political. In Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Brett Smiley’s participation in the New Orleans summit sparked backlash from a Democratic rival seeking disclosure of conference materials and questioning whether “practical playbooks” were aimed at “policing free speech.” Rhode Island Current reported that critics pointed to CAM’s policy menu — including anti-BDS measures and broad language around hate speech — as evidence the IHRA definition is being used to reshape how cities respond to Gaza-related protests.
The IHRA definition fight didn’t start in New Orleans
The clash over the IHRA definition has been simmering for years across governments and campuses. A 2018 House of Commons Library explainer noted the definition is not legally binding but has been adopted widely, alongside criticism that it could restrict legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. When Trump issued his 2019 order, rights groups and Palestinian advocates argued it would be used to blunt campus activism, a controversy captured in a contemporary Al Jazeera report and later sharpened by the definition’s own lead drafter, Kenneth Stern, in a 2019 Guardian essay warning of “weaponization”.
CAM argues cities need concrete tools and stronger enforcement to protect Jewish residents amid rising antisemitism. The unresolved question — now being debated in city councils, courtrooms and mayoral campaigns — is whether the IHRA definition becomes a tool for safety or a trigger for censorship once it’s written into municipal rules.
