The right to stand for justice is under attack.

Introduced as an amendment to S. 1260 and adopted in committee, this provision excludes countries that boycott Israel or its illegal settlements from the bill’s $100 million investment in global technological advancements. The bill adopts the definition of boycotts provided in the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority law. The anti-boycott amendment was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the midst of Israel’s assault on Gaza and ongoing ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem neighborhoods. While there are few countries that boycott Israel, Cruz’s amendment is aimed at chilling boycotts in support of Palestinian rights. The anti-boycott provisions were part of the version of the bill that passed the Senate in June 2021. 

S 2119, known as the Combating BDS Act of 2021, is an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Several courts, however, have blocked state anti-boycott laws over concerns that they suppress constitutionally protected political expression. Previous versions of the bill failed after activists, media, and civil liberties groups raised constitutional concerns (S 1, HR 2856, S 170, HR 4514, S 2531). 

This antisemitism redefinition executive order was signed by Donald Trump on December 11, 2019. The order directs government agencies charged with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, including the Department of Education, to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism designed to censor advocacy for Palestinian rights. Attempts to pass similar legislation in Congress have failed to date (S 852, HR 4009 (2019), S 2940, HR 5924, S 10, HR 6421) following criticism from activists and civil liberties groups over the legislation’s clear encroachment on political speech.

The order incorporates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and its problematic contemporary examples, which falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Past efforts to deploy the redefinition to silence advocacy for Palestinian rights leave little doubt that the order will be used to justify federal investigations into Palestine activism on campuses while adding no new legal protections for Jewish or other students affected by a resurgence of violent white nationalist antisemitism and racism. Since the order was signed, there has been an uptick in federal complaints and investigations against campus Palestine advocacy.

HR 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, contains several anti-boycott measures, including a statement of policy opposing “politically motivated actions” to penalize or limit commercial relations with Israel, such as BDS campaigns. The law states that discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights is a principal U.S. objective in negotiating foreign trade agreements. It directs the President to report annually on BDS efforts to Congress, including on the specific steps the United States is taking to discourage other countries or international organizations from establishing barriers to trade with Israel or its illegal settlements. The bill also bars state and federal courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments against U.S. persons that are based on a finding that conducting business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories violates the law. After signing HR 644 into law, President Obama issued a signing statement that the law’s conflation of Israel and the territories it occupies is “contrary to longstanding bipartisan United States policy” and signaled that his administration would not apply those aspects of the law. Related legislation: S 1269, HR 1907.

HR 2146 includes the Trade Promotion Authority or Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. This anti-boycott law states that discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights is a principal objective for the United States in negotiating with foreign countries in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Similarly, the United States will “seek the elimination of politically motivated nontariff barriers” imposed on goods from Israel or its illegal settlements. Earlier versions of this and related bills had included affirmative reporting requirements and provisions calling for state anti-boycott legislation. Subsequent to the passage of HR 2146, the Obama Administration reiterated the U.S. government’s position not to support Israel’s settlements or pursue policies that legitimize them. Related legislation: S 995, HR 1890, HR 1314 (relevant amendments were removed prior to the bill’s passage).

S1 includes the Combating BDS Act of 2019, an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Several courts, however, have blocked state anti-boycott laws over concerns that they suppress constitutionally protected political expression. The Senate passed S 1 in February 2019. An identical bill in the House stalled, despite efforts by House Republicans to force a vote. Previous versions of the Combating BDS Act (HR 2856, S 170, HR 4514, S 2531) failed after activists, media, and civil liberties groups raised constitutional concerns. Related legislation: HR 336.

HR 6421, titled the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016, is an antisemitism redefinition bill that directs the U.S. Department of Education to consider the distorted definition of antisemitism found in the 2010 US State Department fact sheet on “Defining Anti-Semitism,” including its contemporary examples related to Israel, when investigating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. The State Department definition and its problematic contemporary examples falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. For example, under the State Department definition, “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations” may be considered evidence of antisemitic intent. Advocates and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns about the bill’s chilling effects on constitutionally protected political expression. Related legislation: S 10.

S 170, titled the Combating BDS Act of 2017, is an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Previous versions of the Combating BDS Act (HR 4514, S 2531) failed after activists, media, and civil liberties groups raised concerns that the legislation would chill constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. Related legislation: HR 2856.

S 720, titled the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA), is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel and its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), which prohibited boycotts “fostered or imposed” by a foreign country and specifically the Arab League boycott. S 720 expands the EAA to prohibit U.S. individuals and entities from complying with or supporting boycotts for Palestinian rights fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations, such as the European Union or the United Nations. In March 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a database of companies contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. Under the IABA, such accountability efforts, as well as supporting or furnishing information for these efforts, constitute prohibited activities. Violations are subject to civil penalties of $250,000 and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. The bill also amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include “politically motivated” economic activity against Israel as a reason for denying credit applications for the export of goods and services between the U.S. and foreign countries.

In response to criticism from activists and civil liberties groups, the bill was amended to remove the jail time provisions, but the changes fail to address the underlying constitutional concerns raised by targeting political boycotts with criminal penalties. Similar legislation introduced in the previous Congress (HR 6298, S 3465) also failed. Related legislation: HR 1697.

HR 1697, titled the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA), is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel and its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), which prohibited boycotts “fostered or imposed” by a foreign country and specifically the Arab League boycott. H.R. 1697 expands the EAA to prohibit U.S. individuals and entities from complying with or supporting boycotts for Palestinian rights fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations, such as the European Union or the United Nations. In March 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a database of companies contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. Under the IABA, such accountability efforts, as well as supporting or furnishing information for these efforts, constitute prohibited activities. Violations are subject to civil penalties of $250,000 and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. The bill also amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include “politically motivated” economic activity against Israel as a reason for denying credit applications for the export of goods and services between the U.S. and foreign countries. 

In response to criticism from activists and civil liberties groups, the bill was amended, but the changes fail to address the underlying constitutional concerns raised by targeting political boycotts with criminal penalties. Similar legislation introduced in the previous Congress (HR 6298, S 3465) also failed. Related legislation: S 720.

HR 2856, titled the Combating BDS Act of 2017, is an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Previous versions of the Combating BDS Act (HR 4514, S 2531) failed after activists, media, and civil liberties groups raised concerns that the legislation would chill constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. Related legislation: S 170.

S 2940, titled the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018, is an antisemitism redefinition bill that directs the U.S. Department of Education to consider the distorted definition of antisemitism found in the 2010 US State Department fact sheet on “Defining Anti-Semitism,” including its contemporary examples related to Israel, when investigating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. The State Department definition and its problematic contemporary examples falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. For example, under the State Department definition, “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations” may be considered evidence of antisemitic intent. Advocates and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns about the bill’s chilling effects on constitutionally protected political expression. Substantially similar versions of this bill were introduced and failed to pass in 2016 (S 10, HR 6421). Related legislation: HR 5924.

HR 5924, titled the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018, is an antisemitism redefinition bill that directs the U.S. Department of Education to consider the distorted definition of antisemitism found in the 2010 US State Department fact sheet on “Defining Anti-Semitism,” including its contemporary examples related to Israel, when investigating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. The State Department definition and its problematic contemporary examples falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. For example, under the State Department definition, “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations” may be considered evidence of antisemitic intent. Advocates and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns about the bill’s chilling effects on constitutionally protected political expression. Substantially similar versions of this bill were introduced and failed to pass in 2016 (S 10, HR 6421). Related legislation: S 2940.

HR 6095, titled the Export Administration Anti-Discrimination Act, is an anti-boycott bill that imposes criminal sanctions on individuals and entities that boycott countries friendly to the United States or territories controlled by such countries. There is no requirement (as in the Export Administration Act of 1979 that focused on the Arab League boycott) that the boycott be in response to a call to action by a foreign country or any other organization. Individuals who intentionally violate the anti-boycott provisions face fines up to $250,000 or imprisonment of up to 10 years. The bill also prohibits furnishing information about business relationships with countries subject to boycotts and participating in academic boycotts. It creates a private right of action allowing those harmed by prohibited boycotts to seek damages in federal court.

HR 336 includes the Combating BDS Act of 2019, an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Several courts, however, have blocked state anti-boycott laws over concerns that they suppress constitutionally protected political expression. The Senate passed an identical version (S 1) in February 2019. House Republicans have made multiple attempts to force a vote on HR 336 to no avail. Previous versions of the Combating BDS Act (HR 2856, S 170, HR 4514, S 2531) failed after activists, media, and civil liberties groups raised constitutional concerns. Related legislation: S 1. 

HR 6298, titled the Protecting Israel Against Economic Discrimination Act of 2016, is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel and its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), which prohibited boycotts “fostered or imposed” by a foreign country and specifically the Arab League boycott. HR 6298 expands the EAA to prohibit U.S. individuals and entities from complying with or supporting boycotts for Palestinian rights fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations, such as the European Union or the United Nations. In March 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a database of companies contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. The bill claims such accountability efforts constitute prohibited activities under the Act. Violations are subject to civil penalties of $250,000 and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. 

The bill also amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include “politically motivated” economic activity against Israel as a reason for denying credit applications for the export of goods and services between the U.S. and foreign countries. 

S 852 is an antisemitism redefinition bill titled the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2019. This bill directs the U.S. Department of Education to consider the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including the contemporary examples related to Israel, when investigating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. The IHRA definition and the problematic contemporary examples falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism and are so broad and vague they could encompass virtually all criticism of Israel and Israeli government policies. The bill adds no new legal protections for Jewish students, but will likely be used to justify federal investigations into Palestine activism on campuses. Substantially similar versions of this bill were introduced and failed to pass in 2016 (S 10, HR 6421) and 2018 (S 2940, HR 5924). In December 2019, Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO 13899) adopting this distorted definition. Related legislation: HR 4009 (2019).

HR 4009 is an antisemitism redefinition bill titled the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2019. This bill directs the U.S. Department of Education to consider the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including the contemporary examples related to Israel, when investigating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. The IHRA definition and the problematic contemporary examples falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism and are so broad and vague they could encompass virtually all criticism of Israel and Israeli government policies. The bill adds no new legal protections for Jewish students, but will likely be used to justify federal investigations into Palestine activism on campuses. Substantially similar versions of this bill were introduced and failed to pass in 2016 (S 10, HR 6421) and 2018 (S 2940, HR 5924). In December 2019, Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO 13899) adopting this distorted definition. Related legislation: S 852.

HR 5595, titled the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel, singling out international efforts to hold Israel accountable for its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) of 2018, a successor to the Export Administration Act of 1979 that targeted the Arab League boycott, to prohibit U.S. entities from complying with or supporting boycotts of Israel fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations. This prohibition includes “furnishing information” for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s database of entities contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. Violations may be punishable by severe fines, up to $300,000 in civil cases and up to $1 million in criminal cases, though the possibility of prison time included in previous iterations has been removed. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. 

Similar bills failed to pass in the last Congress after multiple revisions (S 720, HR 1697).

S 10, titled the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016, is an antisemitism redefinition bill that directs the U.S. Department of Education to consider the distorted definition of antisemitism found in the 2010 US State Department fact sheet on “Defining Anti-Semitism,” including its contemporary examples related to Israel, when investigating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. The State Department definition and its problematic contemporary examples falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. For example, under the State Department definition, “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations” may be considered evidence of antisemitic intent. Advocates and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns about the bill’s chilling effects on constitutionally protected political expression. Related legislation: HR 6421.

S 3465, titled the Protecting Israel Against Economic Discrimination Act of 2016, is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel and its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), which prohibited boycotts “fostered or imposed” by a foreign country and specifically the Arab League boycott. S 3465 expands the EAA to prohibit U.S. individuals and entities from complying with or supporting boycotts for Palestinian rights fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations, such as the European Union or the United Nations. In March 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a database of companies contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. The bill claims such accountability efforts constitute prohibited activities under the Act. Violations are subject to civil penalties of $250,000 and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. 

The bill also amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include “politically motivated” economic activity against Israel as a reason for denying credit applications for the export of goods and services between the U.S. and foreign countries. Related legislation: HR 6298.

This anti-boycott bill targets boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts as well as efforts to seek accountability via the United Nations for Israel’s ongoing violations of international law. While imposing a host of requirements on US funding for UNRWA, the Human Rights Council, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the bill also states that it is the “policy of the United States to take steps to repeal Resolution A/HRC/31/L.38,” which called for the creation of a database of entities contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. The bill further requires the President to work to secure the adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution that would label boycott, divestment, and sanctions activities as antisemitic.  

HR 5727 is an anti-boycott bill that amends the 1979 Export Administration Act, under which federal contractors were prohibited from boycotting Israel pursuant to the Arab League boycott. The amendment requires that prospective contractors provide written certification that they “are not a boycotting person.” A boycott refers in the bill to “refusing, or requiring any other person to refuse, to do business with or in the boycotted country, with any national or resident of the boycotted country, or a business concern organized under the laws of the boycotted country.” The bill expands prohibited boycotts beyond the Arab League boycott to include “any boycott against a country with which the United States has a free trade agreement.” In doing so, the bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts like the Arab League boycott with, for example, constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. The bill also requires the publication of a list of contractors that have been debarred or suspended from eligibility for federal contracts because of a false certification.

This anti-boycott defunding bill targets efforts to seek accountability via the United Nations for Israel’s ongoing violations of international law. The bill requires the United States government to cease its contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 has been repealed. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups. Related Bill: S 107. 

This anti-boycott defunding bill targets efforts to seek accountability via the United Nations for Israel’s ongoing violations of international law. The bill requires the United States government to cease its contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 has been repealed. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups. Related Bill: HR 769. 

HR 4009 is an anti-boycott defunding bill that amends the Higher Education Act to make higher education institutions that participate in boycotts of Israel ineligible for federal financial assistance under the Act, which typically funds area studies programs. The bill would require the formation of a public blacklist of such institutions. “Participating” in a boycott of “Israeli institutions or scholars” includes when “any significant part of the institution, or any organization significantly funded by the institution adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement, or otherwise formally establishes the restriction” of academic involvement based on institutions or academics’ connection to Israel. It was introduced in the wake of the American Studies Association’s resolution endorsing the boycott of Israeli academic institutions complicit in Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights, which triggered a wave of efforts to penalize such boycotts.

HR 4776 is an anti-boycott defunding bill that prohibits institutions of higher education that participate in boycotts of Israel from receiving any federal funds. The bill specifies that federal funds cannot be used to enter into contracts or other agreements, make grants, or provide loans to any institution “that participates in a boycott of the Israeli government, economy, or academia.” The prohibition extends to funds available through the Higher Education Act, which funds area studies programs. Participating in a boycott includes an institution that “adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement, or otherwise formally establishes the restriction of discourse, cooperation . . . or any other involvement with the Israeli government, economy, or academia.” The bill would require the creation of a public blacklist of institutions determined to be participating in such a boycott. The bill was introduced in the wake of the American Studies Association’s resolution endorsing the boycott of Israeli academic institutions complicit in Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights, which triggered a wave of efforts to penalize such boycotts.

HR 4514, the Combating BDS Act of 2016, is an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Activists and civil liberties groups raised concerns that the legislation would chill constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. Related legislation: S 2531.

HR 825, the United States-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act of 2015, is an anti-boycott bill. Under the bill, the United States considers discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights as a principal objective in negotiating foreign trade agreements. It directs the President to report annually on BDS efforts to Congress, including on the specific steps the United States is taking to discourage other countries or international organizations from establishing barriers to trade with Israel or its illegal settlements. 

The bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require foreign issuers traded on the stock market to disclose whether they participated in economic boycotts of Israel or entities operating in Israel or territories it controls in the last calendar year. 

Finally, the bill states that no U.S. court may recognize or enforce any foreign judgments against U.S. persons that are based on a finding that conducting business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories violates the law. Related legislation: S 619.

S 619, the United States-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act of 2015, is an anti-boycott bill. Under the bill, the United States considers discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights as a principal objective in negotiating foreign trade agreements. Related legislation: HR 825. 

HR 1572 is an anti-boycott bill that amends the 1979 Export Administration Act, under which federal contractors were prohibited from boycotting Israel pursuant to the Arab League boycott. The amendment requires that prospective contractors provide written certification that they “are not a boycotting person.” A boycott refers in the bill to “refusing, or requiring any other person to refuse, to do business with or in the State of Israel, with any national or resident of the State of Israel, or a business concern organized under the laws of the State of Israel.” The bill expands prohibited boycotts beyond the Arab League boycott to include “any boycott against the State of Israel.” In doing so, the bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts like the Arab League boycott with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights.The bill also requires the publication of a list of contractors that have been debarred or suspended from eligibility for federal contracts because of a false certification. Though similar to HR 5727 introduced in the previous Congress, this bill makes explicit that it targets boycotts of Israel specifically. 

S 995, titled the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, is an anti-boycott bill. The bill states that discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights is a principal objective for the United States in negotiating with foreign countries in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Similarly, the United States will “seek the elimination of politically motivated nontariff barriers” imposed on goods from Israel or its illegal settlements. The relevant anti-boycott provisions were added in committee. Related legislation: HR 1890, HR 1314 (relevant amendments were removed prior to the bill’s passage), HR 2146 (passed).

HR 1890, titled the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, is an anti-boycott bill. The bill states that discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights is a principal objective for the United States in negotiating with foreign countries in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Similarly, the United States will “seek the elimination of politically motivated nontariff barriers” imposed on goods from Israel or its illegal settlements. The relevant anti-boycott provisions were added in committee. Related legislation: S 995, HR 1314 (relevant amendments were removed prior to the bill’s passage), HR 2146 (passed).

HR 1907, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, is an anti-boycott bill opposing boycotts for Palestinian rights and encouraging states to adopt anti-boycott laws. It directs the President to report annually on BDS efforts to Congress, including on the specific steps the United States is taking to discourage other countries or international organizations from establishing barriers to trade with Israel or its illegal settlements. 

The bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require foreign issuers traded on the stock market to disclose whether they participated in economic boycotts of Israel or entities operating in Israel or territories it controls in the last calendar year. 

Finally, the bill states that no U.S. court may recognize or enforce any foreign judgments against U.S. persons that are based on a finding that conducting business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories violates the law. Related legislation: HR 644 (passed), S 1269.

This amendment to the 2021 COVID Relief Bill, introduced in the House Rules Committee, would have prohibited funding in the bill from going to “any nongovernmental organization, contractor, or grantee that promotes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movements against the State of Israel.” The amendment was voted down by the Committee. 

S 1269, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, is an anti-boycott bill opposing boycotts for Palestinian rights and encouraging states to adopt anti-boycott laws. Related legislation: HR 644 (passed), HR 1907.

HR 2645 is an anti-boycott bill that prohibits the Thrift Savings Fund, a retirement fund for federal employees, from investing “in any company that boycotts Israel.” The bill defines a boycott of Israel as “actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with Israel or companies based in Israel or territories controlled by Israel,” thereby including boycotts of illegal Israeli settlements. The bill penalizes constitutionally protected political boycotts that companies may engage in.

S 2531, the Combating BDS Act of 2016, is an anti-boycott bill that purports to authorize state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns for Palestinian rights. The bill claims that such measures are not preempted by federal law and defines BDS activities to include boycotts of Israel and persons doing business in Israel or its illegal settlements. Activists and civil liberties groups raised concerns that the legislation would chill constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. Related legislation: HR 4514.

This non-binding resolution condemns and calls for the censure of Representatives Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for criticizing Israel and calling for accountability for all crimes against humanity, including those committed by the U.S. and Israel. Among the statements called out for condemnation and censure are accusations that Israel has “‘committed human rights abuses,’” that it is an “‘apartheid state’” engaged in “‘ethnic cleansing’” of Palestinians, and that Israel’s military response to rockets fired by Hamas in Gaza were not acts of self-defense – all of which are claims supported by U.N. investigations and human rights organizations. The resolution smears the expression of support for Palestinian rights as resulting in anti-Jewish violence.

This non-binding resolution expressing support for Israel as a crucial ally of the United States falsely conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism in calling for the rejection of “anti-Semitism and hostility against the State of Israel.” The resolution also smears boycotts for Palestinian rights as supported by “radical, racist, and extremist organizations.”

This non-binding resolution condemns statements made by Rep. Jayapal (D-WA) about the importance of understanding the policies, patterns, and power dynamics that resulted in violence in the Gaza Strip in May and suggesting that Israel might bear some responsibility, even while condemning Hamas rocket fire. The resolution smears her statements as “justifying terrorism,” which it labels “a form of anti-Semitic speech,” falsely conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. 

This non-binding resolution links a purported increase in antisemitic acts to Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip, blaming criticism of Israel and the BDS movement for contributing to the rise. The resolution condemns boycotts for justice as the “financial, political, and economic manifestation of anti-Semitism against Israel.” The resolution does not mention Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem neighborhoods and the uprising across historic Palestine that preceded the attacks on Gaza.

This non-binding resolution opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234, claiming it “contributes to the politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel and represents a concerted effort to extract concessions from Israel outside of direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, which must be actively rejected.” UN Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups. HRes 11 calls for the UN resolution to be repealed or fundamentally altered.

HRes 246 is a non-binding resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. The resolution mischaracterizes grassroots efforts seeking justice for Palestinians as anti-peace and accuses the BDS movement of promoting “collective guilt, mass punishment, and group isolation”—charges that international accountability bodies have made against Israel for its actual treatment of Palestinians. The United Nations and the ICRC have found that Israel’s 12-year blockade of Gaza constitutes “collective punishment,” and a 2019 U.N. investigation concluded that Israeli forces had killed or gravely injured hundreds of Palestinian civilian protestors, including children, in besieged Gaza during the Great March of Return despite the fact that they posed no imminent threat. Though it does not bear the force of law, the resolution’s language is a broad condemnation of individuals who boycott for human rights, raising concerns that it will reinforce and legitimize other legislative attacks on protected speech, including anti-boycott laws. Related legislation: SRes 120.

This joint resolution calls for the removal of US armed forces from the war in Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress. Republican lawmakers inserted a last-minute unrelated amendment that falsely links antisemitism and criticism of Israel. The amendment includes a provision noting that “all attempts to delegitimize and deny Israel’s right to exist must be denounced and rejected,” language echoing a distorted definition of antisemitism that pro-Israel groups have been pushing in legislation at the state and federal level. The resolution passed in the House, but not the Senate.

This non-binding resolution condemns the U.N. Human Rights Council’s efforts to document and seek accountability for Israel’s international legal violations. The resolution is in response to a Human Rights Council report collecting information on companies, including 22 U.S. companies, contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. The resolution urges Congress to support the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S 720/HR 1697), which would extend anti-boycott laws to reach international organizations, such as the United Nations. 

HRes 72 is a non-binding resolution conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism and condemns both. The resolution falsely characterizes boycotts for Palestinian rights as antisemitic, claiming campus advocacy has exposed Jewish students to “rampant anti-Semitism.” The resolution’s preamble lists violent acts of antisemitism committed by white supremacists in Charlottesville and Pittsburgh alongside several clauses attacking critics of Israel and BDS supporters, including Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. The resolution cites the IHRA redefinition of antisemitism, though notably excludes its examples related to criticism of Israel.

Introduced as an amendment to the Senate’s concurrent budget resolution, SA 711 provides a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to condemning colleges and universities that “tolerate” the BDS movement, which the amendment describes as “discriminatory [and] antisemitic.” SA 711 was not considered.

SRes 120 is a non-binding resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. The resolution mischaracterizes grassroots efforts seeking justice for Palestinians as destructive to peace and accuses the BDS movement of promoting “collective guilt, mass punishment, and group isolation”—charges that human rights bodies have made against Israel for its actual treatment of Palestinians. The United Nations and the ICRC have found that Israel’s 12-year blockade of Gaza constitutes “collective punishment,” and a 2019 U.N. investigation concluded that Israeli forces had killed or gravely injured hundreds of Palestinian civilian protestors, including children, in besieged Gaza during the Great March of Return despite the fact that they posed no imminent threat. Related legislation: HRes 246.

HRes 496 is a non-binding resolution that affirms the constitutionally protected right to boycott for civil and human rights. The resolution emphasizes the long history of the use by Americans of boycotts to address injustices and calls on lawmakers and leaders to oppose “unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad.” This affirmative resolution stands in marked contrast to legislative efforts at the federal and state level to suppress advocacy for Palestinian rights. 

Introduced as an amendment to the Senate’s concurrent budget resolution, SA 72 provides a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to “allowing” state and local legislation prohibiting state investments in or state contracts with entities that engage in boycotts targeting Israel or territories it controls. The amendment targeting boycotts in support of Palestinian rights is based on the Combating BDS Act, which has failed to following constitutional concerns raised by activists, media, and civil liberties groups (S 1, HR 2856, S 170, HR 4514, S 2531). SA 72 was not considered.

HRes 764 is a non-binding resolution expressing support for Trump’s executive order (EO 13899) that adopted a distorted definition of antisemitism. The resolution also references HRes 246, which opposed boycotts for Palestinian rights, as an example of “the United States unwavering support for the Jewish people and strong condemnation of anti-Semitism”—explicitly and falsely linking opposition to boycotts for justice with efforts to combat anti-Jewish hatred.

HRes 782 is a non-binding resolution that encourages public schools to teach about the “historic importance of the creation of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948” as part of broader curricula around the history of antisemitism and the Holocaust. The resolution’s preambulatory language claims that campus advocacy involving boycotts for Palestinian rights has exposed Jewish students to “rampant anti-Semitism.” The resolution makes this claim after ten examples of antisemitic violence, assaults, graffiti, threats, and killings—implicitly and falsely linking acts motivated by anti-Jewish hatred with student advocacy for Palestinian human rights.

In addition, the curricula called for in the resolution would likely not include how at least 75 percent of Palestinians became refugees due to Israel’s founding, and that Israel has since barred them from returning. This act of ethnic cleansing and forced exile is why some activists oppose Israel’s existence – a stance that other legislative efforts seek to paint as antisemitic using a distorted definition of antisemitism.

This non-binding resolution expresses “grave objection” to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 and rejects efforts to “further isolate Israel through economic or other boycotts or any other measures.” UN Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups. SRes 6 calls for the UN resolution to be repealed or fundamentally altered.

HRes 318 is a non-binding resolution condemning resolutions or policies by institutions of higher learning or academic associations calling for “a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars.” The resolution criticizes boycotts, divestment, and sanctions efforts for “singl[ing] Israel out” and “appl[ying] a double-standard to Israel.” The bill was introduced in the wake of the American Studies Association’s resolution endorsing the boycott of Israeli academic institutions complicit in Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights, which triggered a wave of efforts to penalize such boycotts.

HRes 402 is a non-binding resolution opposing politically motivated boycott, divestment, or sanctions activities against Israel. The resolution calls on the Administration to increase its efforts to oppose BDS in international forums and expresses support for state legislation opposing BDS.

HRes 567 is a non-binding resolution that opposes the labeling of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements. The resolution follows a European Commission interpretive notice reaffirming the non-recognition under international law of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Syrian Golan Heights and clarifying that goods produced in Israeli settlements located in occupied territories must not be labeled as “Product from Israel,” in order not to mislead consumers. The resolution notes with concern that more accurate labeling might prompt some consumers to boycott illegal settlement products and reiterates the House’s opposition to boycott, divestment and sanctions efforts for Palestinian rights. The resolution also encourages state legislatures to pass anti-boycott measures. Related legislation: SRes 346.

SRes 346 is a non-binding resolution that opposes the labeling of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements. The resolution follows a European Commission interpretive notice reaffirming the non-recognition under international law of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Syrian Golan Heights and clarifying that goods produced in Israeli settlements located in occupied territories must not be labeled as “Product from Israel,” in order not to mislead consumers. The resolution notes with concern that more accurate labeling might prompt some consumers to boycott illegal settlement products and reiterates the Senate’s opposition to boycott, divestment and sanctions efforts for Palestinian rights. The resolution also encourages state legislatures to pass anti-boycott measures. Related legislation: HRes 567.

Introduced as an amendment to the Senate’s concurrent budget resolution, SA 732calls for a point of order against funding to support the International Criminal Court (ICC) unless the ICC “ceases its preliminary examination of Israeli activities in the Palestinian territories.” SA 732 was not considered.

This non-binding resolution calls for the US to continue to oppose future UN Security Council resolutions that “seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel.” UN Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israel’s illegal settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The US broke from its practice of blocking UN accountability measures focused on Israel and abstained rather than vetoing the resolution, causing consternation among pro-Israel groups. HRes 23 also states that the US “steadfastly opposes boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions targeting the State of Israel.”