In Effect

This anti-boycott executive order prohibits state investment in and state contracts with entities that boycott Israel or Israeli-controlled territories, which would encompass illegal Israeli settlements. This order requires executive branch agencies to notify contracting parties that the agency “will not tolerate” any boycotting of Israel. This order also calls on executive branch agencies to divest  investments in companies found to be engaged in a boycott of Israel.

New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed the executive order at an event in the state capital with Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan. Earlier this year, the state legislature refused to pass similar legislation after advocates raised concerns about the chilling effect on freedom of expression in support of Palestinian rights.

SRes 254 is a non-binding resolution that encourages federal, state, and local government entities, as well as academic institutions, civil society organizations, and other relevant stakeholders, to “adopt and exclusively utilize” the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish discrimination and has been deployed primarily to silence and punish advocacy for Palestinian rights. 

S Res 232 is a non-binding resolution that attempts to frame support for Palestinian rights as antisemitism. The statistics and many of the examples cited in the resolution rely on the same conflation at work in the distorted IHRA definition. S Res 232, for example, lists statements by Members of Congress that Benjamin Netanyahu is an “ethno-nationalist” and describing Israel as an “apartheid state” as instances of antisemitism. 

H Res 428 is a non-binding resolution that attempts to link an uptick antisemitic incidents in the US to criticism of Israel’s violent response to the 2021 Unity Intifada. The statistics cited for the alleged uptick rely on the same conflation at work in the distorted IHRA definition – and are produced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a pro-police anti-Palestinian organization that has been widely criticized for undermining and attacking progressive movements and communities of color.

This non-binding resolution (initially labeled PR625) condemns antisemitism and endorses the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism as providing “a road map to defining and rooting out Antisemitism.” The IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel and Palestinians’ lived experience and history with anti-Jewish hate, infringing on protected expression and exacerbating anti-Palestinian racism.

This anti-boycott bill prohibits any public entity from entering into a contract with a company unless the contract includes a written certification that the company is not engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of Israel or illegal Israeli settlements. The bill exempts contracts with a value of less than one hundred thousand dollars or with companies with less than 10 employees. The version that passed out of the House removed the monetary threshold. The bill also prohibits the state investment board from adopting any investment policy that would “have the effect of requiring or inducing any person to boycott Israel.” 

This antisemitism redefinition executive order directs all state agencies to adopt and use the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples that target advocacy for Palestinian rights. State agencies are required to consider the IHRA definition for the purposes of determining whether an alleged act of discrimination was motivated by antisemitic intent. Additionally, the order requires the IHRA definition to be used as an educational tool for anti-bias training for state personnel.

HB 1606 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples that target advocacy for Palestinian rights, into state law addressing discrimination as well as other areas of law. Related bill: SB 1252.

This non-binding resolution takes aim at Ben & Jerry’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben & Jerry’s and its London-based parent company, Unilever, have come under attack from Israel and its allies who have called for states to use anti-boycott laws to divest from Unilever. The resolution declares it inconsistent with Oklahoma’s anti-boycott law (HB 3967) for Oklahoma to invest any state funds in companies such as Unilever that decide not to do business with illegal settlements. Although Oklahoma’s anti-boycott law targets only state contracts and not investments, the resolution calls on the State Treasurer and Comptroller to divest the state and its retirement funds of all Unilever investments. 

HB 2673 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that requires state agencies and public educational institutions to consider the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism in assessing discrimination allegations in Tennessee’s public schools and universities. The bill specifically references the IHRA definition’s “contemporary examples of antisemitism” which include the following as examples of antisemitism related to Israel: “[a]pplying a double standards” to Israel,” or “[d]enying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The definition is so broad and vague that it could encompass nearly any criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.