'Boomerang in a Very Bad Way': Potential Backlash from Trump's Antisemitism Efforts
Alex Pascal, a contributor to Biden's strategy for combatting antisemitism, expresses concern that Trump's approach may exacerbate the situation.
TroibNews 
Among President Donald Trump’s numerous unconventional actions during his current term, two policy decisions stand out as particularly remarkable: the detainment and potential deportation of legal residents due to anti-Israel remarks, and the cutting of billions of dollars in federal funding to some of the nation’s leading research universities.
The administration claims these initiatives are efforts to combat the “scourge of antisemitism” that surfaced following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the subsequent conflict in Gaza.
However, there's concern that Trump’s actions might backfire and exacerbate antisemitism in the United States.
That’s a significant concern for Alex Pascal, who played a key role in developing the Biden administration’s comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
“By directly linking billions of dollars of federal research funding to ostensibly combating antisemitism, I think it plays very much into long-standing tropes about Jews wielding financial leverage to pursue their so-called interests,” he stated in an interview with PMG Magazine.
Pascal previously served as a senior policy aide in Joe Biden’s White House and was part of the National Security Council staff under former President Barack Obama. He is currently a senior fellow at the Allen Lab at Harvard, where the university has taken a stand against Trump’s directives to amend various policies and is currently in a contentious standoff with the administration.
Pascal emphasized that while the issue of antisemitism in America is pressing—both on and off campuses—he argued that Trump’s tactics are not the long-term solution.
“We need to be very vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties,” Pascal remarked. “Because that is the best defense against antisemitism, not the protection of the strongmen.”
The interview, which took place over two phone calls, has been edited for length and clarity.
As one of the architects of the Biden administration’s antisemitism strategy, what are your reactions to the Trump administration’s threats regarding university funding and attempts to deport pro-Palestinian activists? Will they be effective?
I think, fundamentally, those two extraordinary policies are counterproductive and quite dangerous.
They're dangerous because they erode fundamental freedoms and the pillars of American democracy by attacking free institutions and free people and eroding our civil liberties. They also make life more dangerous for Jewish students on college campuses.
In a recent piece in the Forward, you mentioned that Trump’s actions might backfire and reinforce stereotypes about Jews “pulling the strings of government.” Can you elaborate on that?
By connecting billions of dollars in federal research funding to combating antisemitism, it plays directly into longstanding stereotypes about Jews using financial power to pursue their so-called interests. I think that parallel is quite evident.
That's where my concern lies regarding the administration's actions under the guise of protecting Jewish individuals and fighting antisemitism. It's the association with financial leverage.
How does the Biden administration’s “National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism” differ from Trump’s approach?
The Biden strategy differed fundamentally in several ways. First and foremost, President Biden's strategy recognizes that a strong democracy that safeguards our fundamental rights and values America's diversity serves as the best defense we have against antisemitism and other forms of hate. Secondly, the Biden approach was collaborative rather than divisive. It aimed to find common ground and unite targeted groups, fostering inclusion for Jews on college campuses and in the broader society. It was not the divisive method employed by this current administration, which relies on threats and intimidation.
Additionally, the Biden approach consulted extensively across American society and the diverse spectrum of the American Jewish community and beyond. This rigorous process involved consulting over 1,000 stakeholders from various walks of life over six months to understand the problem's nature and solicit ideas for addressing it. This resulted in hundreds of actions taken by the Biden administration and calls for societal participation in solutions.
The Trump administration appears very focused on college campuses, and while that’s a significant issue, antisemitism is a broader societal problem that requires a comprehensive solution, which is what the Biden administration pursued.
Antisemitism is certainly on the rise in the United States, but it can be challenging to define. Many pro-Palestinian protesters—including some Jewish individuals—claim they are anti-Zionist rather than antisemitic, a nuance that the Trump administration doesn’t seem to recognize. How should policymakers navigate this?
This is a complex question. There are various definitions of antisemitism that inform action to combat it. Most of the time, antisemitism is self-evident—people know it when they see it, and action should be taken in those instances. While some forms of anti-Zionism can veer into antisemitism, it's crucial that the label of antisemitism is not misused to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy. We should focus on combating the blatant and pernicious antisemitism present in American society. At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that some individuals disguise their antisemitism through harsh anti-Zionism. It’s essential to recognize that both ends of the spectrum exist.
Policymakers and others should avoid getting entangled in the exact definitions of antisemitism, which can distract from addressing the overt manifestations of the issue.
Trump maintains a close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has suggested controversial ideas regarding Gaza and the Palestinians, including sharing an AI-generated video on Instagram called “Trump Gaza.” What are your thoughts on this messaging?
What concerns me is that Donald Trump is promoting and enabling the most extreme version of Israeli policy toward Gaza and the Palestinians. I fear this could backfire and continue to adversely affect Jews in America, as well as the Palestinians.
The United States has historically been Israel's strongest ally, often positioned to advocate for caution and careful consideration in Israeli policy. In contrast, Trump seems to be encouraging Israel to adopt an aggressive stance. His administration offers unconditional support, which may embolden Israel to pursue extreme and provocative policies.
Regardless of one’s stance on Israel's response to October 7—an issue on which American Jews have varying opinions—it’s clear that escalated conflict in the Middle East tends to correlate with increased attacks on Jews outside of Israel. When Israel acts without restraint, supported by its primary benefactor, it may lead to adverse consequences for American Jews.
Do you perceive the Trump administration’s strategy as being about more than just antisemitism? What other agendas might be at play?
The Trump administration’s so-called campaign against antisemitism seems transparently to be about more than just antisemitism. It appears to be targeting institutions of higher education, aiming to undermine colleges and universities, and attacking immigrants and foreign students. I am deeply concerned that the administration is exploiting Jews and the veneer of antisemitism to erode civil rights and challenge the foundations of higher education and free thought, which is troubling for American democracy and the safety of Jewish individuals within the country.
Do you believe Trump is using Israel as a wedge issue to create divisions among American Jews?
American Jews already hold a variety of opinions concerning Israel and its policies. While it's unclear if the Trump administration consciously intends to use Israel as a wedge issue, it has certainly employed this tactic in previous campaigns. However, what truly concerns me is how the administration's antisemitism policies on college campuses could endanger Jewish individuals in America while undermining the foundations of American democracy and civil society. That is a greater concern than the potential for division among American Jewish voters.
The Anti-Defamation League has largely backed the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Mahmoud Khalil. What’s your take on that? Are American Jewish leaders misreading the situation?
It’s crucial for American Jewish leaders across the spectrum to speak out with moral fortitude and advocate for American democracy, civil liberties, and diversity. Democracy serves as the best defense for both American Jews and all marginalized groups against persecution and intimidation.
I hope American Jewish leaders will defend the principles of democracy, civil rights, and equal legal protection. I appreciate their efforts in this regard, and it’s essential for leaders to exhibit moral courage during this time.
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
It’s evident there's a spectrum of opinions within the American Jewish community regarding the administration, and I respect that diversity. As we reflect on the ongoing situation, I want to emphasize that while [the Trump administration's efforts] may feel protective—and I understand the vulnerabilities many feel following the events of October 7—it’s vital to recognize that what seems like safety today might easily turn into persecution tomorrow. We must remain vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties, as that serves as the most effective defense against antisemitism, rather than relying on the protection of strongmen.
I empathize with many Jewish individuals who feel threatened and unsafe. Friends of mine have children in college who share feelings of exclusion and intimidation, which are valid sentiments. Antisemitism poses a genuine threat not only to Jews but to all Americans. It’s imperative to acknowledge this issue and work together to fortify our democracy.
Lastly, I commend Harvard for standing firm and refusing to be intimidated. It represents a morally courageous and patriotic decision, one that does involve considerable risk and sacrifice. I am heartened to see Harvard’s stance, which may inspire others in civil society to advocate for what is right and just.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
The administration claims these initiatives are efforts to combat the “scourge of antisemitism” that surfaced following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the subsequent conflict in Gaza.
However, there's concern that Trump’s actions might backfire and exacerbate antisemitism in the United States.
That’s a significant concern for Alex Pascal, who played a key role in developing the Biden administration’s comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
“By directly linking billions of dollars of federal research funding to ostensibly combating antisemitism, I think it plays very much into long-standing tropes about Jews wielding financial leverage to pursue their so-called interests,” he stated in an interview with PMG Magazine.
Pascal previously served as a senior policy aide in Joe Biden’s White House and was part of the National Security Council staff under former President Barack Obama. He is currently a senior fellow at the Allen Lab at Harvard, where the university has taken a stand against Trump’s directives to amend various policies and is currently in a contentious standoff with the administration.
Pascal emphasized that while the issue of antisemitism in America is pressing—both on and off campuses—he argued that Trump’s tactics are not the long-term solution.
“We need to be very vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties,” Pascal remarked. “Because that is the best defense against antisemitism, not the protection of the strongmen.”
The interview, which took place over two phone calls, has been edited for length and clarity.
As one of the architects of the Biden administration’s antisemitism strategy, what are your reactions to the Trump administration’s threats regarding university funding and attempts to deport pro-Palestinian activists? Will they be effective?
I think, fundamentally, those two extraordinary policies are counterproductive and quite dangerous.
They're dangerous because they erode fundamental freedoms and the pillars of American democracy by attacking free institutions and free people and eroding our civil liberties. They also make life more dangerous for Jewish students on college campuses.
In a recent piece in the Forward, you mentioned that Trump’s actions might backfire and reinforce stereotypes about Jews “pulling the strings of government.” Can you elaborate on that?
By connecting billions of dollars in federal research funding to combating antisemitism, it plays directly into longstanding stereotypes about Jews using financial power to pursue their so-called interests. I think that parallel is quite evident.
That's where my concern lies regarding the administration's actions under the guise of protecting Jewish individuals and fighting antisemitism. It's the association with financial leverage.
How does the Biden administration’s “National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism” differ from Trump’s approach?
The Biden strategy differed fundamentally in several ways. First and foremost, President Biden's strategy recognizes that a strong democracy that safeguards our fundamental rights and values America's diversity serves as the best defense we have against antisemitism and other forms of hate. Secondly, the Biden approach was collaborative rather than divisive. It aimed to find common ground and unite targeted groups, fostering inclusion for Jews on college campuses and in the broader society. It was not the divisive method employed by this current administration, which relies on threats and intimidation.
Additionally, the Biden approach consulted extensively across American society and the diverse spectrum of the American Jewish community and beyond. This rigorous process involved consulting over 1,000 stakeholders from various walks of life over six months to understand the problem's nature and solicit ideas for addressing it. This resulted in hundreds of actions taken by the Biden administration and calls for societal participation in solutions.
The Trump administration appears very focused on college campuses, and while that’s a significant issue, antisemitism is a broader societal problem that requires a comprehensive solution, which is what the Biden administration pursued.
Antisemitism is certainly on the rise in the United States, but it can be challenging to define. Many pro-Palestinian protesters—including some Jewish individuals—claim they are anti-Zionist rather than antisemitic, a nuance that the Trump administration doesn’t seem to recognize. How should policymakers navigate this?
This is a complex question. There are various definitions of antisemitism that inform action to combat it. Most of the time, antisemitism is self-evident—people know it when they see it, and action should be taken in those instances. While some forms of anti-Zionism can veer into antisemitism, it's crucial that the label of antisemitism is not misused to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy. We should focus on combating the blatant and pernicious antisemitism present in American society. At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that some individuals disguise their antisemitism through harsh anti-Zionism. It’s essential to recognize that both ends of the spectrum exist.
Policymakers and others should avoid getting entangled in the exact definitions of antisemitism, which can distract from addressing the overt manifestations of the issue.
Trump maintains a close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has suggested controversial ideas regarding Gaza and the Palestinians, including sharing an AI-generated video on Instagram called “Trump Gaza.” What are your thoughts on this messaging?
What concerns me is that Donald Trump is promoting and enabling the most extreme version of Israeli policy toward Gaza and the Palestinians. I fear this could backfire and continue to adversely affect Jews in America, as well as the Palestinians.
The United States has historically been Israel's strongest ally, often positioned to advocate for caution and careful consideration in Israeli policy. In contrast, Trump seems to be encouraging Israel to adopt an aggressive stance. His administration offers unconditional support, which may embolden Israel to pursue extreme and provocative policies.
Regardless of one’s stance on Israel's response to October 7—an issue on which American Jews have varying opinions—it’s clear that escalated conflict in the Middle East tends to correlate with increased attacks on Jews outside of Israel. When Israel acts without restraint, supported by its primary benefactor, it may lead to adverse consequences for American Jews.
Do you perceive the Trump administration’s strategy as being about more than just antisemitism? What other agendas might be at play?
The Trump administration’s so-called campaign against antisemitism seems transparently to be about more than just antisemitism. It appears to be targeting institutions of higher education, aiming to undermine colleges and universities, and attacking immigrants and foreign students. I am deeply concerned that the administration is exploiting Jews and the veneer of antisemitism to erode civil rights and challenge the foundations of higher education and free thought, which is troubling for American democracy and the safety of Jewish individuals within the country.
Do you believe Trump is using Israel as a wedge issue to create divisions among American Jews?
American Jews already hold a variety of opinions concerning Israel and its policies. While it's unclear if the Trump administration consciously intends to use Israel as a wedge issue, it has certainly employed this tactic in previous campaigns. However, what truly concerns me is how the administration's antisemitism policies on college campuses could endanger Jewish individuals in America while undermining the foundations of American democracy and civil society. That is a greater concern than the potential for division among American Jewish voters.
The Anti-Defamation League has largely backed the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Mahmoud Khalil. What’s your take on that? Are American Jewish leaders misreading the situation?
It’s crucial for American Jewish leaders across the spectrum to speak out with moral fortitude and advocate for American democracy, civil liberties, and diversity. Democracy serves as the best defense for both American Jews and all marginalized groups against persecution and intimidation.
I hope American Jewish leaders will defend the principles of democracy, civil rights, and equal legal protection. I appreciate their efforts in this regard, and it’s essential for leaders to exhibit moral courage during this time.
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
It’s evident there's a spectrum of opinions within the American Jewish community regarding the administration, and I respect that diversity. As we reflect on the ongoing situation, I want to emphasize that while [the Trump administration's efforts] may feel protective—and I understand the vulnerabilities many feel following the events of October 7—it’s vital to recognize that what seems like safety today might easily turn into persecution tomorrow. We must remain vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties, as that serves as the most effective defense against antisemitism, rather than relying on the protection of strongmen.
I empathize with many Jewish individuals who feel threatened and unsafe. Friends of mine have children in college who share feelings of exclusion and intimidation, which are valid sentiments. Antisemitism poses a genuine threat not only to Jews but to all Americans. It’s imperative to acknowledge this issue and work together to fortify our democracy.
Lastly, I commend Harvard for standing firm and refusing to be intimidated. It represents a morally courageous and patriotic decision, one that does involve considerable risk and sacrifice. I am heartened to see Harvard’s stance, which may inspire others in civil society to advocate for what is right and just.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
