House passes bill stripping federal student aid from colleges that boycott Israel

The House of Representatives voted 237-169 on Thursday to pass legislation that would cut off federal student aid to colleges and universities engaging in boycotts of Israel, sending the bill to a Senate where its prospects are far less certain.

The measure, H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, would require colleges that participate in federal student aid programs to certify they are not engaged in what the bill calls "nonexpressive commercial boycotts" of Israel or of entities licensed, regulated or organized under Israeli law, unless a school can show a "valid business reason" unrelated to the boycott movement. Schools would also have to certify annually that students and faculty can take part in academic exchange programs in Israel on the same footing as programs in any other country.

The vote

The official roll call, recorded as vote number 295, shows nearly unanimous Republican support, with only Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio voting no. Roughly three dozen Democrats crossed over to vote for the bill, enough to widen its final margin well beyond a simple party-line tally, while the bulk of the Democratic caucus opposed it. The bill's lead sponsors, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, represent the Republican and Democratic co-authors respectively, and the measure had cleared the House Education and Workforce Committee by a 24-9 vote before reaching the floor.

How the bill got here

The legislation is the latest in a string of congressional efforts, dating back several years, to attach anti-boycott conditions to federal higher-education funding, following campus protests over Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza that spread across American universities. Backers frame it as a response to what they describe as a climate of harassment facing Jewish and Israeli students on campus, arguing that boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel have crossed from protected political advocacy into discriminatory commercial conduct. In a statement issued when the bill was introduced, Gottheimer said the goal was to "combat the dangerous, hate-fueled, antisemitic BDS movement on college campuses," adding, "We cannot allow antisemitism to run rampant and endanger Jewish students, staff, and faculty." Foxx, in a statement issued when the bill was introduced, said that if a college "capitulate[s] to the caustic BDS movement, there will be consequences — starting with this bipartisan legislation."

The bill applies to any college or university that receives federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, which covers the vast majority of accredited American institutions, from large public universities to small private colleges. No major U.S. university currently has an official policy of boycotting Israel, though a number of faculty associations and individual academic departments have voted for boycott resolutions in recent years, and some student groups have pressed administrations to divest endowment holdings tied to Israeli companies. Supporters and opponents of the bill agree its practical effect would fall on institutions that adopt formal boycott policies going forward, along with any college whose existing exchange or partnership arrangements might be read as excluding Israeli institutions.

Reaction on and off the floor

Opposition centered on free-speech grounds. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said ahead of the vote that he considers the BDS movement itself "strategically stupid and morally repugnant" but could not support a bill he called a violation of core constitutional rights.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the BDS movement, I also believe that those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so," Nadler said in a statement released ahead of the vote, arguing the bill mislabels political boycotts as "non-expressive" commercial conduct to sidestep First Amendment protections.

Nadler also objected that the bill's definition of Israel effectively folds in the West Bank, which he said "erases the Green Line" separating Israel from Palestinian territory and could undercut a future two-state settlement. He described the measure more broadly as part of what he called an assault by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans on American colleges and universities. Civil liberties groups raised similar concerns; opponents pointed to the fact that federal courts have struck down several earlier state and federal anti-boycott laws on First Amendment grounds, arguing this bill would likely draw the same legal challenges. Some progressive Democrats went further in criticizing colleagues who voted yes, accusing them of aligning with Republican efforts to police campus speech over the war in Gaza; Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, who voted no, told reporters after the vote that lawmakers were being pulled into fights over Israeli government policy that had little to do with the students the bill claims to protect. Supporters rejected that framing, arguing the bill leaves ordinary political speech, protest and criticism of Israeli government policy untouched and targets only formal institutional boycott actions.

The dispute reprises a fight Congress has revisited repeatedly in recent years. Versions of federal anti-boycott legislation aimed at colleges and at states doing business with Israel have circulated on Capitol Hill since well before the current session, gaining new urgency after the eruption of protests and encampments on campuses following the war in Gaza. Republican leaders have paired this bill with a wider push, including separate legislation on antisemitism definitions used in civil-rights investigations, arguing the two efforts work together to give the Education Department stronger tools against colleges accused of tolerating harassment of Jewish students. Democratic opponents counter that the administration already possesses civil-rights enforcement authority and say the bill's supporters have not identified a single accredited university currently maintaining an official boycott policy, calling the legislation a preemptive strike rather than a response to a documented problem.

What happens next

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in a chamber Republicans control by a narrow margin, meaning it would require substantial Democratic support to reach the floor for a vote, let alone pass. No Senate companion has advanced through committee, and Democratic leaders in the chamber have not signaled support. Supporters say they intend to press for a Senate vote before the current Congress ends, framing it as unfinished business from a broader campaign to legislate against campus antisemitism that has produced mixed results since 2024. Opponents, including Nadler, are expected to lobby senators on First Amendment grounds and may look to the federal courts if the measure eventually becomes law, pointing to the string of rulings against earlier anti-boycott statutes as a likely template for a future challenge.