Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves here, again, purportedly to address anti-Semitism in American higher education. While we should be able to agree that there is no place in higher education for anti- Semitism, the fact is my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet, or selectively quiet, about addressing anti-Semitism when it actually does occur.
Recall when President Trump declared that there were fine people on both sides when a bunch of White supremacists and their Unite the Right rally marched on the University of Virginia's campus chanting: ``Jews will not replace us.''
My colleagues on the other side were also silent as numerous reports regarding chapters of the College Republicans openly promoted their hated of Jewish people among other groups.
All the while this has been going on, my colleagues have not told the President to stop firing lawyers at the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of anti-Semitism in education.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are certainly mum about how this administration is dismissing Title VI disparate impact analysis, the very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may appear facially neutral but, in fact, discriminate against protected classes under the law.
I have not heard them comment on the whistleblower allegations, and many investigations into anti-Semitism on college campuses, led by the Department of Justice's Anti-Semitism Task Force, were based not on fact patterns or legal analysis but political priorities.
With that said, we have the bill before us, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, which would amend the Higher Education Act by imposing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive higher education funding. Under the bill, institutions receiving Title IV Federal student aid would be legally required to certify that they are not engaged in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel.
I will begin with an important distinction: there is a difference between actions, or views of students, or even recognized student organizations and the official policy of the colleges and universities they attend.
Students have the right to express their political views, but that does not mean that their university has adopted those views, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, movement. We have yet to see a single college or university in the United States adopt the BDS movement or institutional boycott policies contemplated in the bill.
Simply put, the bill does not address any ongoing or existing higher education policy boycotting Israel. Nonetheless, this would create new Federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future.
Moreover, as we examine the bill, Members should be careful to consider how these Federal requirements would operate in practice, the potential of negative effect on institutions receiving Federal funds, and whether the bill is misusing the power that we have from the Constitution's Spending Clause to illegally sanction First Amendment- protected speech, particularly those of students.
As written, the bill presents serious First Amendment problems and improperly limits academic freedom.
I had hoped these problems could have been resolved before we got to the floor, but they weren't, so I will be opposing the bill. For these reasons, I ask Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Tlaib).
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from J Street, which says in part: ``This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.'' [From J Street, Aug. 31, 2026] J Street Statement Opposing H.R. 4795
Washington, DC--J Street opposes the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025 (H.R. 4795), which would condition federal funding on a university's choices regarding investments, procurement, partnerships, and other institutional activities in Israel and the West Bank.
While we oppose the Global BDS Movement and strongly support academic engagement between American and Israeli institutions, we believe this legislation takes the wrong approach to these issues.
Specifically, the legislation would penalize any institution that chooses to engage in a nonexpressive commercial boycott against Israel and ``an entity licensed or regulated by, or organized under the laws of,'' Israel, which would include Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, this bill does not keep American Jewish students on campus safe, nor does it address the lived experience of antisemitism that American Jewish students encounter. Instead, by changing US code to to exceptionalize the treatment of Israel at American universities, this bill runs the risk of inflaming antisemitism.
J Street believes the most effective way to counter antisemitism on college campuses is through open debate, education, and renewed efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--not through punitive legislation aimed to curb the freedom to boycott.
We urge Members of Congress to vote against this bill and instead cosponsor the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (H.R. 6806). This bill would implement a whole-of- government approach to fighting antisemitism by funding the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and mandating the designation of a Title VI coordinator on every college campus in order to provide students with additional resources in hopes of preventing antisemitism and other hate on campus.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a statement from the American Federation of Teachers which says in part: ``The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those goals rather than advancing them.'' AFT, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, September 1, 2026. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.875 million members of the AFT who work in education, healthcare and public services, I am writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, when it comes before the House. Conditioning federal student aid-- which millions of low-and middle-income students depend on to afford college--on an institution's compliance with a vague and sweeping prohibition on ``nonexpressive commercial boycotts'' will not have the desired effect. All it will do is hurt students.
The AFT has historically taken a position against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement for several reasons. First, it undermines the Israelis and Palestinians who are on the ground working in favor of coexistence. It also could end critical relationships with universities, nongovernmental organizations, businesses and unions that foster Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and stop any assistance from going to the very people who are pushing back against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government's response.
At the core of our union's values--and, I would argue, of American values--is the commitment to fighting hate and discrimination while protecting our nation's first freedoms: free speech, peaceful protest and association, and due process. AFT members work every day to model this balance in our schools and communities, striving to create welcoming and safe environments for all students and educators--free from antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate of every kind--while ensuring that people can speak, organize and protest peacefully.
H.R. 4795, however, does not advance that goal, nor does it accurately represent what is going on at most campuses. Assuming the definition is directed at the BDS movement, ending student aid will not in and of itself protect any students or staff--Jewish, Muslim or LGBTQIA+ or any other minorities--from discrimination and harassment. That requires vigorous enforcement of existing civil rights laws and meaningful campus-climate initiatives--not financial penalties that have no direct connection to whether an institution has discriminated against or harassed members of its community.
Moreover, tying federal financial aid to an institution's position on a foreign-policy issue risks sweeping in a broad range of protected institutional and academic decisions that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Instead, the bill will simply infringe on the First Amendment and free speech.
Most significantly, the bill punishes students, not institutions. Cutting off federal aid because of decisions made by college and university administrators--which individual students have no control over--is the wrong way to advance any policy goal. Those who can least afford it could be forced to leave college or forgo higher education altogether.
I write not only as AFT president, but as a lawyer, civics teacher and deeply engaged Jew--as someone married to a rabbi and who has experienced antisemitism firsthand. I understand the challenge of striking the right balance, and I know it must be approached with care. I have no doubt that Congress can and should take affirmative steps to combat antisemitism without undermining the civil rights and liberties of others or putting students' access to higher education at risk. But H.R. 4795 doesn't accomplish this.
The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those goals rather than advancing them. We urge you to vote no. Sincerely, Randi Weingarten, President, AFT.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I will close by returning to the central point: that we must distinguish between student or faculty expression in university policy.
A student organization or individual faculty member supporting BDS is not the same thing as the university administration adopting BDS as policy. A faculty member expressing a political opinion is not the same thing as the institution imposing a boycott.
Importantly, we have yet to see a single American college or university adopting BDS in the way the bill suggests. Furthermore, we know the bill is intended to target the BDS movement. Yet it is not clear whether a school that even joined the BDS movement would be covered by the text of the bill.
The bill implicates ``nonexpressive boycotts'' as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro) just pointed out. If it is expressive, it is protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval of the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any activity that flowed from it would clearly be expressive, and therefore, out of the scope of the bill.
As an expressive activity, the statement would be protected under the First Amendment, and therefore, the First Amendment would protect the funding from being removed. But, again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway.
We should combat anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, but we should not do so by punishing protected speech or conflating students' views with university policies.
For those reasons I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, nays 169, not voting 27, as follows: [Roll No. 295] YEAS--237 Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Castor (FL) Cisneros Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Costa Courtney Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Davis (NC) De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Gallagher Garbarino Gill (TX) Gillen Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (TX) Gonzalez, V. Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kean Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Letlow Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Mast McClain McClintock McCormick McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Moskowitz Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norcross Norman Nunn (IA) Onder Owens Palmer Panetta Patronis Perez Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Sherman Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Soto Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stevens Strong Stutzman Suozzi Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Titus Torres (NY) Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Vargas Vindman Wagner Walberg Wasserman Schultz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--169 Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Balint Barragan Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop Blair Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castro (TX) Chu Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Craig Crockett Crow Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Friedman Frost Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Goodlander Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Massie Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Pappas Pelosi Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Scott (VA) Sewell Simon Sorensen Stansbury Stanton Subramanyam Sykes Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Trahan Tran Underwood Vasquez Veasey Wahab Walkinshaw Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) NOT VOTING--27 Bell Ciscomani Cleaver Donalds Dunn (FL) Garamendi Goldman (NY) Gomez Gottheimer Houlahan Kaptur Loudermilk McCaul McDowell Miller (IL) Miller-Meeks Mills Min Moulton Obernolte Ogles Schakowsky Smith (WA) Spartz Strickland Velazquez Wilson (SC)
Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source