Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect

For the better part of the last two months, I have sat across the table from senior officials at the US State Department and the Department of Justice. Our conversations centered on one issue: how to confront the alarming rise of antisemitism in the United States.

As Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, this work is central to my mission, and what I witnessed in Washington was both serious and heartening. The meetings reflected an administration that, at least within the departments I visited, is approaching antisemitism with an intensity and clarity of purpose that has not always been present in Washington.

At the State Department, for example, officials briefed me on their efforts to address antisemitism on university campuses and in other sectors of American society. For years, as a member of the Conference of Presidents, I visited that same building and left with the unmistakable impression that hostility toward the Jewish community still lingered in its halls. This time, the shift was unmistakable. The institution is changing, and that change matters.

It is precisely because of this progress that the current silence regarding Tucker Carlson’s rhetoric is so troubling.

In my view, Carlson has increasingly embraced themes that echo extremist or white-nationalist narratives, including giving a platform to figures such as Nick Fuentes, whose openly antisemitic positions are well documented.

Carlson has questioned the loyalty of Jews and Christian Zionists, and has — in my assessment — amplified sentiments that undermine the safety and standing of Jewish Americans. These are not merely policy disagreements; they are messages that, intentionally or not, legitimize bigotry.

What concerns me even more is the reluctance of political leaders, many of whom have long been genuine friends of the Jewish people, to call this out with the urgency it deserves.

Carlson’s influence on the political right is significant, and ignoring this trend risks allowing antisemitic tropes to migrate from the fringes into the conservative mainstream. If that happens, it will do profound damage not only to American Jews, but also to the conservative movement itself.

The fight against antisemitism cannot be selective. It cannot stop at the water’s edge of partisan convenience. If government officials are prepared to confront antisemitism within international institutions, academia, or foreign governments, they must also be willing to address it when it emerges from figures with large domestic audiences.

Elie Wiesel wrote, “We must always take sides.” My own family — grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles — were murdered in the Holocaust while too many remained silent. The consequences of silence are not abstract to me.

America is not Europe in the 1930s. But history teaches that hateful ideas take root when they go unchallenged. Carlson’s rhetoric, in my judgment, crosses a line that no one committed to the security of the Jewish people — or to the health of American democracy — can afford to ignore.

At a moment when the Federal government is showing a renewed seriousness in combating antisemitism, it is time for political leaders across the spectrum to speak with equal clarity. “Never again” must be more than a memory; it must be a principle we are prepared to defend in real time.

J. Philip Rosen is chairman of the World Jewish Congress, American section. He has been a Jewish activist for most of his life and is currently a Board member of Yeshiva University and JINSA, and is Vice-Chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition.  

AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr speaking at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., March 2, 2020. Photo: AIPAC.

In the age of websites tracking “pro-Israel money” and politicians questioning American support for Israel, one claim has become a rallying cry: AIPAC should register as a foreign agent. It’s repeated so often that many accept it as fact. But repetition doesn’t make something true, and this claim reveals more about the accusers than about AIPAC.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires registration by those who act “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of a foreign entity while engaging in political activity on that entity’s behalf.

Notice what’s required: not merely sympathy with a foreign country or advocating for policies that benefit it, but actually operating under its direction or control. This crucial distinction is what AIPAC’s critics ignore.

If the Department of Justice, which has dramatically ramped up FARA enforcement since 2016, believed AIPAC met the legal threshold, it would be an obvious target. Yet the DOJ hasn’t pursued AIPAC. Professional prosecutors evaluating the actual legal standards apparently don’t find the case compelling. But that hasn’t stopped the pundit class.

The claim that AIPAC operates under Israeli government control crumbles under scrutiny. DOJ guidance asks whether an organization acts independently or as “an agent or alter ego of the foreign principal.” The evidence overwhelmingly supports AIPAC’s independence.

When Isaiah “Si” Kenen founded what would become AIPAC in the 1950s, he described the idea that he was an Israeli “agent” as ludicrous, pointing to constant disagreements with Israeli diplomats. When the US planned to arm Iraq, Israeli diplomats wanted to immediately campaign for arms to Israel. Kenen disagreed, arguing that opposing arms to the entire region was the better strategy.

During the Oslo Accords, AIPAC publicly supported the agreement while internally opposing Israel’s request to send US aid directly to Yasser Arafat, insisting instead that it go to Palestinians more broadly with proper monitoring.

These aren’t the actions of an organization under foreign control. They’re the actions of an independent American organization whose members at times disagree with Israeli policy and advocate for their opinion of what’s best.

Organizations like the United States India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) operate nearly identically to AIPAC. Founded in 2002, USINPAC helped secure the landmark 2008 US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. Additionally, a 2009 Foreign Affairs article stated that “the India Lobby is the only lobby in Washington likely to acquire the strength of the Israel lobby.”

Yet when you search for “FARA” and “USINPAC” together, you find essentially nothing. Meanwhile, countless articles, entire books, and dedicated websites exist solely to “expose” AIPAC and its alleged foreign agent status.

This isn’t about legal analysis. It’s about targeting one ethnic lobby while giving identical organizations a pass. Irish, Armenian, and Cuban lobbies have all shaped American foreign policy throughout our history. AIPACis targeted because its members are Jews.

What if AIPAC did register under FARA? According to FARA specialist Matthew Sanderson, it would mean filling out a few extra documents with essentially no practical effect.

AIPAC already operates under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, requiring extensive public disclosure: lobbying expenditures, specific issues and officials lobbied, lobbyist identities, funding sources, and political contributions.

Since AIPAC doesn’t accept money from foreign entities, the FARA funding disclosure forms would be blank. Since it doesn’t lobby under foreign control, it wouldn’t need to file interpersonal disclosure documents detailing who it contacted or announce itself as a foreign agent during lobbying calls — requirements that only apply when an organization operates as an extension of a foreign principal. The only potential requirement might be labeling some materials as coming from a “foreign agent,” but in today’s climate, where everyone already has opinions about AIPAC, this would have a negligible impact.

If FARA registration would change nothing practically, why does this matter?

First, truth matters. The claim is false. When bad-faith actors misrepresent AIPAC’s history as sinister subterfuge, often with antisemitic overtones reminiscent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, capitulation legitimizes their framing.

Second, selective scrutiny reveals troubling double standards. The vast chasm between scrutiny of AIPAC versus identical organizations, suggests factors beyond legal analysis drive this narrative. When the campaign focuses overwhelmingly on the Jewish State’s supporters while ignoring others, we should call it what it is.

Third, FARA’s ambiguity makes it a potential weapon. A statute so broad it could require registration for “routine business activities” becomes dangerous when applied selectively based on political preferences. This sets a disturbing precedent.

AIPAC is an American organization, funded by Americans, run by Americans, advocating for what its American members believe serves American interests. That some disagree doesn’t make it a foreign agent. It makes it a lobby, like hundreds of others in Washington.

The next time someone claims AIPAC should register as a foreign agent, ask: Where’s the evidence of foreign control? Why don’t they make the same claim about similar organizations? And why aren’t DOJ prosecutors, who’ve ramped up FARA enforcement dramatically, pursuing this supposedly obvious case?

The answers reveal this isn’t about law. It’s about politics — and prejudice.

Alexander Mermelstein, a recent USC graduate with a Master’s degree in Public Policy and Data Science, is an aspiring policy researcher with a focus on Middle East affairs and combating antisemitism.

A general view shows the plenum at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

On October 13, the Israeli Knesset met to mark a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel that included the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke first, for 30 minutes. Yair Lapid, representing the Opposition, spoke next, for 15 minutes. Then, President Donald Trump delivered a largely extemporaneous speech lasting a little more than an hour.

A few minutes into President Trump’s address, there was a disturbance, a common feature of Knesset sessions. Two elected members of the left-wing party, Hadash — Ofer Cassif, an Israeli Jew, and Ayman Odeh, an Israeli Arab — held up signs saying “Recognize Palestine.” After a few moments of shouting, the two were removed from the Knesset chamber. (Note: They were not arrested. They continue to represent their constituency in the Knesset.)

This kind of democracy and dissent would not be possible anywhere else in the Middle East or North Africa. None of the 22 states in the Arab League operate on the basis of free and open elections, and respect for civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms.

Indeed, several of these countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya) fit the category of “failed states” — unable to carry out fundamental functions, such as controlling borders.

Since 2006, the influential British news and business magazine, The Economist, has published a comprehensive annual Democracy Index, which analyzes in detail the democratic processes in 167 countries around the world. Based on 60 numeric scores, the rankings include five categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.

Countries are divided into one of four regime types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid (partially democratic) regimes, and authoritarian regimes.

The Democracy Index for 2024 lists 25 full democracies, 46 flawed democracies (including countries such as Israel, the US, France, and Italy), and 96 hybrid or authoritarian regimes. The Index gives an authoritarian score for Palestine.

A color-coded map of the world accompanies the Index report. Full and flawed democracies are dark blue and pale blue, respectively, while hybrid governments are yellow. Authoritarian countries appear light to dark brown.

Israel is not even visible from a quick glance at the map. To see Israel, one must either adjust the magnification of the computer image or use the “pinch to zoom” feature available with many devices. Only then does a little island of blue become visible amid a vast sea of brown.

In fact, the only Arab people in the Middle East or North Africa who have experienced what it is like to live in a democracy are the more than two million Arab citizens of Israel.

In a blog he wrote in The Times of Israel, Bassem Eid, a Palestinian activist and writer who monitors human rights abuses by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, writes that, as in other western democracies, Israeli Arabs “can vote in elections, own businesses, work, speak, and worship freely, wherever in Israel they call home.” To Eid, Israel is the best place to be an Arab.

Meanwhile, Ayman Odeh, leader of the Hadash party (yes, one of the Knesset members ejected during the Trump visit) has been working to establish a unified slate of Arab parties (a Joint List) in preparation for the next Israeli election. A unified party would energize Arab voters, increase the community’s political influence, and possibly lead to Arab participation in the government, as was the case during the short-lived Bennett-Lapid coalition that preceded the current Israeli government.

The Arab people of Israel know that Israel is a thriving, diverse, and democratic country, and that it includes a thriving Arab population. Or, as Bassem Eid puts it, Arabs have been fortunate to call Israel home.

Jacob Sivak, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a retired professor, University of Waterloo.