“Both things can be true at once: the fact that universities have mishandled the situation and the fact that Trump’s rhetoric exploits antisemitism to attack universities.”

Historian Deborah Lipstadt was the special envoy for monitoring and combating antisemitism under the Biden administration. In this interview, she shares her perception of the debates rocking the United States on this issue, between fears that Trump will exploit the fight against antisemitism and the progressive camp’s refusal to clean house.

 

 

Looking back, how would you sum up what was achieved during your time working for the Biden administration as head of the federal office responsible for monitoring and combating antisemitism?

Deborah Lipstadt: I think we accomplished a lot. The administration issued the first-ever National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which brought together 27 or 28 different federal agencies to address the issue in a coordinated and serious way. That was a major step — and it happened before October 7.

We created the Global Guidelines on Countering Antisemitism. We got 43, maybe 44 or 45 countries and multilateral institutions to endorse them — a real international commitment to combating antisemitism.

We also helped popularize the idea that antisemitism is a multi-tiered threat. When I was before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I talked about a spectrum of anti-Semitism from the right to the left. I talked about a horseshoe. A horseshoe where the two extremes meet. And what’s fascinating, the extreme right and the extreme left share the same tropes, the same stereotypes: finance, power,conspiracy etc… And with that horseshoe, the two ends are going up to more of the center. The extreme ideas are at the heart of the debate.

Above all, it must be made clear that antisemitism is not only a danger to Jews. It’s a multi-tiered threat of antisemitism: It is the foundational threat to Jews, Jewish institutions, and those associated with them; the threat to democracy: If you buy into that conspiracy theory, and believe the Jews control the government, the judiciary, the media, the banking system, you have given up on democracy; the threat to the rule of law: when Jewish students at UCLA are denied entry to the library because they are Jewish or “Zionist,” and university security does nothing, these students lose faith in the law because the law does not protect them; the threat to national security because there is also a form of utilitarian antisemitism that is exploited by governments: After October 7, antisemitism exploded in China, spread as a political message. Remember that in the 1950s, the KGB orchestrated an antisemitic campaign in West Germany to discredit the West.

Antisemitism is therefore a warning sign for society as a whole. Antisemitism is like an amber traffic light flashing before the light turns red. And this red light, beyond the issue of antisemitism alone, marks the tipping point into crisis, violence, and social chaos.

That framework has proven powerful. I remember being in Amsterdam just four or five days after the riots. I sat with the mayor and explained this concept to her, and she listened closely. Same in Halifax, around the time of the unrest in Toronto and Montreal. I spoke with Canada’s foreign minister and emphasized this idea, and she told me it really helped her understand the situation better. Sometimes when you share this framework — whether with Jews or non-Jews — it opens their eyes. People think, “I have to be good to Jews — they’re my fellow citizens, my in-laws, my grandchildren.” But then they hear this and start to see the issue from a different angle. That was crucial.

You also worked on furthering the Abraham Accords. 

Yes. Not so much in terms of bilateral Israel relations — other offices handled that — but in terms of encouraging the Gulf States, Morocco, and even Saudi Arabia (where I visited two or three times), to recognize that part of their historical hostility toward Israel had taken the form of overt antisemitism. And that if they wanted to change the dynamics in the region, they needed to address that as well. We have achieved a lot. I would have liked to have done more.

And of course, October 7 changed everything…

Would you say that after October 7, something shifted dramatically? Or was it something you had already felt in the air before? Did it become obvious only after, or had you sensed it coming?

We always knew there were undercurrents — people in government, in the State Department, in society — but it’s the scale, the scope, the intensity that changed. Antisemitism in America isn’t new. But the openness with which it’s now being expressed — that’s what’s new.

When you left your post in January, I think I read that you were worried about the Trump administration?

No, that’s not accurate. A reporter misrepresented what I said. What I said was that I had complete confidence in Senator Rubio — who was then Secretary of State–designate. He had been outspoken and consistent on antisemitism, and I believed he would stay committed to that issue. That’s what I said.

But you can understand the broader concern behind the question — especially in the academic world — that the Trump administration instrumentalized the fight against antisemitism for political purposes?

Sure. And both things can be true at once: the fact that universities have mishandled the situation and the fact that Trump’s rhetoric exploits antisemitism to attack universities.

Universities took a lenient, permissive approach, and it backfired. We heard Chancellor Martin say: “Encampments are not allowed, but we’ll let them have encampments.” And then, unsurprisingly, students took over buildings. It’s like parenting a toddler — I don’t mean to compare protesters to toddlers, but you know what I mean. The child throws a stuffed animal — no big deal. Then a ball — still nothing. Next thing, it’s a brick. And even before the encampments, they weren’t taking antisemitism seriously. I said this in my very first speech in the role: they have DEI programs that deal with important issues, but they exclude Jews. Jews are often treated as outside that framework. Universities failed to hold people accountable when they crossed the line into antisemitism. Students would report antisemitic incidents, and administrations often brushed them off. You can see that clearly in the reports from Columbia, Harvard, and others.

Afterall, it is true that Trump’s policy is no longer solely focused on combating antisemitism: It’s no longer just about fighting antisemitism — it’s being used as a wedge against elite universities. And often, it has very little to do with actual antisemitism. Some people see it as part of a broader ideological war. Whatever the motive, if you want to fight antisemitism, do that. If you want to challenge higher ed institutions, do that. But don’t conflate the two. And I don’t think we should be fighting the universities. They are among the crown jewels of American society. But yes, the universities left the door open — and the Trump administration barged right through.

How do you view the fact that far-right parties in the U.S. — and in Europe — are now presenting themselves as defenders of Jews?

The liberal response has to start with self-scrutiny: clean your own house first. Don’t assume that being a liberal makes you immune to prejudice. Too many liberals congratulated themselves: “We can’t be antisemitic, we’re progressives!” But yes, you can be. And we’ve seen it. I always say: my friends on the left see the antisemitism on the right. My friends on the right see the antisemitism on the left. But neither sees the antisemitism right next to them.

On the far right, we also see this strange mix: vocal support for Zionism and “the Jews” — but sometimes alongside blatant antisemitism. There’s also a pattern we see globally: leaders like Orban, or the Polish PiS, or figures on the French far right — they’re very pro-Israel, but deny or distort Holocaust memory.

Exactly. That’s it. It’s a new phenomenon. For decades, the far right simply hated Jews. Now they embrace pro-Israel positions while undermining Jewish memory. It’s a shift. A rebranding. It’s about what sells. We’re seeing it all over Europe — and not only in Europe.

It’s purely utilitarian. Cynical. In Germany, you had members of the AfD marching with Muslim groups because they were antisemitic — and marching with Jews because they assumed the Jews were anti-Muslim, even if they weren’t. It’s opportunistic and deeply unpleasant. But extremists don’t care about consistency. They see an opening, they exploit it. They’re not thinking, “I must stay true to my values.” They’re thinking, “How do I win this round?”

Would you say Trump is in that category?

I don’t know. I don’t know him. What I do know is that some people in his administration care deeply about antisemitism and have worked hard to fight it — and I respect that. Others have trafficked in antisemitism, even Holocaust denial. But you could find troubling individuals in the Biden administration too. No political circle is perfect. Peter Baker wrote an article in The New York Times recently. He said, in essence that Trump fights antisemitism — but also engages in it. It’s a paradox.

And you declined a teaching offer from Columbia? Was that a political statement?

It was an educational statement. There’s too much going on at Columbia that deeply troubles me. I was worried that if I came in, the school might use my presence as a shield — a fig leaf. Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves. I didn’t want to be that leaf or be used as a token. I was also invited to speak to the board of a prestigious private school. Turns out a fourth-grade teacher had distributed overtly antisemitic material to students. And their solution was: “Let’s invite Deborah Lipstadt.” But that’s not how you fix the problem. I’ll gladly help you think it through, if you’re sincere. But don’t bring me in as a token.

Are you optimistic about what used to be called the “Jewish-American synthesis”? Has something shifted?

Antisemitism in America isn’t new. But it’s different now. It’s more visible. It’s out in the open. It’s not new — but it feels new to some people. The younger generation has a tendency to see this as a major novelty. And from their point of view, that’s probably true. Maybe even for mine. But for my parents’ generation or for my grandparents’, things were different. When I was young, it was understood: a brilliant Jewish law student might not be able to join certain firms. In the ‘50s and early ‘60s, Jewish physicists often had to pioneer new fields — not because they wanted to, but because they were shut out of the established ones. This has always been part of American life. It faded somewhat in the ’80s and ’90s. But it never disappeared. And even before October 7, it was creeping back.

---

Interview conducted by Stéphane Bou