Thirty-three House Democrats just broke with their own party leaders and handed Republicans the votes for a bill aimed at colleges that boycott Israel.

The break puts a public split over Israel, campus antisemitism, federal money, and the limits of the First Amendment into a single roll call.

The House passed H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, by a vote of 237–169 Thursday morning.

The official House Clerk roll call shows 203 Republicans, 33 Democrats, and the chamber’s lone independent voting yes.

Another 167 Democrats opposed the bill, along with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio.

ADVERTISEMENT

The vote was recorded at 10:24 a.m. Eastern on September 3 and is listed as Roll Call 295. Twenty-seven members did not vote, leaving the measure with a clear majority even though most of the Democratic caucus and two Republicans opposed it on final passage.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar all voted no. So did progressive firebrands including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The Democrats who crossed the aisle included lawmakers from competitive districts and several prominent pro-Israel members: Jared Golden, Vicente Gonzalez, Laura Gillen, George Latimer, Jared Moskowitz, Brad Schneider, Ritchie Torres, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Eugene Vindman.

Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer helped introduce and promote the bipartisan legislation, but the Clerk records him as not voting on final passage.

The House Rules Committee’s legislative record says the bill would amend the Higher Education Act. Colleges participating in federal student-aid programs would have to certify that they are not engaging in a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel.

Covered institutions would also have to certify that students are not being unreasonably obstructed from joining academic programs in Israel. An institution that refused the certification or violated it could lose access to certain federal higher-education funds.

That is why supporters frame the measure as a civil-rights and taxpayer-accountability bill rather than a ban on individual political speech.

Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the bill’s lead sponsor, argued during the debate that anti-Israel policies have marginalized Jewish students and created hostile campus environments. Her position was blunt: taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize institutions that discriminate while hiding behind academic politics.

Fox News reported that Gottheimer said the BDS movement has no place on college campuses, particularly while Jewish students face threats, assaults, and obstruction from attending class.

ADVERTISEMENT

He cast the legislation as an effort to protect their ability to learn and speak freely. Foxx said colleges embracing anti-Israel policies have created hostile environments by marginalizing Jewish students.

The same report laid out the counterargument from Nadler and Tlaib. Nadler opposes BDS but believes the bill crosses a constitutional line, while Tlaib accused supporters of attacking free speech and academic freedom.

The disagreement therefore reaches beyond whether lawmakers support Israel or oppose BDS. The sharper dispute is whether Congress may attach these conditions to federal education money without punishing protected political activity.

The opposition inside the Democratic Party is just as intense.

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York says he considers BDS morally repugnant and strategically foolish, but he still views the bill as an unconstitutional punishment for protected political expression. He also objected to language that he says erases the distinction between Israel and the West Bank.

Jeffries made a similar argument in an official statement.

He said Jewish students must be protected from antisemitism, harassment, and violence.

But he called the measure poorly written and warned that it could give the Trump administration another way to punish colleges for political reasons. His objection targeted the enforcement power created by the bill, not a defense of BDS or campus harassment, and he argued that Democrats could write a more unifying response to antisemitism.

Jeffries also promised that Democrats would pursue what he called unifying legislation against antisemitism if they regain the House majority. His statement did not persuade the 33 members of his caucus who joined Republicans on Thursday and put the bill over the finish line.

ADVERTISEMENT

That objection did not hold the caucus together. Thirty-three Democrats decided the anti-boycott and campus-protection provisions were worth supporting anyway.

The fault line is now impossible to miss. One Democratic bloc sees institutional Israel boycotts as part of a hostile climate facing Jewish students.

Another sees Congress using federal funding to suppress political action it dislikes.

Republicans forced that dispute into the open, and a sizable group of Democrats chose to cross their own leadership to pass the bill.

H.R. 4795 now moves to the Senate.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.