“When people call for October 7 to be repeated, when they chant to ‘globalize the intifada’ or glorify those who carried out mass murder, they are not calling for peace,” Sanandaji said. “They are calling for the killing of Jews.”

Written testimony was also submitted by CAM President of U.S. Affairs Alyza Lewin, who emphasized that the IHRA definition does not restrict legitimate political speech.

“The IHRA definition provides a framework for identifying modern antisemitism while protecting free expression,” Lewin wrote. “It does not prohibit criticism of Israel. It simply draws the line when criticism becomes demonization, delegitimization, or the application of double standards to Jews or the Jewish state.”

“Hate that is ignored does not disappear,” she added. “It escalates. If we want to stop antisemitic violence, we must first be willing to recognize antisemitism in all its contemporary forms.”

According to data compiled by CAM’s Antisemitism Research Center, 37 U.S. states have now adopted the IHRA definition in some form. Wisconsin’s proposal is part of a broader nationwide effort to address rising antisemitism through legislation, education, and law enforcement coordination.

Over the past year, CAM has worked closely with lawmakers in multiple states on similar initiatives. Legislative efforts have been introduced in Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, with six of those states enacting new laws since April 2025.

In June, elected officials and senior government representatives from 17 states gathered in Kansas City for the first-ever CAM-organized State Leadership Summit on Antisemitism, aimed at coordinating policy responses and sharing best practices nationwide.

If enacted, SB 445 would place Wisconsin among a growing number of states using the IHRA definition as a formal tool to confront antisemitism in law enforcement, education, and public policy.