HB1033, titled the COLUMBIA Act of 2025, would require the Secretary of Education to establish a program that appoints independent antisemitism monitors at institutions of higher education identified as having a high incidence of antisemitic activity based on data from the Department of Education’s OCR office. Each monitor would operate under a monitorship agreement with the host institution, which would cover the monitor’s reasonable expenses.
The monitors would publicly report on progress and submit an annual policy-focused report with recommendations to reduce antisemitism on campus. The program would be implemented within 180 days of enactment and relies on the HEA’s definition of an institution of higher education.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary must establish a monitors program and appoint independent antisemitism monitors for selected, OCR-identified campuses, under a monitorship agreement that requires the host school to cover reasonable expenses. The monitors will operate under that agreement.
Who It Affects
Institutions of higher education receiving HEA funds that OCR identifies as having high antisemitic activity, their administrations, students, and campus communities, plus the DOE and state/local authorities relying on annual reports.
Why It Matters
It introduces external, data-driven oversight to address campus antisemitism and creates a formal mechanism for reporting progress and issuing corrective policy recommendations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a centralized program led by the Department of Education to address antisemitism on college campuses. It directs the Secretary to appoint independent antisemitism monitors to campuses with a high rate of antisemitic activity, as identified by OCR data from the department.
Each campus would enter into a monitorship agreement with the monitor, and the campus would pay the monitor’s reasonable expenses. The monitors must operate under the agreement and produce public quarterly reports detailing progress in combating antisemitism.
In addition, they must submit an annual report to Congress, the Secretary, state and local governments as needed, and the host institution with recommended actions, policies, and sanctions to prevent and reduce antisemitism. The act adopts the HEA’s definition of “institution of higher education.” The program must be established within 180 days of enactment.
This creates an external, data-informed accountability pathway for campuses to address antisemitism and provides ongoing transparency through public reporting.
The Five Things You Need to Know
180-day deadline for establishing the program after enactment.
Independent, third-party antisemitism monitors appointed for identified campuses.
Monitorship agreements require host institutions to cover reasonable monitor expenses.
Quarterly public reports evaluate campus progress toward combating antisemitism.
Annual reports to Congress, the Secretary, and involved governments include actionable policy recommendations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and citation
Section 1 provides the act’s short title: the COLUMBIA Act of 2025. This establishes how the law will be cited in administrative and legal references.
Program establishment and authority
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary of Education must establish a program to appoint independent antisemitism monitors at higher education institutions identified as having high antisemitic activity based on OCR data. The Secretary will develop a monitorship agreement binding the monitor and the institution, and the host institution must pay the monitor’s reasonable expenses.
Duties of the antisemitism monitor
Monitors must operate under the monitorship agreement, provide quarterly reports that are publicly available on the institution’s and DOE’s websites, and submit an annual report to Congress, the Secretary, state/local governments as needed, and the host institution with recommendations to prevent and reduce antisemitism on campus.
Definition of institution of higher education
The act defines “institution of higher education” as stated in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Jewish student groups and campus communities on identified campuses, benefiting from external review and actionable findings
- Administrations of targeted colleges and universities, gaining clarity on expectations and structured improvements
- The Department of Education and OCR, through standardized data, oversight, and reporting that highlights problem areas
- State and local governments, which receive annual progress reports to inform policy decisions
- Policy researchers and watchdog organizations with publicly accessible, authoritative data from quarterly reports
Who Bears the Cost
- Host institutions must cover the reasonable expenses of the antisemitism monitors
- DOE program administration costs for implementing and overseeing the monitorship program
- Any additional administrative or compliance costs arising from the new reporting requirements
- Costs associated with ensuring public access to quarterly reports (data publishing and website hosting)
- Potential costs to universities in creating or adjusting policies and procedures in line with monitor recommendations
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing rigorous, external oversight of antisemitism on campuses with respect for campus autonomy and the due process of internal policies. The act seeks transparency and accountability through monitors and public reporting, but doing so may introduce administrative burdens and create political or reputational pressure for institutions, without a clear enforcement mechanism beyond recommendations.
The bill creates a robust, externally driven oversight mechanism aimed at reducing antisemitism on campuses, but it raises several tensions. The reliance on OCR data to identify “high incidence” campuses raises questions about data quality, timeliness, and potential misclassification.
Providers and universities may push back on how incidents are measured or categorized, which could affect which institutions are monitored. The requirement that host institutions cover the monitor’s expenses also creates a funding burden for schools, including smaller or less-resourced colleges, potentially affecting budgets and program priorities.
In addition, the program’s external reporting obligations could influence campus climate and free speech dynamics, depending on how findings are interpreted and acted upon by administrators and external stakeholders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.