The White House Religious Liberty Commission meeting broke down into partisan conflict when one member steered debate toward attacking Israel, forcing Jewish commissioners to push the panel back to its mission of protecting free speech and equal treatment on college campuses.
Tensions flared early when testimony about anti-Semitic incidents at UCLA met a defensive pivot from Carrie Prejean Boller, who argued that criticizing Israel or opposing Zionism should not automatically be labeled anti-Semitism. The exchange quickly made the room less about rule of law and more about political litmus tests, with several Jewish witnesses trying to pull the conversation back to campus conduct and equal enforcement of rules. For a commission tasked with religious liberty, the drift into foreign policy grudges was striking and unproductive.
One witness described a painful encounter with campus hostility, and Boller responded by framing broad protests over Gaza as legitimate expressions tied to opposition to Israeli actions. She pressed whether condemning mass civilian casualties or rejecting political Zionism should be treated as anti-Semitic speech, insisting the First Amendment protects contentious political views. That line of questioning shifted focus away from whether campus rules were enforced consistently for all groups.
You described very painful experiences at UCLA, and I take that very serious. At the same time, many of the students who I’ve spoken to personally who created those encampments say that they were protesting the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and their universities’ financial ties to that war. So I need to ask you, in a country built on religious liberty and the First Amendment, do you believe someone can stand firmly against anti-Semitism, including what you experienced, and at the same time condemn the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza or reject political Zionism or not support the political state of Israel? Or do you believe that speaking out about what many Americans view as genocide in Gaza should be treated as anti-Semitic? Because in my view, the United States cannot and must not make loyalty to a particular theology about Israel a litmus test for protected speech or moral legitimacy
Yitzchok Frankel, a UCLA law student and father of four, pushed back and said the protests were often aimed at Israel itself and began before any specific military operations inside Gaza. He emphasized that the real problem on campuses has been selective enforcement of rules and toleration of behavior that restricts Jewish students’ freedom to move and study. Frankel made the case that universities have applied double standards, allowing some demonstrations to break rules while cracking down on others, which is precisely the issue a commission on religious liberty should address.
Boller doubled down, pressing whether rejecting Zionism equals anti-Semitism, and that set the stage for a clear counter from a rabbinical voice at the table. Rabbi Ari Berman spoke plainly and directly to the heart of the disagreement, insisting that denying Israel’s right to exist crosses into prejudice. His intervention cut through equivocation and made the moral stakes unmistakable for the rest of the panel.
“Undoubtedly, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism,” Rabbi Ari Berman said. “And one does not have to support the specific policies of the government of Israel, but to not support the right of Israel to exist, which is what anti-Zionists do, while not taking that same stand to the 28 Muslim countries and 13 Christian countries in this world, is a double standard, is hypocrisy, and is absolutely anti-Semitism.”
Boller then warned against Islamophobic remarks, saying, “I think it’s also important that we not make Islamophobic remarks while we’re here today. I would appreciate that,” which only muddled the meeting further. Observers in the room found the claim vague and the timing odd, since the discussion had centered on campus protections and double standards that affect Jewish students. The back-and-forth diminished focus on legal enforcement and the constitutional issues the commission was convened to examine.
The tone deteriorated each time Boller returned to debating Israel rather than campus enforcement, and at one point she criticized other panelists for labeling figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens as anti-Semites. That intervention drew audible laughter from several people in the room and underscored how far the meeting had wandered from practical oversight to culture-war theater. Commissioners and witnesses who wanted clear rules applied equally were left having to reassert the commission’s basic responsibilities amid the noise.
PragerU commentator Shabbos Kestenbaum cut through the circus with a blunt reminder of what matters: whether laws were being broken and whether universities treated students fairly. He rejected performative outrage in favor of enforcing standards that protect all students regardless of religion. His point was simple and constitutional: the commission’s role is to identify and correct violations, not to referee foreign policy arguments dressed up as campus speech disputes.
You can hate Jews or not hate Jews. I don’t really mind. What I do mind is when people violate the law, and that’s why this commission is so important. So, hate Jews? Think they control the banks? Think they have horns? I mean, go for it. I don’t mean you, but one can go for it. But what matters is when they’re violating the law, and that’s what the purpose of this commission is.
Whether they are violating the law against Jewish students or Muslim students or Christian students, that is when it becomes a federal issue. So, as it pertains to foreign countries, look, in Saudi Arabia, it is literally illegal to practice Christianity. But, interestingly, that was not asked.
So, if we want to apply the same standard against all foreign countries, then, absolutely, any country that discriminates against people based on their religion should probably not be considered an American ally. But I find the fixation on Israel, exclusively, when that is the only country in the Middle East that guarantees free access to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
With the meeting bogged down, reports indicate senior Trump administration officials are now weighing whether Boller should remain on the commission given the distraction she created. The practical question for conservatives should be whether commission members will defend religious liberty for everyone and ensure campus policies are enforced without partisan double standards. The outcome of that deliberation will tell whether the commission can regain focus or become another casualty of culture fights.
