New Administration Putting Jews in an Old Bind

There is a growing chorus in higher education that says the Trump administration is weaponizing its efforts to combat antisemitism for its own ideological ends.  Whether true or not, the public debate around Jew-hatred, free speech and the rule of law is putting Jews in an age-old bind. 

On the one hand, antisemitism has exploded on college campuses both before and after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, and far too many university and college leaders have been reluctant to confront it. That the federal government is holding higher ed leadership accountable is a good thing. 

On the other hand, Jews are now being portrayed as complicit in the administration’s excesses —  or worse — blamed for the draconian measures being taken in the name of antisemitism. 

If you were a Jewish financier of a medieval monarch — a “court Jew” — this would all sound familiar. Usually wealthy and sometimes brilliant, these individuals rose to positions of power within the royal courts of absolutist rulers.  But their power was always precarious, and it often ended badly for them, their Jewish communities, or both.

We might think of Biblical Jewish leaders like Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel — who gained the favor of Pharaohs and Kings — as prototypes for the court Jews. But it was during the medieval period that the role became established in the modern sense. Unlike provincial nobles, they posed no dynastic threat to rulers, were aloof to Church controversy, and could lend money at interest. 

Men like Aaron of Lincoln in 12th-century England, and Isaac Abarvanel (the Abravanel) in 15th-century Spain, could therefore rise to prominence by providing financial services to monarchs that others couldn’t provide. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Hofjuden (literally “court Jews” in German) were part of the political establishment in Central Europe, situated between two powerful factions — Church and King. In return for provisioning armies and financing wars, they were given special privileges, enabling them to worship freely and live outside of ghettoes. 

Joseph Süss Oppenheimer (1698-1738) is perhaps the most infamous example. He was employed by the Duke of Württemberg, becoming his most trusted and powerful adviser. However when the Duke died, Süss lost his protection and was promptly hanged by the new administration. 

Süss’ fate was by no means the exception, because the political rights of court Jews were based on the favor of their sponsor rather than the culture or constitutions of their states. For this reason, Isaac Abarvanel was powerless to prevent the Alhambra Decree, which led to the forced conversion or expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492.  Likewise, Aaron of Lincoln witnessed the massacre of the entire York Jewish community by a noble who owed him money in 1190. When the political winds changed, they ended up like Daniel — in the lion’s den. 

While many court Jews were advocates of Jewish emancipation, others were simply in it for themselves. As such, the term has taken on a derogatory meaning today in Jewish circles. During the first Trump administration, Gary Cohn, Steven Mnuchin and Jared Kushner were often derided as court Jews by their political opponents within the Jewish community. 

The difference today, in Trump’s second term,  is that American Jews en masse are being positioned as court Jews — caught between the whims and weaknesses of a monarchial Trump and a dogmatic academy — within the polarized political landscape of the Israel-Hamas war.

American Jews en masse are being positioned as court Jews — caught between the whims and weaknesses of a monarchial Trump and a dogmatic academy — within the polarized political landscape of the Israel-Hamas war.

The Trump administration’s actions have been a jolt to the system for many universities. We have already seen some positive results, as antisemitism is far less tolerated on college campuses today than it was a year ago. 

However, in my own work supporting university administrators in combating Jew-hatred, I’ve also noticed something else. An “antisemitism fatigue” has set in among administrators less willing to engage with the nuances of the issues. They are instead, happy to tick all the right boxes because the priority is to keep out of the administration’s crosshairs.   

I have even had administrators insinuate that higher ed wouldn’t be facing this crisis, “if it weren’t for those Zionists.”

To be a court Jew is to receive temporary protections and privileges in return for loyalty and usefulness.  We should therefore take pause when the president calls Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) a “Palestinian” for disagreeing with him. Or when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission texts Barnard professors and asks them to self-categorize their Jewishness as part of a federal investigation into antisemitism.  

Our rights as Americans are founded in the Constitution, and any weakening of the rule of law will eventually impact all of us — because the pendulum always swings.

Louis Brandeis — the namesake of the university where I teach — was the first Jew appointed to the Supreme Court. A champion of workers’ rights, privacy, and the rule of law, Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal.”  In order to keep the fight against antisemitism free from political intrigue and partisan rancor, we should heed these words.

Dr. Rachel Fish serves as special advisor to the Brandeis University President’s Initiative on Antisemitism and is an associate research professor at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies. She is co-founder and president of Boundless Israel, an independent think-action-tank promoting Israel education and combating Jew-hatred.