Critics of the Trump administration have pointed to various controversial policies concerning universities, from the deportation of foreign students to the defunding of institutions accused of tolerating antisemitism.
These actions, according to some, reflected a broader effort to silence dissenting viewpoints on campuses.
However, amidst these debates, one policy deserves a more serious and nuanced defense: the administration’s firm rejection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks. For many Jewish Americans, especially those alarmed by rising antisemitism on college campuses, this stance was not just political – it was necessary.
The DEI framework
At its core, DEI presents a worldview that divides society into two camps: the oppressed and the oppressors. Within this framework, disparities in representation or achievement are seen not as complex outcomes of history, culture, or individual behavior, but as symptoms of systemic bias.
DEI programs aim to level all groups to the same outcomes – assuming that equity means identical results across racial, ethnic, and religious identities. On the surface, this may seem like a path toward fairness. But in practice, it often penalizes groups that have historically excelled despite adversity.
American Jews are a clear example. Despite facing centuries of discrimination, forced migration, and genocide – including the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust – Jewish Americans have, through resilience and education, become one of the most successful minority groups in the United States.
According to Pew Research Center data, Jewish adults are more likely than the average American to hold a college degree, earn above-average incomes, and work in high-skilled professions. Jews have won over 20% of all Nobel Prizes awarded – despite representing less than 0.2% of the population.
This success, however, is precisely what makes Jews a target under DEI ideology.
The Jewish relationship to DEI
If a group is disproportionately represented in top schools or executive positions, DEI ideology views that group as having unfair “privilege” – regardless of historical context. In 2023, DEI offices at numerous universities issued statements following antisemitic incidents that failed to even mention Jewish victims by name.
Some DEI administrators have described Jews as “white adjacent,” implicitly categorizing them among oppressors rather than as a vulnerable minority. This distorted reasoning ignores both historical suffering and present-day threats – including the surge of antisemitic hate crimes.
The Trump administration, to its credit, recognized this ideological flaw and took concrete action. Back in December 2019, Trump issued an executive order expanding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to cover antisemitic discrimination.
For the first time, federal funding was tied to universities’ handling of antisemitic incidents. Moreover, by opposing the expansion of DEI offices, the administration attempted to reduce the institutional power of ideologies that often overlook or misrepresent the Jewish experience.
Trump’s actions sent a message that antisemitism – regardless of whether it came from the far Right, the far Left, or within academic settings – would not be tolerated.
For Jewish students who have experienced exclusion from progressive campus groups because of their support for Israel or who have been stereotyped as privileged and powerful simply for being Jewish, this policy shift provided a rare sense of protection and recognition.
Democrats argue that opposing DEI frameworks suppresses necessary conversations about race and power. But this critique ignores the fact that DEI, as currently practiced, often replaces conversation with indoctrination.
It simplifies complex identities into rigid hierarchies and prioritizes group identity over individual merit. In this environment, Jewish students who do not conform to progressive narratives find themselves marginalized not because of their beliefs, but because of their success.
In recent years, multiple universities have faced lawsuits alleging anti-Jewish bias under the disguise of DEI programming. At Stanford University, for example, a diversity training session in the School of Medicine reportedly singled out Jews as a privileged group, causing outrage among faculty and students.
In 2021, the University of Southern California’s student government attempted to remove a Jewish vice president who had expressed support for Israel. These are not isolated incidents – they are part of a broader trend where DEI, instead of protecting minorities, sometimes becomes a tool of exclusion itself.
By challenging DEI’s overreach, the Trump administration is taking a stand not only for Jewish Americans but for a vision of equality based on opportunity rather than outcome. In doing so, it aligned itself with the foundational principles of liberal democracy: individual rights, merit-based achievement, and the rule of law.
These principles are precisely what enabled Jews – and so many other groups – to overcome adversity and succeed in American life.
To be clear, not every Trump policy on education or immigration deserves praise. But the decision to defund DEI offices and link university funding to protections against antisemitism was both strategic and just.
It recognized that equality cannot be enforced by flattening excellence or erasing history. It also recognized that antisemitism, like all forms of hate, thrives in environments where ideology silences nuance.
In an age when college campuses have become battlegrounds for identity politics, defending Jews from being labeled as oppressors simply for succeeding is not just a political position – it’s a moral one.
For all its flaws, the Trump administration got this one thing right. And that, for many Jewish Americans, is something that cannot be ignored.
The writer is a student and the youngest nationally syndicated columnist for Newsmax. He also writes for Townhall Media, with work featured in the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, and several leading Jewish publications.