A recent study by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) recommends that United States political parties implement binding definitions, independent review bodies, and enforceable redlines to more effectively address antisemitism among political candidates and officeholders. The research, released Wednesday, compares mechanisms used in the United Kingdom with those in the United States and proposes reforms to enhance accountability.

The report, titled “Partisan Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and the United States: Response Mechanisms and Red Lines,” was prepared by Ariel Cohen, a senior analyst specializing in international security and foreign policy, and Ofir Dayan, head of the INSS’s Antisemitism and Delegitimation Research Team. The authors analyze how political parties determine candidate eligibility and enforce consequences when ideological boundaries, including those related to antisemitism, are crossed.

Highlighting the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn as a cautionary example, the study notes that antisemitism became a significant electoral issue, culminating in an unprecedented intervention by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis. Following Corbyn’s tenure, Labour, under new leader Keir Starmer, established independent complaint processes and candidate vetting mechanisms supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), demonstrating a centralized party structure and regulatory oversight that helped address the problem. Cohen and Dayan suggest that this approach could serve as a model for other parliamentary systems such as those in Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.

In contrast, the study finds that political dynamics in the United States complicate similar interventions. Due to decentralized party networks, state-run primary elections, and First Amendment protections, party leadership cannot directly disqualify candidates or prevent them from running. This often results in fragmented or inconsistent responses to antisemitism. The authors observe that party officials typically issue public condemnations but rarely follow through with punitive actions unless additional scandals make the candidate politically untenable.

Illustrative cases include Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner in Maine, who retained party support despite a Nazi SS-associated tattoo, with withdrawal of backing only after sexual assault allegations surfaced. On the Republican side, North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, criticized for Holocaust denial comments, faced distancing from senior party figures only after reports linked him to explicit pornography-related posts. The report also references elected officials who maintained influence despite antisemitic controversies, such as Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar and Republican figures Royce White and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The study raises further concerns about the influence of prominent media personalities and external actors, citing Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s association with influencer Hasan Piker and warnings from Republican figures and Jewish organizations regarding the involvement of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and supporters of Nick Fuentes in conservative activist training spaces. Additionally, evidence of antisemitic messages among youth Republican leaders was noted as a troubling sign of extremist rhetoric infiltrating political pipelines.

While parties in the U.S. can withhold funding, endorse primary challengers, or remove committee assignments, these measures are limited by candidates’ independent fundraising capabilities and political calculations. Post-election sanctions often require congressional votes, which parties are hesitant to pursue due to narrow majorities and concerns over political backlash.

The study highlights The Front Line, a political organization affiliated with Republican Senator Ted Cruz launched in July 2026, as a prospective force for change. This group aims to treat antisemitism as disqualifying in Republican primaries, demonstrated by its $400,000 expenditure opposing Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback following his comments invoking “white genocide” tropes.

Cohen and Dayan concluded that without structural enforcement mechanisms, public denunciations alone fall short of effectively combating antisemitism within political parties. They argue that while the British example is not directly replicable, U.S. parties could implement clearer standards through endorsements, campaign finance, and committee control to uphold political legitimacy and protect Jewish communities.