Wisconsin Becomes 38th State to Enact IHRA Speech Code; Ohio Set to Follow as 39th
“Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void"
Until yesterday, 37 states had adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as I outlined in my previous article:
![A Zionist Onslaught Against Freedom of Speech [Part 1]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!tIyt!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1e533eb1-1285-4e19-94a4-93ce27ac4153_680x483.jpeg)
Wisconsin is now the 38th state. Governor Tony Evers signed AB 446 into law on March 27, 2026, enacting it as Wisconsin Act 143.
I would wager that 99.9% of my readers have no idea this is happening. Major politicians aren’t talking about it. Headlines aren’t being written about it. But the IHRA speech codes march forward, state by state, without resistance. That’s the point: these speech codes are being rolled out quietly, with almost no coverage, no public debate, and no sustained attention from the mainstream press… the Fond du Lac Reporter doesn’t count:
I asked Jenin Younes, National Legal Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, how such a plainly unconstitutional law could be enacted. She told me:
“Well, the governor just signed it into law so there hasn’t been a chance to challenge it. And likely no one will until someone is punished under it. It’s hard (albeit not impossible) to successfully challenge laws before they’ve been used against someone. Most lawyers are skittish of those challenges (called preenforcement challenges) because they lose more often than they win. Courts prefer to rule on constitutionality of laws once they’ve been used against someone, and often find there’s no standing (injury). Lawyers try to argue the chilling effect is an injury but more and more often courts say that’s inadequate (very wrongly in my opinion). And these kinds of laws are proliferating throughout the country, which makes it very hard for lawyers to keep up… though we’re trying.”
So the trap is set. By the time the first student is jailed or the first professor is fired for daring to lecture on what constitutes ethnic cleansing, the ink will be dry and the law will be entrenched. While the public is distracted by Clavicular getting framemogged or by watching Green Bay Packers training camp, the very boundaries of what you are allowed to say about a foreign government are being redrawn by a pen-stroke in a quiet room in Madison.
As a refresher, these are 11 deliberately broad, vague, and contradictory IHRA examples of speech that can now be treated as discriminatory under Wisconsin law:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
If a professor suggests that decades of blockade or occupation are a "root cause" of a specific violent outburst, a litigious student can now claim that the professor is an “extremist” who is illegally "justifying" harm.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
If a reporter tracks millions of dollars in campaign contributions or lobbying efforts from groups like AIPAC or individuals who happen to be Jewish, a clever prosecutor can argue that the very act of highlighting that "collective power" is an illegal violation of the code. It doesn't matter if the spreadsheet is accurate; truth doesn’t matter; the law is designed to make the topic radioactive.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
This forces you to treat every political action as a series of disconnected, random coincidences by "isolated individuals." By banning the concept of "collective responsibility" or even "collective action," the state is effectively saying: You can see the lobby, you can see the money, and you can see the result—but the moment you connect the dots, you’re a criminal.
We don't apply this to any other group. If a group of Evangelical lobbyists pushes for a specific law, we talk about the "Evangelical Vote" and "Christian Nationalism" as a collective political force. If a group of Silicon Valley VCs coordinates on a tech policy, we talk about "Big Tech’s" collective agenda. But under the IHRA definition, if a group of Jewish donors or activists coordinates on a policy, any attempt to describe that coordination as a "group" effort is suddenly a "discriminatory allegation."
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Historians routinely debate numbers, logistics, and evidentiary questions within established scholarship. This is the first time in modern Western law that a state legislature has attempted to codify the "correct" results of historical research.
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
This is a unique "Infallibility Clause" that exists for no other historical event in human memory. You can argue that the casualties of the Great Leap Forward were exaggerated by the West; you can argue that the casualties of the Vietnam War were minimized by the Pentagon. We call that "revisionist history," and it is a standard part of the academic process.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Meanwhile, top Zionist thinker Melanie Phillips has told Jewish audiences "first and foremost you're Jews, and everything else is secondary."
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
You can’t question Zionism or Israel’s founding at all.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
It effectively mandates that you cannot criticize an Israeli policy unless you simultaneously provide a PowerPoint presentation on similar failings in Norway, Japan, or Canada. Imagine applying this logic to any other facet of American life: you can’t complain about your local DMV unless you first acknowledge the inefficiency of the post office in Lyon, France.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
You can’t accuse Jewish people of killing Jesus (you legally have to blame his death on Pontius Pilate).
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This would criminalize a 2024 essay from historian and Israel Defense Forces veteran Omer Bartov outlining how his research of Nazi Germany informed his concerns about Israel. It is policing historical analysis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Over 90% of Jewish Israelis support the war with Iran. "Collective responsibility" is often a reflection of collective support.
When you strip away the administrative jargon and the “illustrative examples,” the intent of this speech code becomes transparent. This is a coordinated, state-level attempt to ensure that a specific foreign power—and the domestic lobby that fuels it—is the only entity on earth exempt from the First Amendment. You can critique your own history, you can audit your own churches, and you can protest your own president—but the moment you turn that lens toward Israel, you are a criminal.
To the legislators in Madison and the lobbyists in the wings: We aren’t asking for your permission to speak. We are exercising a God-given right that no lobby group can ever take away. This is America. In this country, there is no “Geopolitical Exception” to the Bill of Rights. There is no “Foreign Power Clause” that allows a governor to edit a journalist’s spreadsheet, a historian’s archive, or a citizen’s conscience. By attempting to carve out a protected sanctuary for a foreign state, you’ve declared war on the foundational mechanics of American dissent.
We must remember the standard set at the very birth of the Republic:
“Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”
Ohio
Ohio Senate Bill 87 (SB 87) was introduced in 2025, but stalled for a while, before finally advancing on February 18, 2026, when it reached the floor for debate.
My name is Josephine Gilbeau. I’m a 17-year Army veteran and a former intelligence officer. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Do not equate Zionism with Judaism. The modern state of Israel is a political entity established in the 20th century and is not mandated in scripture. Under this bill, anyone, including Jews, speaking against Zionist actions or the Israeli genocide against Palestinians could be criminalized. For nearly two decades, I believed I was defending freedom, including conscious speech and religious liberty. If this bill passes, those freedoms are at risk at home. No law you pass can silence the faithful. No statute can erase the word of God from our hearts. If defending the right to worship, teach, and live by conscience brings persecution or even the threat of death, I stand ready, as thousands of saints and Christians have before me. We will not be silenced. Christians, Jews, and Muslims stand shoulder to shoulder against the Zionist empire and the genocide in Gaza.
Targeting critics of Israel with harsh criminal penalties, SB 87 takes away Ohioans’ ability to speak publicly against some of the most horrendous violations of human rights we have seen since World War II. Thus, Ohioans will run the risk of being criminally charged For example, publicly calling out an apartheid state, which was deemed so by the International Court of Justice. As Americans, we have always taken pride in having some of the most robust free speech protections codified in our First Amendment. If bills like SB 87 are allowed to pass, one of the few bright spots of American rights will be severely undermined in order to silence criticism of foreign government. Also, please understand this will not stop here. One after another, all of our rights to engage in peaceful dissent can and will be taken away. One needs only consider U.S. Representative Mike Lawler’s failed House Resolution 867 of May 2025, which was proposing fines up to $1 million and up to 20 years imprisonment for Americans participating in boycotts of Israel. Such egregious assaults on our freedom will only become more commonplace and brazen. We must not forget that civil rights are not forever, but need to be constantly protected from government overreach.
SB 87 sailed through the Ohio Senate on March 4, 2026, by a vote of 27-4.
The 4 votes against it were Ohio Democratic Senators: Catherine Ingram, Kent Smith, Paula Hicks-Hudson, and Nickie Antonio.
“This bill elevates hate speech not to individuals, but to nations because within the language and within the definition, it clearly identifies the state of Israel,” said Senator Paula Hick-Hudson. “It will definitely cause professors and other instructors to determine whether or not they can even raise the issue that’s happening right now in this world between the war that’s going on with Israel, the U.S. and Iran, and that is what I’m most concerned about.”
The Ohio Senate is overwhelmingly Republican.
SB 87 next will move to the House, which is also heavily Republican.
SB 87 is expected to move through the House in the coming days/weeks, leaving only the governor’s signature before it becomes law.
Tucker Carlson Chanel is showing Israeli produced documentary on the high level corruption and the many nationals calling it out antisemitism? Wake-up America!
https://tuckercarlson.com/watchthebibifiles