Follow the money: Charles Asher Small urges Congress to pass the Deterrent Act to counter foreign influence and antisemitism
The issues of antisemitism and foreign influence have once again moved to the forefront of public debate in the United States following a speech delivered by Dr. Charles Asher Small, founder and executive director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), during a panel discussion held on the sidelines of the summit organized by Christians United for Israel (CUFI), one of the largest pro-Israel Christian organizations in the United States.
During his remarks, Small urged members of the U.S. Congress to adopt what is known as the Deterrent Act, arguing that efforts to combat antisemitism should not be limited to addressing its immediate consequences but should also tackle what he described as the structural factors that enable its spread within academic, cultural, and political institutions.
The head of ISGAP placed particular emphasis on the concept of « following the money », presenting it as a means of understanding the networks of influence and financing that, in his view, shape policymaking and public discourse within a number of Western institutions. He explained that tracing funding sources, whether governmental or linked to transnational organizations and institutions, constitutes an important tool for strengthening transparency and safeguarding institutional independence.
Antisemitism: an issue that goes beyond individual crimes
According to Small, contemporary antisemitism is no longer confined to individual acts of hatred or direct attacks. In his view, it has evolved into a phenomenon connected to ideological narratives and networks of influence that intersect with issues of funding, foreign policy, and higher education.
He argued that some Western universities have become arenas for intellectual and political struggles that extend beyond the boundaries of traditional academic debate, calling for stricter oversight of foreign funding received by certain educational institutions and research centers.
These remarks come at a time when American universities are engaged in intense discussions regarding freedom of expression, protests related to the war in Gaza, and the challenge of balancing the protection of free speech with efforts to combat hate speech.
« Follow the money »
Small devoted a significant portion of his speech to the importance of tracing financial flows, arguing that financial transparency is one of the key tools for understanding the nature of the influence that external actors may exert on American institutions.
According to his argument, scrutinizing funding sources helps policymakers assess the relationships between institutions and their sponsors, while also limiting any influence that could conflict with national interests or undermine institutional independence.
This perspective forms part of a broader and ongoing debate in the United States concerning foreign funding for universities and research centers, an issue that has been addressed in recent years by government reports and congressional committees amid repeated calls for greater disclosure and transparency.
A call for the adoption of the Deterrent Act
One of the central messages of Small’s speech was his explicit appeal to Congress to pass the Deterrent Act during the current year, describing it as a legislative instrument capable of limiting foreign influence and strengthening oversight of funding sources.
This proposal comes amid growing interest within American political circles in updating legislation related to transparency and foreign funding, particularly following increased concerns regarding university security and the independence of research institutions.
Supporters of such initiatives argue that greater transparency helps protect democratic institutions, while critics warn that certain legislative measures could raise concerns related to academic freedom and international relations, making the issue a continuing subject of debate in the United States.
Political Islam in the discussion
During his remarks, Small also referred to the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that combating antisemitism requires, from his perspective, greater attention to what he described as transnational ideological networks.
This position reflects the approach adopted by the institute he leads. At the same time, other scholars and studies offer different interpretations of the relationship between these issues, illustrating the ongoing academic and political debate surrounding the subject.
This point highlights the importance of distinguishing between the views expressed by speakers at conferences and seminars and positions that represent a broader academic or political consensus, as these questions remain contested within scholarly circles.
CUFI as a platform for debate
The speech attracted additional attention because it was delivered during the summit of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), one of the most influential pro-Israel organizations in the United States, which annually brings together American officials, members of Congress, researchers, and representatives of think tanks.
The summit serves as a platform for discussions on U.S. foreign policy, relations with Israel, antisemitism, and security challenges, giving the speeches delivered there considerable political and media significance within the United States.
Charles Asher Small’s remarks demonstrate the continued prominence of antisemitism and foreign funding in the American public debate and reflect the role played by think tanks and non-governmental organizations in shaping legislative discussions and influencing policymaking.
At the same time, the issue remains characterized by significant differences of opinion among political and academic actors, making it essential to place such statements within their proper context and to distinguish between personal viewpoints and verifiable facts.
Between calls for stricter oversight of foreign funding and efforts to preserve institutional independence, the debate in the United States continues over how best to balance security, transparency, and academic freedom. The issue is likely to remain on the agenda of Congress and think tanks in the coming years, as concerns over foreign influence, the fight against hate speech, and the protection of democratic institutions continue to shape public discourse.
