There are three key numbers in the new American Jewish Committee and CyberWell report, “The State of Antisemitism in America 2024-2025: Findings and Recommendations for Major Digital Platforms.”
The first number: 74% of the general U.S. adult population who “saw or heard” antisemitism did so online, compared to 20% who did so from family or friends, and 19% who saw or heard it on the street.
The second number: 45% of Americans “saw or heard” antisemitism last year.
And the third number: Half of Jewish users who “saw or heard” antisemitism online did not report the incidents to the platforms.
Together, these findings reveal some straightforward conclusions: The internet is the hotbed of modern antisemitism; antisemitism remains dangerously widespread; and the American Jewish masses either do not trust social media platforms to deal with antisemitism or they do not know how to even try to get them to address the issue.
“Americans say that they want these companies to do more, to protect them as users, but also to protect all their users,” said Holly Huffnagle, the AJC’s director of antisemitism policy.
An email from the AJC states that, among users who didn’t report antisemitism, at least half on each platform didn’t do so because they didn’t trust the platforms to do anything about it. The email also states that “many users reported that they did not know how to do so.”
Among the major social media platforms — Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok — no one scored well on the first metric. TikTok, at 50%, had the lowest percentage of respondents who reported that they didn’t trust the platform to take action, while X had the highest, at 61%.
The numbers on the second metric do not stand out quite as much, but each platform also scored within a similar range. TikTok, at 28%, had the highest percentage of respondents who said they didn’t know how to report incidents, while Instagram had the lowest, at 11%.
According to the report, in 2025, 39% of Jews also said that “they avoided posting content online that would identify them as a Jew or reveal their views on Jewish issues.”
“What this report really did is it’s a culmination of that research to kind of this tipping point we’re at now, where most exposure to antisemitism is in the online space,” Huffnagle said.
Due to their online nature, these incidents transcend geography, according to Marcia Bronstein, the regional director of AJC Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey.
“Online hatred and harassment have become pervasive as part of the Jewish experience,” she said.
In response, social media companies need to adopt “scalable solutions across platforms.”
AJC is now in the process of pushing tech companies and policy leaders to “take major action,” Bronstein said. After the report came out, AJC CEO Ted Deutch briefed the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism on its findings. He urged increased funding for the federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program and stronger oversight of social media and artificial intelligence companies. He also said the companies themselves should use quality data to strengthen protections, according to Bronstein.
Locally and nationally, a lot of emphasis has been placed on physical security. In the Philadelphia area, it’s hard to find a synagogue that doesn’t have locks on its doors and a security guard at its entrance. The Pennsylvania Nonprofit Security Grant Program is giving out $10.8 million in grants this year, much of it to synagogues. A recent Philadelphia Jewish Exponent story revealed that local Jewish institutions have been emphasizing security as far back as the mid-2010s, the Tree of Life synagogue shooting and Oct. 7, 2023.
But according to Huffnagle, the emphasis now needs to shift a little. Physical security should still demand resources. As the recent Detroit-area synagogue attack showed, it can work, as no one was seriously injured in that car-ramming. But online antisemitism also now demands resources.
“It’s a band-aid to the larger problem,” Huffnagle said of physical security.
The AJC’s director of antisemitism policy referred to violent antisemitic attacks in real life where the perpetrator had been radicalized online. Often, like with Tree of Life, Detroit and the arson attack on the governor’s mansion in Pennsylvania on Jewish governor Josh Shapiro, the attacker posted a manifesto or explained to authorities where he had gotten his ideas.
“You can kind of start seeing the trail of where that radicalization happens online,” Huffnagle said.
“We don’t protect people in the online space like we do in real life,” she added.
Toward the end of its report, the AJC recommends nine measures to close enforcement gaps on social media. They include establishing new, clear policy guidance; addressing evolving forms of antisemitism; and preventing the incentivization of antisemitic content.
Enforcement, though, is difficult because messages are often coded. For example, “they’ll use the word ‘juice’ instead of Jews,” said Bronstein.
At the same time, companies often just don’t have good policies, according to Bronstein. For example, maybe they’ll police a post about how Jews caused their own genocide during the Holocaust, but not one about how the shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum last year was staged.
“Social media is the main source of current antisemitic information, and that’s the conclusion of the report. It’s out there; it’s not going away; we have to make sure we’re in the space, and we’re getting the conversation out there,” Bronstein said.