Marcus Beavers, Contributing Writer
On Sept. 3, the House of Representatives passed the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026 (H.R. 4795) by a vote of 237–169. Introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the bill would prohibit higher education institutions that participate in federal student-aid programs from engaging in commercial boycotts of Israel that are not based on a legitimate business or economic reason.
Additionally, any higher education institutions receiving federal funding for foreign language or international education programs must annually certify that students and faculty may participate in programs located in Israel, according to the Congress Legislature.
Simply put, the bill could put VCU’s eligibility for federal education funding at risk if the university were to participate in an institutional boycott of Israel.
Phillip L. Swagel, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that institutions who violate program agreements may lose the ability to be involved in federal student aid programs, which include Pell grants and student loans.
The bill was approved by the House but still requires Senate and presidential approval before it can become law. VCU has already experienced major controversy surrounding pro-Palestinian protests, making this bill especially relevant to Richmond — and possibly to you.
On April 29, 2024, VCU students held a pro-Palestinian protest near the VCU Compass, according to a previous report by the CT. 13 people were arrested, including six VCU students. Those arrested faced charges for unlawful assembly and trespassing.
The aftermath especially affected Palestinian-American VCU graduate Serene Haddad, whose diploma was withheld for months because of a conduct violation regarding the 2024 protest. According to VCU’s School of World Studies, its study-abroad program in Israel was also suspended indefinitely, violating program participation agreements if this bill is enacted. Reactivating the Israel study-abroad program could cause major backlash towards the university from its students.
In May 2024, VCU students delivered a letter to Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., concerning the Israel-Gaza genocide and the April 29 protest, according to a previous report by WTVR. Their demands included asking VCU to meet with student protesters, condemn the police response, disclose its financial and academic ties to Israel, divest from Israeli companies and U.S. companies with contracts with Israel, end certain academic and governmental relationships, drop charges against protesters, return confiscated property, along with requesting that Senator Kaine oppose further U.S. aid to Israel.
Since then, the humanitarian consequences of the conflict have continued to grow. According to OCHA, Palestinian deaths in Gaza increased from approximately 37,900 in June 2024 to more than 73,000 by 2026, with a third of that being children.
Many representatives used the bill to call out anti-semitism regarding the safety and scrutiny of Jewish students, while members of the House who oppose the bill have called it constitutionally questionable and unnecessary, according to IssueVoter.
However, it is also important to distinguish criticism of the Israeli government from antisemitism. We need to recognize that opposing foreign policies and the Israeli government’s genocide is not opposing Judaism or their way of life. Political criticism and religious discrimination are not the same thing.
The potential consequences of this bill extend beyond the political debate itself. VCU represents a significant part of the Richmond community and federal funding supports many aspects of higher education. This raises a broader question: Whose economic and academic freedom is being protected and what happens when federal funding becomes connected to a university’s political or institutional decisions?
I want you to think of one person you know who could directly benefit from this bill.
Now many people do you know who could potentially be affected by it?
If the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act places conditions on the federal funding available to American universities based on their institutional decisions, then we have to ask what kind of freedom is actually being protected. Is this about protecting academic freedom, protecting universities from discrimination, protecting Israel from institutional boycotts or controlling what universities are allowed to do with federal support?
These issues need to stop being treated as a matter of left versus right and start being addressed as questions of what is best for the people who are actually affected. I believe myself to be a moral person, but it becomes difficult to know how to respond when the institutions we are told to trust appear to operate according to standards that we may not agree with.
Voters are repeatedly told to participate in the system in a responsible way: call your representatives, contact your local officials, sign a petition, vote, protest and make your voice heard. We stand among each other and watch as unfavorable, unconstitutional acts play out while there is nothing constitutional we can do about it. Is that not ironic?
We saw this happen two years ago with Kaine, but how much power could someone have within a system that does not support them and what happens when those methods stop feeling effective?
What happens when the people who are supposed to represent us no longer seem responsive to the people they represent?