Antisemitism today is documented through reports of harassment, vandalism, and assault, along with surveys of attitudes and records from law enforcement and community groups. In the United States, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) counted 9,354 antisemitic incidents in 2024, five percent above its 2023 total and the highest annual figure in its 46-year audit history. That is a U.S. count under ADL’s definitions, not a measure of every incident worldwide.
What the 2024 U.S. count says
ADL reported incidents in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Its 2024 audit said 58 percent of incidents included elements related to Israel or Zionism. ADL also states that criticism of Israel and general anti-Israel activism are not counted as antisemitic by themselves; the audit includes cases where antisemitic features were present. It reported 1,694 incidents on college campuses, an 84 percent increase from 2023.
The categories help clarify what is being measured. The audit covers assault, harassment, and vandalism, and its methodology describes how reports are assessed. The figures are incident reports, not a survey of how many people hold antisemitic beliefs, and a rise in recorded reports does not by itself identify the cause. Read the 2024 audit and its breakdowns and ADL’s explanation of its counting method together.
Separate criticism from antisemitic conduct
The ADL audit did not treat every anti-Israel rally or political criticism as antisemitic. It reported that about half of more than 5,000 rallies it tracked included antisemitic messaging, while those without such elements were not included in that count. Examples it identifies include messages targeting Jews as Jews, conspiracy claims about Jewish power, and harassment of Jewish individuals because of their identity. The distinction matters: a political view and an antisemitic act are not interchangeable categories.
For a practical assessment, identify the target and the words or conduct involved. Was a Jewish person singled out because of Jewish identity? Was a threat directed at a synagogue? Did a speaker blame Jews collectively for an Israeli decision or invoke a conspiracy about Jewish control? These are concrete features that can be evaluated. The IHRA working definition supplies illustrative examples and says context must be considered; it also explicitly protects criticism of Israel comparable to that of other countries from being labeled antisemitic.
Read the evidence with its limits
Incident audits offer a dated snapshot of recorded events, not a complete census of hatred or a direct comparison among countries with different reporting systems. Changes may reflect changes in incidents, reporting, or the method used. For that reason, use the stated time period and geography whenever citing a figure, and avoid turning a U.S. dataset into a claim about the whole world. The history and recurring forms behind current cases are explained in the antisemitism overview.