Is the University of Florida Shutting Down College Republicans over Israel Criticism?
On March 14, the University of Florida announced it was disbanding its College Republicans organization, saying the action was due to an “antisemitic gesture” by a member of the club. However, this explanation was immediately called into question, with the club stating that the student responsible for making the gesture (a Nazi salute) was not a member.
Many began to suspect that the university was attempting to use the episode as a pretext to target a conservative club for its commitment to a principled non-interventionist, America First foreign policy. Additionally, it became unclear whether the university even had the proper authority to shut down the group, which filed a lawsuit against the university to prevent its disbandment.
The allegations of antisemitism against the University of Florida College Republicans (UFCR) originated with Sloan Rachmuth, a Laura Loomer-esque activist known for attacking populist-conservative figures such as Charlie Kirk, J.D. Vance, and Tucker Carlson (as well as Carlson’s family). On March 12, Rachmuth tweeted several images, including a picture of two people doing a Nazi salute, including the individual at the center of the controversy; a picture of a UFCR meeting (which was open to the public) in which that individual seemed to be present; and a third image purported to show that the individual is on the board of an entirely separate UF club, “Uncensored America.” None of these images points to antisemitism being rife within UFCR. Nevertheless, these allegations ostensibly motivated the university to take punitive action against the group.
Not only were these allegations of antisemitism against UFCR flimsy at best, but there is ample evidence that the group’s members are not antisemitic. The vice president, Evan Weinzimer, is himself Jewish. Asked for comment by The American Conservative, Michael Andre, the president, condemned antisemitism whilst affirming the importance of free speech. The group reiterated that the student who made the Nazi salute is not a member.
Compounding the spuriousness of the allegations against UFCR was the sloppiness displayed in disbanding the club. One needs to understand recent disputes among college conservatives across America to see the problem.
Following the near-collapse of the historic College Republican National Committee, several national College Republican organizations have competed to become its official successor. The two largest of these organizations are the College Republicans of America (CRA) and the National Federation of College Republicans (NFCR). Of these two, the CRA has a reputation for being more populist in its domestic views and non-interventionist in its foreign policy views, and it has historically been very supportive of Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the NFCR has been viewed as much more representative of the pre-Trump GOP, and it is alleged that the group’s leader, Rachel Howard, campaigned for Nikki Haley in 2024, based on a picture of her amidst Haley supporters during the 2024 Iowa caucus.
This split is relevant to the UF–UFCR dispute, as when the university shut down the group, it cited the Florida subgroup of NFCR, which would have the authority (under certain circumstances) to close affiliated chapters. However, UFCR is affiliated with the CRA, not NFCR, so it is unlikely that the university and the NCFR had the authority to shut it down. On these grounds, UFCR is currently engaged in litigation against the school.
Since the allegations of antisemitism made against the UFCR are spurious, and considering that the attempt to shut down the club was sloppy and possibly illegal, one wonders why exactly UF felt the need to act as dramatically as it did. Were there other issues at play?
An obvious one pertains to foreign policy, specifically the internal debate occurring within the Republican Party about whether to take an internationalist approach to foreign policy or an America First and non-interventionist approach. This debate is intricately connected with the subject of Israel and the American–Israeli relationship, which conservatives increasingly see as deleterious to U.S. interests and America’s model of republican self-government. These debates have been turbocharged by the start of the Iran War and the perception of many that the White House launched the war for Israel or due to Israeli pressure.
Within the GOP, the divide on foreign policy is generational, with polls revealing that young Republicans stand out as particularly non-interventionist and critical of Israel compared to older party members, causing visible apprehension among GOP leaders. At the same time, many young conservatives feel that the party leadership is using their votes to promote a foreign policy at odds with their views and America’s national interest.
This non-interventionism and criticism of the U.S.–Israel relationship can certainly be found among members of the UFCR, leading to speculation that these views, rather than non-existent antisemitism, were the cause of UF’s decision to disband the club. “The club has a reputation of being anti-war, anti-interventionist, and having a negative view of Israel’s current actions and, yes, their involvement with our government,” Andre, the president, told TAC. “Having that reputation, it would be extremely hard for us to dismiss any claims that our foreign policy stances are part of our deactivation.”
This view—that the foreign policy views of the club led to UF’s actions against it—is bolstered by UF’s initial statement announcing its intent to disband the club. “When the FFCR is ready, the university will also assist it with reactivating the Local CR under new student leadership,” the university announced, suggesting that it would attempt to reconstitute the College Republicans club at a future date under new leadership amenable to the Florida subgroup of the more hawkish and establishment-linked NFCR, rather than under the aegis of the more dovish and populist CRA. Such a move would represent a state-funded university weighing into the debate between different College Republicans organizations on the side of the more hawkish faction.
Anthony Sabatini, a Lake County commissioner and lawyer representing UFCR in the suit against the university, seemed to indicate that there is evidence pointing to UF acting against the club due to its stances on foreign policy. “I’m not at liberty to disclose publicly everything we had, but we basically already have evidence confirming that this was a plot that they put together in conjunction with both the university and some outside influence, some outside entities to try to shut them down based on them having an America First viewpoint,” Sabatini told TAC.
If this is indeed the case, and as UF is a state university in a red state, the deactivation of the UFCR would represent the best example of what is referred to as the “Republican Samson Option,” wherein hawkish Republicans would rather destroy the party and the conservative movement than concede defeat to younger, more dovish elements (the name is a reference to Israel’s nuclear doctrine of massive retaliation in the event of an acute security crisis). Many younger conservatives justifiably feel, due to both the outright hostility shown by many higher-ups in the party to their foreign policy views and the liberality with which hawkish voices throw around accusations of antisemitism at critics of the contemporary U.S.–Israel relationship, that hawks within the party view them, rather than the left, as the enemy.
Navigating this generational transfer of power within the Republican Party, and with it the transformation of the Republican Party into a non-interventionist party, will certainly be a challenge for many conservative organizations. However, if hawkish factions of the right are willing to use state power (in this case, through a state university) to try to silence Republican doves, it suggests that conservative hawks may indeed try to execute a “Republican Samson Option” to prevent non-interventionists from inheriting the conservative movement and moving the country in an America First direction.
Of course, if UF’s actions were indeed taken for reasons concerning foreign policy, it would not be the first example of state-backed pro-Israel censorship on behalf of the foreign policy establishment. “First they came for Columbia Palestine activists, and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a Columbia Palestine activist,” a libertarian Florida college student wryly remarked to TAC. “Then they came for the College Republicans.”
When asked for comment, the University of Florida said that it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The final hearing for a preliminary injunction will be held on April 31.