Vice President JD Vance misdefined the term "blood libel" during his closed-door appearance at the Republican Jewish Coalition summit Monday, prompting criticism from historians and Jewish scholars who say the misstep either reveals ignorance of the term or represents a problematic loosening of its meaning.
During the 35-minute fireside chat with RJC Chairman Norm Coleman, Vance defined blood libel as "the idea that because of your genetics, because of your blood, because of your ancestry, you are guilty of a crime that you never committed," calling it "the root of antisemitism" and "the exact opposite of the Christian gospel."
But scholars argue this definition fundamentally misrepresents the historical term. "Blood libel" refers to the antisemitic canard that Jews secretly murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, such as the baking of Passover matzah. The first recorded blood libel accusation stems from 1144, when the death of the young English boy William of Norwich sparked false accusations against the local Jewish community. Multiple subsequent blood libel accusations led to violent pogroms and mass killings.
The Distinction Matters
Critics note that Vance conflated two separate concepts. Blood libel is a specific false accusation about ritual murder—a fabrication, not a historical crime. By contrast, collective guilt based on ancestry is a different form of prejudice.
Commentators noted that "Vance uses the term 'blood libel' in an ignorant way," with some arguing the conflation risks treating the original blood libel lie as if it were a real historical crime and then telling today's Jews not to bear responsibility for it—which misses the point that blood libel was never true.
Not the First Time
This is not Vance's first misuse of the term. In an earlier interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Vance accused critics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of committing "blood libel" against ICE agents, equating criticism of the agency to the lie that Jews systematically murdered Christian children to consume their blood.
In both instances, Tucker's BFF trivialized Jewish historical trauma and demonstrating an imprecise grasp of terminology central to understanding antisemitism.
