What this map shows

A metro-level view of antisemitic threat activity across the United States, indexed to each metro’s own recent baseline. It is built to answer one question: where is activity unusual right now, and which way is it moving — not to publish raw incident counts or pinpoint individual locations. The smallest unit shown is always a metropolitan area; no location below metro/state granularity is ever published.

Coming soon

Interactive metro map

The live, interactive map arrives alongside our public data feed.

Get notified

The interactive map goes public alongside our live data feed. Leave your name and email and we'll tell you when it's live.

The three categories

How to read it

Reading the map

  • Color = activity vs. baseline. Each metro is compared against its own trailing 90-day norm: Quiet (below), Normal (near), Elevated (above), High (well above). Color measures change, not absolute danger — a small community that doubles its usual activity can read “High” while a large city with steady volume reads “Normal.”
  • Size = relative volume. A bubble’s size reflects how much activity that metro has compared to the other metros currently shown — not an exact count. The busiest metro in any view is the largest bubble.
  • Arrow = direction. Rising, steady, or easing, versus the immediately preceding period of equal length.
  • Time windows. 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months. Aggregation is monthly at the finest; the map never exposes daily or weekly timing.

Method, briefly

Activity is aggregated to major U.S. metropolitan areas and shown only where it clears a minimum reporting threshold, so no single location can be inferred. Elevation is a ratio of the selected window’s activity rate to the metro’s 90-day baseline rate. Figures are indexed and relative by design; this map is a measure of pattern and change, not a casualty or incident ledger.

This map draws on the same underlying signal stream as the Community Risk Index — the index compresses it to a single national number; this map shows where it’s concentrated. Institutions wanting entity-specific monitoring should see Mitzpe’s Diaspora Security Practice .