Executive Summary
The surge of anti-Israel protests across the United States following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel has imposed substantial economic costs on businesses, communities, and public institutions. Unlike many previous protest movements that caused high-intensity but short-term damage, these demonstrations have been prolonged—often lasting weeks or months in certain areas. Their economic impact has consequently accrued over time rather than peaking in a single wave of disruption.
The Middle East Forum’s comprehensive analysis reveals that the total economic impact has reached $1.51 billion in nationwide costs, with the potential to increase as protests continue. The primary cost drivers include lost business revenue of $1.19 billion from long-lasting disruptions to commercial and retail activity, particularly affecting Jewish-owned businesses and those perceived as supporting Israel. Law enforcement costs have reached $97.3 million due to continuous overtime, special deployments, and security-related expenses across multiple jurisdictions. Lost wages amount to $178.5 million from workers’ income lost due to business disruptions and closures. Property damage of $33.1 million has been relatively moderate compared to historically destructive protests, but remains significant, especially for uninsured small businesses. Additional categories include security upgrades ($1.65 million), insurance premium hikes ($2 million), and injury and death costs ($6.5 million).
For those affected by these economic losses, civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) presents a potential legal remedy worth exploring. The recent Supreme Court decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc v. Horn has broadened RICO’s applicability for recovering economic damages. While civil RICO litigation involves high evidentiary burdens—requiring proof of an “enterprise,” a “pattern of racketeering activity,” and direct causation of harm—it offers significant advantages, including treble damages and the ability to reach organizational assets.
This report provides both a data-driven assessment of economic impacts and a legal roadmap for businesses seeking recovery through civil RICO claims. With demonstrations likely to continue, understanding both the economic toll and potential remedies is essential for affected businesses, legal practitioners, and policymakers.
Introduction & Scope
Since October 7, 2023, the United States has witnessed a wave of anti-Israel protests of unprecedented scope and duration. These demonstrations have evolved from isolated campus events to coordinated nationwide actions targeting Israeli and Jewish institutions, businesses, and communities. Beyond the immediate security concerns, these activities have generated significant economic consequences that merit detailed analysis.
This report aims to quantify seven core cost categories: (1) Property Damage, (2) Law Enforcement Costs, (3) Lost Business Revenue, (4) Lost Wages, (5) Security Upgrades, (6) Insurance Premium Hikes, and (7) Injury and Death Costs. We detail the methodology behind our economic impact calculations, including data sources, modeling assumptions, and the rationale for each estimate. Additionally, we compare current estimates to historical protest events for context, demonstrating the unique character of these sustained demonstrations. The report highlights uncertainties in the final economic toll, as outcomes continue to evolve with ongoing protest activity and developing insurance/legal settlements. Finally, we evaluate civil RICO applications as a potential legal remedy for businesses and institutions suffering economic losses due to coordinated protest activities.
These economic impact figures represent initial estimates based on available data and should be interpreted as preliminary findings subject to refinement. While we have developed a structured methodology to quantify these impacts, the complexity of analyzing ongoing social phenomena introduces inherent uncertainty not fully captured in the point estimates presented. The $1.51 billion total economic impact should be understood as an order-of-magnitude assessment rather than a definitive calculation. Subsequent analyses will incorporate additional validation, sensitivity testing, and uncertainty quantification as more data becomes available.
Our analysis represents the most comprehensive effort to date to capture the full economic impact of these protests. While acknowledging that peaceful demonstration remains a protected constitutional right, this report focuses specifically on quantifying the economic consequences of disruptive tactics and exploring legal options for those harmed by such activities.
Key Findings & Cost Breakdown
Our research has identified $1.51 billion in total economic costs attributable to anti-Israel protests between October 2023 and early 2025. This figure encompasses seven distinct categories of economic impact:
Lost business revenue constitutes the largest single contributor to economic damage, representing nearly 79 percent of total costs. This category reflects prolonged disruptions to commerce over multiple weeks or months, particularly for businesses targeted for boycotts due to Israeli connections or Jewish ownership, retail establishments in areas experiencing repeated demonstrations, commercial zones subjected to “economic blockades” and deliberate disruption, and campus facilities closed during building occupations and protest encampments.
Law enforcement costs comprise police overtime, extended deployments, specialized crowd-control efforts, and—in some locations—National Guard assistance. Major university systems have incurred substantial security expenses, with the University of California system alone reporting approximately $29 million in protest-related costs, including $10 million at the University of California, Los Angeles, and $8 million at the University of California, Berkeley.
Lost wages represent workers’ wages forfeited due to reduced hours or business closures, amounting to approximately 15 percent of lost revenue. Hourly employees in retail, food service, and campus operations have been particularly affected by protest-related closures and reduced customer traffic.
Property damage, while considerably lower than the most destructive riots in past decades, remains substantial across many cities. Damage to campus facilities, vandalism of Jewish community centers and synagogues, and defacement of Israeli-linked businesses account for much of this category. Approximately 40 percent of this damage is estimated to be uninsured, creating significant hardship for small business owners.
Security upgrades reflect investments by some businesses of approximately 5 percent of their property damage total into security enhancements, including reinforced storefronts, surveillance systems, and private security personnel. Jewish community centers and synagogues have also significantly increased security expenditures.
Insurance premium hikes affect businesses filing protest-related insurance claims, with increases estimated at 10 percent on average. Industry analyses following similar civil unrest events typically show 5-15 percent premium hikes in affected neighborhoods.
Injury and death costs include medical expenses, legal settlements, and lost productivity from protest-related incidents. While significant physical violence has been relatively limited, several incidents have resulted in serious injuries or death, with corresponding economic impacts.
Methodology
Our methodology integrates multiple data sources and analytical frameworks to generate reliable estimates of economic impact. This approach prioritizes transparency while acknowledging the inherent uncertainty in quantifying complex social phenomena.
Our protest event data draws from the Harvard Carr Center for Human Rights Policy’s Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC), which systematically tracks protest size, duration, arrests, and injuries. We supplemented this with web-scraped news reports and government statements to provide granular local details, along with city and state government records documenting overtime pay, National Guard expenditures, and emergency budgets.
For economic and business data, we used U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) local revenue data, median incomes, and economic baselines. Small Business Administration (SBA) records on disaster loan applications and small-business closure trends provided additional insight, as did insurance industry reports on civil unrest claims and insured vs. uninsured damage ratios.
Historical protest benchmarks from Ferguson (2014), Baltimore (2015), George Floyd protests (2020), and the Capitol riot (2021) served as calibration points to assess the reasonableness of our property damage, policing costs, and injury estimates.
After compiling protest event data, we integrated structured economic indicators to estimate various impacts. Property damage was adjusted by local median incomes, recognizing that higher-income areas typically experience higher replacement costs. Business revenue impact was calculated from city- or county-level daily revenue data, multiplied by days of disruption and a calibrated “disruption factor.” Wage impacts were based on industry-standard labor cost ratios, with approximately 15 percent of lost revenue attributed to worker wages in retail and service sectors. This approach enables region-specific analysis that reflects local economic conditions. For example, a demonstration blocking access to Manhattan’s Diamond District has significantly different economic implications than a similar-sized protest in a small college town.
For property damage estimation, we used a baseline of $50,000 per protest event with confirmed damage, assuming approximately 60 percent insured vs. 40 percent uninsured based on typical riot data patterns. Historical records consistently show that a significant fraction of property damage in protest scenarios goes uninsured, especially for small businesses lacking comprehensive policies.
Law enforcement costs were calculated using a baseline formula of $3,000 + $5 × (Protest Size), adjusted with a 1.2× multiplier if numerous arrests occurred and 1.1× for police injuries. This formula captures overtime pay for extended shifts, specialized crowd-control equipment, and administrative costs. National Guard mobilizations, when triggered, substantially inflated these totals.
Lost business revenue and wages were estimated using the formula: Lost Revenue = (Average Daily Revenue) × (Days of Disruption) × (Disruption Factor), where the “Disruption Factor” accounts for partial closures or reduced foot traffic, calibrated from historical events. Lost wages were calculated as approximately 15 percent of lost revenue flowing directly to labor costs. Extended or repeated protests prompt temporary shutdowns, reduced hours, and customer avoidance, with wage losses typically mirroring a portion of revenue declines.
For injury and death costs, we estimated $30,000 per recorded injury (reflecting typical medical expenses, short-term disability, and lost productivity) and $500,000 per fatality (based on wrongful death settlement data, typically ranging $300,000–$1 million). While government agencies sometimes use $10 million as the “value of a statistical life,” protest-related settlements often fall far below that threshold.
Security upgrades were calculated as 5 percent of total property damage allocated to enhanced security measures. Past events (Minneapolis 2020, Baltimore 2015) demonstrate that businesses typically invest in fortification after experiencing property damage.
Insurance premium hikes were estimated at a 10 percent increase in premiums for businesses filing relevant claims. Industry analyses following the George Floyd protests noted 5–15 percent premium increases in affected neighborhoods.
The $1.51 billion total represents a straightforward summation of the seven cost categories. However, several limitations warrant acknowledgment. These include incomplete data, as real-time business closures and final insurance payouts often lag, meaning final tallies may differ substantially. Regional variation is significant, as not all cities face identical protest intensity or economic conditions. The evolving situation means that as demonstrations continue or escalate, law enforcement and lost revenue figures will increase accordingly. Additionally, indirect effects such as long-term effects on consumer confidence, property values, and tourism are not fully quantified in this analysis.
Historical Context and Comparisons
Comparing the economic impact of anti-Israel protests to major historical demonstrations provides essential context for understanding their significance and potential trajectory.
Several key observations emerge from this comparison. Property damage from anti-Israel protests ($33.1M) has been moderate compared to events with large-scale looting/arson like the 2020 demonstrations, but still significant across numerous cities and institutions. Law enforcement costs ($97.3M) already exceed those from most historical protests except the nationwide 2020 unrest, with continued deployments suggesting further increases. Lost business revenue ($1.19B) dwarfs that of most short-lived protests, reflecting the sustained and targeted nature of these demonstrations.
The pattern of economic harm differs significantly from historical precedents, with these protests characterized by extended duration, as most historical riots lasted days or weeks while these protests have continued for months with little sign of abating. Geographic dispersion is another distinguishing feature, as rather than concentrating in a single city, these protests have simultaneously affected dozens of metropolitan areas and campuses. The targeted disruption approach means many protest actions have explicitly targeted Jewish businesses or pro-Israel institutions, amplifying economic impacts on specific communities.
This historical context underscores the unique economic challenge posed by these protests. While individual incidents may be less destructive than major riots, their cumulative and targeted impact has created economic harm comparable to much larger civil disturbances.
Civil RICO: A Legal Framework for Recovery
For businesses and institutions suffering economic losses from coordinated anti-Israel protest activities, civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) offers a potential avenue for substantial financial recovery. This section analyzes the legal framework, requirements, and practical considerations for pursuing such claims.
While often associated with criminal prosecutions of organized crime, RICO also provides for private civil actions under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). This provision allows any person or business “injured in his business or property” to sue those responsible and recover treble damages plus attorney’s fees—a powerful incentive for litigation.
The civil RICO framework requires plaintiffs to prove four key elements. First is the “person” element: the defendant(s) must be “persons” (individuals or organizations) capable of being held legally accountable. Second is the “enterprise” element: the defendant(s) conducted or participated in an “enterprise”—a structured association with a common purpose. Third is the “pattern of racketeering activity” element: the defendants engaged in at least two qualifying criminal acts (predicates) within a 10-year period, showing relatedness and continuity. Fourth is the “direct causation” element: the plaintiff’s business or property was injured “by reason of” the RICO violation.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (2025) significantly clarifies and potentially broadens civil RICO’s application to protest-related damages. Justice Barrett’s majority opinion established that economic losses flowing from personal injuries can qualify as recoverable “business or property” damage under RICO. However, the plaintiff must still demonstrate direct causation—foreseeable consequences alone are insufficient. Additionally, a pattern of racketeering activity remains essential; a single incident causing harm does not create RICO liability. This ruling potentially strengthens civil RICO claims against protest organizations whose coordinated actions result in business closures, property damage, or revenue losses. For example, a store owner physically prevented from operating due to repeated intimidation or blockades could recover not just for property damage but also for lost profits during closure.
Several cases provide insight into RICO’s application to protest movements. In NOW v. Scheidler (2003), the Supreme Court ultimately rejected RICO claims against anti-abortion protesters, finding that their conduct (clinic blockades) did not constitute “obtaining property” as required for Hobbs Act extortion. However, the Court left open the possibility that other predicate acts could support RICO claims against protesters. Energy Transfer Partners v. Greenpeace (2017-2020) demonstrates both the potential and challenges of RICO in protest contexts. While initially dismissed for failing to establish an “enterprise” and “pattern,” it illustrates how coordinated protest campaigns that cross into illegality might trigger RICO liability. These precedents underscore that while RICO cannot be used to suppress legitimate protest, it may apply when protest organizations coordinate unlawful tactics that directly cause economic harm.
For affected businesses, several factors would support potential civil RICO claims against organizations coordinating anti-Israel protests. Enterprise evidence could include national groups with local chapters (like Students for Justice in Palestine or the Palestinian Youth Movement) that coordinate protest actions across multiple locations, potentially constituting enterprises under RICO. Potential predicate acts might include extortion under the Hobbs Act (if protesters demand businesses cut ties with Israel through threats), interstate travel to commit violence or property destruction, arson or bombing (in cases where such tactics have been employed), or conspiracy against civil rights (if protests specifically target Jewish-owned businesses). The sustained, multi-location nature of these protests potentially satisfies the continuity element necessary for establishing a pattern. Regarding direct causation, businesses specifically targeted by coordinated boycotts, blockades, or vandalism campaigns can demonstrate direct causation between organizational activities and economic harm. The recent discovery of tactical manuals allegedly found at Columbia University detailing methods for causing economic disruption could further strengthen RICO claims by demonstrating coordinated intent to cause economic harm.
Any civil RICO action must carefully distinguish between protected speech/assembly and unprotected criminal conduct. Courts have consistently held that, while peaceful protest enjoys robust constitutional protection, activities involving violence, property destruction, or true threats fall outside First Amendment boundaries. Civil RICO claims focused narrowly on coordinated illegal tactics—rather than on the underlying message or viewpoint—stand the best chance of surviving First Amendment scrutiny. For example, a claim targeting an organization’s coordinated campaign of property destruction would likely be permissible, while one based merely on organizing peaceful boycotts would not.
Practical Applications for Affected Businesses
For businesses and institutions affected by anti-Israel protests, civil RICO represents one potential—though complex—avenue for recovery. This section provides practical guidance on evidence collection, case development, and strategic considerations.
Effective RICO claims depend on comprehensive documentation. Affected parties should record all incidents with dates, times, and detailed descriptions (including identifying features of protest groups like banners, chants, or literature). They should preserve video, photographs, and social media content showing coordination between protesters and any linkage to broader organizations. Maintaining detailed financial records demonstrating economic losses is crucial, including revenue comparisons to pre-protest periods, specific cancellations or lost contracts attributable to protest activity, property repair costs with before/after documentation, and additional security expenses incurred. Collecting communications from protest groups such as demands, threats, or public statements advocating economic harm against specific businesses provides important evidence. Filing police reports for all instances of property damage, intimidation, or illegal interference with business operations creates an official record that can support future claims. This documentation provides the foundation for establishing both the pattern of activity and direct causation required for RICO claims.
The most viable civil RICO plaintiffs include businesses directly targeted by coordinated boycotts, blockades, or vandalism campaigns; property owners whose buildings suffered repeated damage from organized protest activities; and institutions (like universities) that incurred substantial security costs and property damage from building occupations.
Plaintiffs should consider identifying the proper defendants, which might include national organizations directing or financing protest activities, local chapters implementing coordinated tactics, and individual leaders who personally participated in or directed illegal acts. Establishing enterprise structure is essential, requiring evidence of organizational hierarchy and leadership, funding relationships between national and local groups, communication networks coordinating simultaneous actions across locations, and shared resources, tactics, and training materials. Demonstrating predicate acts requires evidence that activities crossed from protected protest into illegal territory, such as documented extortionate threats against businesses, coordinated property destruction or defacement, and evidence that protest leaders directed or encouraged illegal activity. Proving direct causation means showing that economic losses were specifically intended by the defendants (e.g., through explicit targeting), directly caused by the pattern of illegal activity (not merely foreseeable), and not attributable to independent market forces or legitimate protest speech.
Civil RICO offers several advantages for protest-affected businesses. Treble damages multiply actual losses by three, substantially increasing potential recovery. Attorney’s fees provisions make litigation financially feasible even for smaller businesses. Joint and several liability allows recovery from any participating organization with assets. Federal jurisdiction provides consistency across different protest locations.
However, significant challenges remain, including the high evidentiary burden that requires establishing all RICO elements, First Amendment defenses that may limit claims against protest speech versus conduct, litigation costs that can be substantial even with potential fee recovery, and public relations considerations as litigation might generate additional controversy.
Affected businesses should consider RICO as one option within a broader recovery strategy that might include insurance claims for covered property damage or business interruption, traditional tort actions for trespass, nuisance, or intentional interference with business, injunctive relief seeking court orders to prevent specific illegal protest tactics, security enhancements to prevent future losses, and community engagement to rebuild customer confidence and address underlying tensions. The optimal approach depends on each business’s specific circumstances, resources, and long-term objectives.
Future Outlook and Recommendations
As anti-Israel protests continue to evolve, businesses, institutions, and policymakers should prepare for ongoing economic challenges while developing appropriate response strategies.
Several factors suggest these protests may continue for an extended period. Global conflict dynamics mean ongoing tensions in the Middle East will likely fuel continued activism. Organizational infrastructure has been established, with national and international networks supporting these protests through sustainable funding and coordination mechanisms. Campus momentum has created self-reinforcing communities that persist beyond individual events. Directed tactics demonstrate sophisticated coordination across geographic locations. Consequently, affected parties should prepare for sustained economic impacts rather than expect a rapid resolution.
Businesses vulnerable to protest activity should implement proactive measures, beginning with security assessment and enhancement. This includes conducting professional vulnerability assessments, installing appropriate physical security measures (reinforced glass, improved locks, surveillance systems), and developing staff training for non-confrontational response to protesters. Business continuity planning is also essential, requiring the establishment of protocols for operating during disruptions, development of alternative customer access points (enhanced online operations, delivery services), and creation of financial reserves for weathering extended disruptions. Insurance review should evaluate coverage for civil unrest, business interruption, and property damage; consider specialized coverage if operating in high-risk locations; and document pre-protest condition and value of property. Documentation systems should implement systematic tracking of all protest-related incidents, maintain detailed financial records that could support future claims, and preserve evidence of any coordination or targeting by protest groups.
For businesses considering legal remedies for economic harm, evidence preservation is crucial. This means systematically documenting all economic losses with clear attribution to protest activities, retaining video, photographs, social media posts, and other evidence showing coordination between protest groups, and maintaining contemporaneous records of threats, intimidation, or other conduct exceeding protected speech. Legal consultation should engage counsel experienced in civil RICO and First Amendment issues, develop preliminary assessments of claim viability, and consider coordination with similarly affected businesses for shared legal resources. Strategic planning must evaluate all legal options (RICO, traditional torts, insurance claims), assess potential public relations implications of litigation, and consider timing in relation to ongoing protest activities.
Policymakers addressing the economic impact of these protests should consider several factors. A balance of rights protection is necessary to uphold legitimate free speech and assembly rights, distinguish protected expression from coordinated economic disruption, and develop clear enforcement guidelines for law enforcement. Economic support mechanisms should explore targeted relief for businesses suffering prolonged disruption, consider expanded insurance programs for civil unrest coverage, and develop community revitalization initiatives for severely affected areas. Security resource allocation must ensure adequate law enforcement resources for protest management, provide specialized training for handling politically sensitive demonstrations, and establish clear protocols for protecting both protesters and affected businesses.
Limitations and Future Refinements
It is important to note that the findings presented in this report should be considered initial estimates subject to further refinement. While our methodology provides a structured approach to quantifying economic impacts, several limitations warrant acknowledgment.
The point estimates presented ($1.51 billion total economic impact and constituent category totals) necessarily involve uncertainty that is not fully captured in this preliminary analysis. Future iterations of this research would benefit from the inclusion of confidence intervals or scenario analyses to better communicate the range of potential outcomes given the inherent variability in the underlying data.
Several baseline assumptions, including the $50,000 baseline per damage event, the 60/40 insured/uninsured ratio, and the attribution of 15% of lost revenue to wages, represent initial parameters based on historical patterns. These warrant further validation through additional empirical testing and sensitivity analysis.
The “Disruption Factor” used in our lost revenue calculations, while calibrated against historical events, represents a particularly important area for methodological refinement. This multiplier’s derivation and validation will be more extensively documented in subsequent analyses as additional data becomes available.
Causal attribution presents significant challenges in this analysis. While we have attempted to isolate protest-related impacts, external factors such as economic cycles, seasonal patterns, and changing consumer behaviors may influence business performance independent of protest activity. Advanced causal inference techniques could strengthen future iterations of this research.
Despite these limitations, we believe this analysis provides a valuable initial framework for understanding the economic dimensions of these protests. Stakeholders should interpret these findings as preliminary estimates that establish order-of-magnitude impacts rather than definitive figures. As protests continue and additional data becomes available, we anticipate refining both our methodology and estimates accordingly.
Conclusion
The anti-Israel protests that emerged following October 7, 2023, have imposed unprecedented economic costs across American communities. Our analysis reveals $1.51 billion in total economic impact, with particularly significant effects on business revenue ($1.19 billion), wages ($178.5 million), and law enforcement expenditures ($97.3 million). Unlike historically short-lived civil disturbances, these protests have maintained remarkable persistence and geographic reach, suggesting continued economic challenges ahead.
For businesses suffering these economic consequences, civil RICO potentially offers a powerful legal remedy, and individuals may seek redress now, particularly following the Supreme Court’s clarification in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn that recoverable business injuries can include economic losses flowing from other types of harm. While establishing the required “enterprise,” “pattern,” and “direct causation” elements presents significant challenges, successful claims could yield substantial recovery through treble damages and attorney’s fees provisions.
Ultimately, addressing the economic fallout requires a multifaceted approach combining legal remedies, security enhancements, business adaptations, and thoughtful policy responses. The Middle East Forum will continue monitoring these developments and provide updated economic analysis and legal guidance as these protests evolve.
