SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
aipac
Thank You, New York Voters, for Weakening AIPAC's Hold on US Politics
The defeat of two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress by challengers who were critical of Israeli policies and supporters of justice for Palestinians represents a turning point.
Jun 29, 2026
For the past half century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, largely held sway in elections in both political parties. They threatened and intimidated those who opposed them and, when a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory, holding it up for others as a lesson. Last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, in which three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, point to what may be the end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.
AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and, more importantly, donors—all of whom they used effectively to influence members of Congress and Senators to embrace pro-Israel positions.
They didn’t just go to elected officials in Washington asking them to endorse particular pieces of legislation; they had local leaders in a congressperson’s district make the pitch. When new candidates were running, they’d have local representatives offer to help write their Middle East policy positions. Implicit in the visit and the offers were both the promise of support if the elected official or candidates did what was asked of them and the threat of opposition if they did not.
To back up their efforts, AIPAC spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—that would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel. AIPAC claimed they didn’t coordinate the work of the PACs (which would be a violation of election laws). But, as most of these PACs were headed by AIPAC board members or their families and their pattern of contributions were too obvious to have not been coordinated, it was clear that they were.
In this new era a real debate over US Middle East policy will take place.
AIPAC was also strategic in the their operations. Not everyone benefited from their largesse. Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive members of Congress who faced tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would be the beneficiaries of large amounts of PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors with ties to AIPAC.
Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. Four decades ago, we found total amounts given by AIPAC’s PACs and their individual donors amounted to about $4 million in each election, with a handful of candidates receiving the bulk of this. When a few elected officials who’d been critical of Israel were defeated by opponents who’d been backed by AIPAC, the lobby would crow about their victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was to spread the message to other electeds: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”
With the end of federal regulations limiting the oversight of independent expenditures in election campaigns, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups took advantage by creating “super-PACs” that could raise and spend tens of millions of dollars in each election. Instead of the cumbersome job of stealthily coordinating dozens of federally regulated PACs limited in the amounts they could receive from individual donors and give to each candidate, these unregulated super-PACs could receive seven figure contributions from individuals and spend that same amount to help or hurt the candidates of their choosing. In 2022 and 2024 they effectively targeted a handful of candidates who were critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat each of them.
In the aftermath of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of support for Israel in public opinion—especially among Democrats. In this new environment AIPAC can no longer pick and choose a few candidates to make examples. They now face new challenges weekly. Over 110 US representatives and senators have supported stopping military assistance to Israel because of its violations of Palestinian rights. Dozens of electeds have charged Israel with genocide and hundreds of congressmembers and candidates have pledged that their campaigns will reject any support from AIPAC. In fact, AIPAC has become so toxic that they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates as repositories for the funds they raise to distribute to candidates.
Despite these adjustments, the hurdles being confronted by pro-Israel forces are proving to be too much. Israel’s behaviors continue to alienate more voters. The more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand has become—even when they win, they lose support for their heavy-handed tactics. Which brings us to last week’s New York primaries.
The defeat of two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress by challengers who were critical of Israeli policies and supporters of justice for Palestinians and the victory in an open race of a candidate who’d been a leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests in New York represents a turning point in US politics. It wasn’t just that AIPAC and its allies spent millions in these failed efforts—these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.
What had been the hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past involvement in campaigns was the lengths to which they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They would raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but that would not be the topic of their expenditures. They would spend money on ads criticizing a candidate’s age, their “radical agenda,” or some of their youthful improprieties. But they’d never mention that their involvement was because of the candidate’s position on Israel. This was the case in these New York contests. Many issues were important to voters, especially frustration with the tired failed policies of the Democratic Party establishment. But they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.
The reactions from the pro-Israel side have been predictable. Some have accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—as if for decades AIPAC hadn’t boasted of its money and influence as the source of its power. Others have claimed that as a result of this election, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring the fact that in the most prominent of the three contests in which a pro-Israel Jewish member of Congress was defeated, the victor was also Jewish and a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. There’s also a bizarre effort to accuse pro-Palestinian candidates and voters of fracturing the Democratic Party when for decades AIPAC did its best to fracture the party and country by forcing politicians to toe the line or face defeat. Finally, there is the desperate effort to dismiss the entire election as being just about New York and having nothing to do with the rest of the US, ignoring the fact that the national political landscape has changed with these same types of contests taking place everywhere.
The bottom line is that after a half century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but in this new era a real debate over US Middle East policy will take place. Thank you, New York voters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
NYC House Primaries Show Voters Want the Dems to Stand Up to Israel
It has become increasingly clear that unconditional support for Israel is no longer a winning issue in the Democratic Party.
Jun 24, 2026
Three Democratic candidates for House seats in New York prevailed on Tuesday night in a massive rebuke to the party establishment. Though each race was representative of a broader dissatisfaction with incumbents and specific district-level dynamics, the US relationship with Israel and funding from big-money lobbies, including AIPAC, became central components in each of these races.
Following in the footsteps Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the New York City mayoral election in 2025, Brad Lander (NY-10), Claire Valdez (NY-7), and Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13) all scored wins in Tuesday’s primaries, putting them on a glidepath to Congress in November. Both Lander and Avila Chevalier defeated sitting House members.
Particularly in the 10th District, where Lander won nearly two-thirds of the vote, those questions were seen as central. As Politico put it, the challenger knocked out the “two-term lawmaker after a bruising campaign that focused heavily on their differences over Israel.”
“There is very little daylight between Brad Lander and Dan Goldman ideologically, except when it comes to Israel,” Adam Carlson, a Democratic pollster, told Responsible Statecraft (RS). “Yes, Lander has a long tenure representing much of the district, but he won by a nearly 2:1 margin because Goldman is deeply out of touch with the base of the party on Israel—and his association with AIPAC.”
“Some have criticized my supporting progressive insurgents. Tonight shows we have a new party.”
In a sign of how much the discourse of the Israel’s war in Gaza and US support for it has shifted since October 2023, Valdez, who ran for an open seat, criticized her leading opponent, Antonio Reynoso, for not calling the war a “genocide” until he announced his run for Congress. Nydia Velasquez, the popular incumbent who held the seat for more than three decades, endorsed Reynoso before Tuesday’s election.
In the 13th District, meanwhile, Avila Chevalier, who centered her opposition to US policy toward Israel, shocked Adriano Espaillat, the current chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Avila Chevalier has said she would support the “Block the Bombs” Act that would halt arms shipments to Israel and made headlines for attending a protest one day after the October 7 attacks, which she said was in recognition of “a pattern in which whenever there is an incident, the state of Israel engages in a response that is often disproportionate and creates a greater loss of life.”
Her victory was seen as notable not only because it pitted an outsider with no prior elected experience against an established incumbent, but also because she won in a less affluent, less white district. As Alex Kane wrote in Jewish Currents before the race, progressive activists saw her race as “a sign that anti-AIPAC politics can win outside of wealthier, more highly-educated progressive districts where it’s had success so far.”
In New York’s 12th District, an area of the city which is older and more Jewish than some other neighborhoods with competitive races, there were further signs of the degree to which the politics of the US-Israel relationship has changed. Carlson told RS before the vote that they would be watching for whether Nina Schwalbe, the only candidate to call the war in Gaza a “genocide,” could run close to George Conway, a former Republican and strong supporter of the traditional relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv.
At the time of writing, Schwalbe had garnered 7% of the vote compared to 6% for Conway. The two top vote-getters in the race, who were running to replace outgoing Rep. Jerry Nadler, both described themselves as pro-Israel but anti-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said they would not vote to end military aid to Israel.
AIPAC itself kept some distance from the races in New York, though reporting indicated that apparent front organizations for the lobbying group have continued to fund candidates. Espaillat was the only candidate explicitly backed by AIPAC. Other pro-Israel groups, such as the Democratic Majority for Israel, have reportedly given money to Super PACs supporting Goldman and Espaillat.
More pro-Israel candidates have also had successes in other races, including in a Maryland Democratic primary race on Tuesday and in an earlier effort to oust incumbent Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky earlier this year.
Some sitting members of Congress framed the news as indicative of a larger wave sweeping over the party. “The progressive movement is crushing the establishment in NYC,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) wrote on X. “Some have criticized my supporting progressive insurgents. Tonight shows we have a new party.”
This week’s races in New York, all in deep blue districts, were certainly tied into other political dynamics, including the power of Mamdani (who endorsed all three progressive winners) and other district-specific issues. But as Democrats gear up for more primary races, ahead of November’s midterms and 2028’s presidential elections, it has become increasingly clear that unconditional support for Israel is no longer a winning issue in the Democratic Party.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Becomes First in Congress to Sign 'Peace Pledge' Promising to Reject AIPAC Funds
The co-founder of AIPAC Tracker said the pledge is meant to give lawmakers who once backed Israel "a bridge to get on the right side of history."
Jun 17, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna has become the first member of the US Congress to sign a "peace pledge" promising to swear off funds from the Israel lobby and block US support for countries that violate human rights.
The pledge was created by the political action committee Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption, which runs the widely shared "AIPAC Tracker" social media campaign that names and shames politicians who receive support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Israel groups that have spent tens of millions in recent election cycles to influence members of Congress.
Lawmakers who sign the pledge agree not to take money from AIPAC or pro-Israel lobbying groups and promise to make campaign finance reform a key priority.
Acknowledging the consensus among human rights organizations that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, signatories also commit to taking actions in Congress to oppose US military and diplomatic support for Israel or any other nation whose military commits gross human rights violations.
They also agree to oppose efforts by the US government to sanction members of the International Criminal Court who seek the arrest of accused war criminals, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Signatories also agree to support First Amendment protections for speech critical of Israel as well as efforts to use financial pressure against the country, like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which members of Congress have sought to criminalize.
In a video in which he signed the pledge on Wednesday, Khanna (D-Calif.) described its commitments as "pretty common sense."
"It means that we shouldn't be sending our tax [money] for foreign wars overseas, we should be spending it here at home," he said. "And it says we shouldn't be taking money from AIPAC or all of its affiliate PACs or bundled money from those organizations, and that we have to recognize the genocide that took place in Gaza."
He said, "I'm going to be signing this pledge, and I hope others will follow."
The push for lawmakers to sign the pledge comes as support for Israel has plummeted to historic lows, especially among Democratic voters in the wake of the Gaza genocide, its accelerating ethnic cleansing campaigns in the illegally occupied West Bank and southern Lebanon, and its role in pressuring the Trump administration to launch and continue a devastating war against Iran.
Voters increasingly view AIPAC as having undue influence over American lawmakers, and many Democrats—including longtime supporters of Israel—have seen the writing on the wall and become vocal critics of the lobby.
Khanna is one of them, having previously accepted money from the liberal Zionist group J Street and voted to fund Israel's Iron Dome in 2021 and in favor of a resolution conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism in the wake of October 7, 2023.
Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC, said the goal of the pledge is to give these politicians an opportunity to transform themselves on the issue while also forcing them to put their votes where their mouths are.
"While we have created a very successful pressure campaign to highlight and expose the extent of the influence of AIPAC and their allies on our lawmakers," she said Wednesday on the Breaking Points podcast, "we also have a responsibility as an organization to give people a bridge to get on the right side of history and to reflect that their policy positions have changed and to chart a new course."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular