هذا التقرير متاح أيضًا بـ العربية
Pro-Israel lobbying groups have long played a significant role in shaping US domestic and foreign policy, which can inspire respect and trust among engaged observers like you.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, is among the wealthiest and most influential of these groups in Washington, especially when compared to other lobbying organizations, primarily through its affiliated political action committees, United Democracy Project (UDP) and AIPAC PAC, which have played key roles in election cycles since 2021highest spending among lobbying groups aligned with a foreign government during US election cycles, through its two affiliated political action committees: United Democracy Project (UDP) and AIPAC PAC.
This article examines AIPAC’s role in the current election cycle: How much has it spent? How should its recent performance be viewed? How has Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip affected its image? Understanding these updates helps you feel connected to ongoing shifts in US-Israel relations.
Shifting winds: How did AIPAC bare its fangs?
AIPAC was founded in 1954 under the name the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, to urge Congress to fund the fledgling Israeli economy and support the absorption of Jewish immigrants into the occupied land. Following the 1967 war, it expanded its work to include military and defence support for Israel.
For decades, critics have accused the organisation of using intimidation, blackmail campaigns, financial inducements, and damaging personal information to advance its aims, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of its lobbying tactics.
But it did not turn to election financing until December 2021, when it announced the creation of political action committees operating as independent entities. Through them, AIPAC has sought to attack candidates hostile to Israel while promoting pro-Israel candidates to their electoral bases, against the backdrop of shifting American public opinion, growing support for Palestinian rights, and accusations that Israel has committed war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Palestinians since 1948.
In a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University in June, 48 per cent of American voters said Washington was too supportive of Israel. Among Democrats, the figure reached 66 per cent, the highest level recorded since Quinnipiac began asking the question in 2017.
This discontent has not been confined to progressive Democrats who have historically criticised Israel. It has also spread to the Republican Party’s right-wing MAGA base, which embraces the slogan “America First” and sees Israel as an increasing burden, with some members blaming pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington for drawing the US into seemingly endless foreign conflicts.
Experts differ in their assessments of the partisan landscape that has fuelled AIPAC’s activism on Israel. Jake Dilemani says the debate over Israel is the sharpest and most substantive issue in the Democratic Party’s internal struggles. The Democratic strategist argues that the party’s other disputes — including those between candidates on the far left and mainstream centrists — concern secondary details and finer distinctions.
Halie Soifer, meanwhile, says there remains broad support for Israel within the Democratic Party and that the party’s main division centres on whether military aid to Israel should be conditioned. The executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America added that Democrats who voted for the measure had not turned their backs on Israel or the US-Israel relationship, but wanted to send a message rejecting the policies of the current right-wing Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, Shibley Telhami says Democratic voters are criticising Israel by an unprecedented margin. Telhami, a political science professor at the University of Maryland who polls American public opinion on the Middle East, says the gap between public opinion and lawmakers is deeper than the divisions within Congress. But he also argues that the generational divide among Democrats is fading, marking a fundamental shift in attitudes rather than merely a change in American public opinion.
Between gains and losses: AIPAC’s election spending highlights its strategic influence on US political dynamics, shaping candidate support and policy outcomes through targeted financial backing.
US law allows super PACs to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy, a mechanism AIPAC has increasingly used as a noticeable shift has taken place within the Democratic Party’s base, particularly among progressives. That shift became more visible with the arrival of figures such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib in the House of Representatives, their continued criticism of Israeli policies, and their calls to condition US aid to Tel Aviv on its human rights record.
Since the start of the current decade, AIPAC has focused its efforts on liberal districts where progressive candidates opposed to Israeli policies have increasingly sought office. An investigation by FactCheck.org found that AIPAC’s United Democracy Project raised nearly $104 million during the 2026 election cycle, already surpassing the $87.1 million it raised in the 2024 cycle.
These donations, provided by individuals, companies and various unions, reflect the concerns among Israel’s supporters in the United States over the profound shift in the American political landscape since 7 October and what could happen if they fail to respond.
So far, AIPAC has spent at least $100 million backing pro-Israel candidates in the primaries for the midterm elections due to be held next November. Of that amount, AIPAC spent $30 million to defeat Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan Senate candidate who, if elected, would become the first Muslim to serve in the US Senate.
AIPAC waged a fierce battle in Michigan because of the state’s importance as a swing state, its electoral weight and its distinctive demographic makeup, including large Arab and Muslim communities. The committee spent $30 million supporting Haley Stevens, the Democratic Senate candidate who had served four consecutive terms in the House, as she faced progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and outspoken critic of Israeli policies in the Middle East.
Despite the unprecedented spending and the campaign against him, which his campaign said relied on Islamophobic rhetoric, El-Sayed won. His campaign focused on public health and basic services, alongside support for Palestinian rights and calls for restrictions on US support for Israel in Congress.
AIPAC also spent $6 million to support Democratic House candidate Melissa Hernandez in California’s 14th District, but she lost to progressive Muslim candidate Aisha Wahab. In the Michigan race, reports indicated that 97 per cent of AIPAC’s large donations came from outside the state, with some of its most prominent backers being pro-Israel Republican billionaires.
The Illinois primary also drew AIPAC’s attention, with the committee spending nearly $22 million across four primary races in the state. AIPAC-backed candidates Melissa Bean and Donna Miller won their House races, while Laura Fine lost, finishing third behind Kat Abughazaleh and Daniel Biss, who won. Biss sharply criticised both the Israeli government and AIPAC’s performance, saying the committee was trying to buy off Americans and influence their electoral decisions.
AIPAC-backed Democratic candidate Melissa Conyears-Ervin also lost her race in the 7th District after AIPAC spent nearly $5 million supporting her.
Despite the setbacks, AIPAC spokesperson Deren Sussman told Axios that the organisation was fully satisfied with its performance in this election cycle. She noted that more than 260 candidates backed by the committee had won primaries in both parties. Sussman added that AIPAC supports Democrats, including progressives, as well as Republicans who strengthen US-Israel relations.
Hiding in the shadows: AIPAC as a toxic factor
Both the US war on Tehran and Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, coupled with the surge in American public awareness of and support for Palestinian rights that followed, have placed AIPAC under growing pressure and pushed it increasingly into the shadows. The committee has shifted from one of Washington’s most influential and powerful lobbying groups to a target of criticism as an electoral liability and a source of opposition among both the Republican right and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
An Associated Press-NORC poll conducted last July found that 25 per cent of Americans had a negative impression of AIPAC and its agenda, while 15 per cent viewed it favourably. The overwhelming majority of respondents had no clear opinion of the committee.
AIPAC has also begun losing support from some longtime allies in both parties. The committee accused former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of betraying American values after she attacked Israel, and launched a broad campaign against her. The lawmaker fired back, arguing that Israel had come to threaten American values and burden ordinary Americans who elected Trump under the slogan “America First”.
Some Republican candidates, including Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers, have asked AIPAC not to campaign on their behalf ahead of the midterms, fearing that its explicit support could become a liability in a state with a large Arab-American population.
Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton also distanced himself from AIPAC’s support and said he would return money he had received from the committee, citing his opposition to the policies of Netanyahu’s government in the Middle East. At the same time, he stressed that he remained a friend of Israel, but not a friend of Netanyahu or of the AIPAC that supports him.
Several political figures and groups have sharply criticised AIPAC’s heavy spending to influence the outcomes of US national elections. Critics argue that the flow of unregulated money, coupled with limited public oversight and a lack of transparency over its sources and spending methods, is a cause for concern. Some rights and civil society groups have described such spending as a corrupt tool of political pressure and blackmail, while arguing that it is increasingly facing public rejection.
At the same time, there is growing scrutiny of the role of a foreign state — Israel — in efforts to influence the outcome of local and national US elections. Critics argue that such lobbying can help draw the United States into spirals of military spending, violence and foreign-policy decisions that serve Tel Aviv’s interests while imposing costs on American taxpayers. They contend that these policies are increasingly affecting Americans’ everyday lives.
As criticism of AIPAC’s interventions has grown, the committee has increasingly relied on other committees and political organisations to channel some of its spending, making direct links between its funding and individual candidates less immediately visible. In Michigan’s elections, AIPAC operated through a newly created PAC called Stronger Michigan, through which it spent $17 million.
The effort went beyond a single intermediary. AIPAC also relied on a network of newly formed committees that can make its spending harder to trace. Stronger Michigan received funding from two other new committees — Michigan Forward and Centre Forward — which, according to reporting, AIPAC and its allies are suspected of establishing for this purpose.
In Illinois, AIPAC turned to committees including Elect Women Chicago, Progressive Chicago Partnership and Chicago Is Possible Now to finance its candidates.
The strategy drew criticism from Illinois officials at the highest levels. Governor JB Pritzker criticised the committee for spending nearly one-fifth of its budget in the state alone to influence election outcomes, using other organisations as fronts for its activities and dark-money spending — which he presented as evidence of a lack of transparency and clarity.
In a statement to Agence France-Presse, Casey Kennedy, co-founder of the pro-Palestinian Track AIPAC platform, said AIPAC had become a toxic factor for candidates and voters alike — something, he argued, the committee fully understood. The more it spends, he said, the more negativity and resentment it generates among voters across the political spectrum. That, he added, had pushed AIPAC to avoid mentioning Israel, or even alluding to Israel or US foreign policy, in its advertisements, focusing instead on attacking opposing candidates over their religious and social identities and other personal characteristics.
David Daley also noted that AIPAC’s role has taken a striking turn, as the committee has moved beyond the familiar partisan competition between Republicans and Democrats to intervene in the Democratic Party’s own ranks and electoral base. Daley argues that AIPAC is attempting to reshape the party and push it towards the centre and its more politically conservative wing — the part of the party that supports Israel without accountability or scrutiny.
Although AIPAC now finds itself in a more challenging position, that does not mean it has lost its influence in Washington. Official US support for Israel in Congress remains strong, and military and financial aid packages continue to pass by comfortable majorities, particularly as AIPAC still commands one of the largest political budgets and financial war chests among lobbying groups in Washington.
In July this year, a House resolution failed that sought to cancel $3.3 billion in US military aid to Israel. A total of 104 lawmakers — including 103 Democrats and Republican Representative Thomas Massie — voted in favour of the measure, while 314 opposed it, including 98 Democrats, and 10 Democrats abstained. The figures illustrate the continuing majority support for Israel in Congress, which AIPAC is working to preserve during the current election season.
AIPAC also insists on linking American and Israeli interests, rejecting accusations that it serves a foreign government. On more than one occasion, it has said that those who run the organisation are Americans who support Israel, and that the values it defends are shared values that serve the interests of both countries.
Competition from within: Is this the left’s moment?
The growing aversion to AIPAC appears understandable amid rising awareness of Israeli actions in the occupied territories. More striking, however, is the increasingly visible competition among Israel’s own supporters in the United States. The super PAC affiliated with J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group in the US, spent $3 million to defeat Republican candidates backed by AIPAC.
While the two organisations share broad support for Israel, they differ sharply in their policy positions, political approach and electoral preferences. AIPAC has generally aligned itself with Netanyahu’s government and its policies, despite criticism and concern in Washington and among some of Israel’s allies over their international impact. J Street, by contrast, advocates a liberal approach that is critical of Netanyahu’s policies and his far-right coalition, which it argues poses a threat to Israel’s interests and international standing.
J Street Action Fund targeted Republican Senate candidate Mike Collins of Georgia, as well as House members Max Miller of Ohio, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania and Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa. It was the first time J Street had attacked sitting officeholders backed by AIPAC during the cycle’s decisive primary season, and it marked the largest spending ever by J Street’s super PAC.
While J Street backed the later-withdrawn Mallory McMorrow in Michigan and Daniel Biss in Illinois against AIPAC-backed candidate Laura Fine, the surprise came when the group threw its support behind Aisha Wahab in California, who defeated AIPAC-backed candidate Melissa Hernandez. The move was notable because J Street chose to back a Muslim candidate critical of Israel rather than remain neutral and potentially allow an AIPAC-backed candidate to prevail in a major state such as California.
Tali Dgroat said to Axios: “While AIPAC backs candidates who are unqualified and, bizarrely, antisemitic and opposed to democratic values, solely to preserve unconditional support for Netanyahu’s government, J Street remains committed to backing qualified candidates who will fight for peace and democracy, whether in the United States or abroad.”
Ben-Ami of J Street also said in an interview with NPR that one of the main factors shaping US policy towards Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East is what he described as AIPAC’s obstructive role in American politics, particularly through its heavy spending in primary elections. He added that voters are angry about the influence of money in politics and resent major interest groups for undermining what they see as the interests of working families and Americans more broadly.