The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the country, has long treated support for the Jewish state as an issue that rises above partisan politics.
As a single-issue organization, AIPAC maintains it is party agnostic, especially when it comes to political spending. But in recent years, AIPAC’s relatively new political action committees have poured unprecedented sums into races seeming, to some outside observers, to support primarily Israel-friendly Republican candidates while targeting Democrats critical of Israel.
Its recipient pool, however, is not exclusively Republican, nor are AIPAC’s targets strictly Democrats.
AIPAC says it works to elect pro-Israel voices from both sides of the political aisle and defeat any detractors of the U.S.-Israeli partnership. That dynamic was on display in Tuesday’s AIPAC-backed primary defeat of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a staunch noninterventionist and frequent critic of U.S. foreign aid to Israel. AIPAC put almost $5 million behind ad buys slamming Massie for voting “again and again” against House resolutions to stand in solidarity with Israel.
MASSIE SAYS HE ‘MAY LOSE’ PRIMARY DUE TO RIVAL’S PRO-ISRAEL CASH ADVANTAGE
On the other end, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, is pumping millions of advertising dollars into competitive Democratic contests to edge out progressives seen as hostile to Israel.
The organization’s spending trend has drawn criticism from some Democrats accusing AIPAC of working on behalf of the Republican Party.
Rather, this perceived rightward shift in AIPAC’s spending priorities reflects a broader polarization nationally over U.S.-Israeli relations, as the conflict in Gaza caused a deep schism along partisan lines.
Mirroring that divide, AIPAC over the past three election cycles has gravitated toward GOP candidates, who tend to support Israel due to shared Judeo-Christian beliefs or geopolitical interests, as well as centrist Democrats willing to align on policy positions concerning Israel.
A bipartisan brand of pro-Israel advocacy
AIPAC’s core mission, historically, was to secure congressional support for Israel regardless of which party held power.
“AIPAC has been around for decades, and we are a bipartisan organization still today,” AIPAC spokeswoman Deryn Sousa told the Washington Examiner. “Our No. 1 focus politically is on fighting for the most pro-Israel bipartisan Congress possible.”
Since its founding in the 1950s, AIPAC cultivated an image of being a bipartisan power broker in Washington, D.C. Democrats and Republicans alike attended AIPAC’s conferences, courted its donors, and largely saw support for Israel as a near-consensus issue.
AIPAC and other organizations part of the pro-Israel lobby popularized U.S. support for Israel at the time by positioning Israel as a critical democratic ally during the Cold War, arguing that the new nation would be a Western-allied stronghold against Soviet expansion in the Middle East. This narrative appealed to many U.S. lawmakers irrespective of party affiliation.
In the early 2000s, AIPAC’s bipartisan framework held strong. After the 2001 terrorist attacks and throughout former President George W. Bush’s administrations, support for Israel remained politically mainstream across both parties.
Democratic leaders, such as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), stood alongside Republicans in affirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. In fact, the first 10-year memorandum of understanding on U.S. security assistance to Israel was signed by President Bill Clinton, and the most recent one by Barack Obama.
AIPAC itself avoided operating a centralized political action committee, opting to coordinate patchworks of donors and allied organizations behind the scenes. The approach worked because Israel was not yet a defining partisan wedge in American politics.
GAZA CONFLICT DRIVES SOME AIPAC-BACKED DEMOCRATS TO REJECT 2026 CASH
However, cracks in the coalition began appearing during the presidency of Obama, whose tensions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, especially over the Iran nuclear deal, exposed a growing fissure in America between pro-Israel hard-liners and skeptics of the Israeli government.
Diametrically opposed movements also formed between Americans who believe in Israelis’ right to their ancestral homeland and activists seeking Palestinian statehood. Conservatives increasingly framed support for Israel in ideological and religious terms, while scores of young progressives adopted Palestinian sovereignty as a cause.
AIPAC establishes PACs after more than 60 years of operations
Amid this wave of activism, in December 2021, AIPAC, which up until this point refrained from operating its own federal PAC, established both a traditional PAC and the super PAC known as the United Democracy Project. The move transformed AIPAC from a sole lobbying organization into one of the largest direct spenders in congressional elections.
AIPAC, before 2021, never directly contributed to individual candidates in its 60-plus years of existence as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. It went on to rally behind a whopping 365 candidates, Democrats and Republicans, the following year, with more than $17 million dispensed in direct support.
AIPAC-affiliated entities spent strategically during the 2024 elections, noticeably concentrating their expenditures in Democratic primaries against anti-Israel progressives, particularly incumbent Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO), both high-profile critics of Israel’s military actions, which were launched in response to the Hamas terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, 2023.
EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS’ AIPAC OBSESSION IS REALLY ABOUT
That cycle, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project dedicated $9.9 million and $5.2 million, respectively, to efforts opposing Bowman’s and Bush’s reelection, in addition to $4.7 million and $3.4 million spent supporting their primary challengers, little-known Westchester County Executive George Latimer and St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell. Bowman and Bush were unseated, their losses widely attributed to AIPAC’s spending might.
AIPAC’s strategy of spending heavily in these Democratic races in order to oust officeholders opposed to Israel accelerated its identification with the Republican Party, appearing to help the GOP defeat rising stars on the political Left and boost more moderate picks.
Simultaneously, the Republican base itself became more uniformly pro-Israel than ever before. Republicans under President Donald Trump embraced policies long championed by Israeli leadership: moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and rejecting pressure regarding the West Bank settlements.
Inside the Democratic Party, opposition to Israel grew. As younger Democratic voters and left-leaning Jewish Americans demanded that party officials show support for Palestinians and speak out against Israel, some candidates started openly distancing themselves from AIPAC, despite many of them previously accepting AIPAC money.
Since then, Republicans have remained overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, while Democratic support became conditional and fractured. AIPAC continued to endorse and finance certain Democratic campaigns, but those Democrats, for the most part, comprised the party’s centrist wing. Meanwhile, anti-AIPAC organizing became a badge of honor for some progressive hopefuls.
Democrats today spar over AIPAC ties
Today, AIPAC is a polarizing force within the Democratic Party. Once celebrated as a bipartisan bridge between the two parties, AIPAC now sits at the center of one of the Democratic Party’s fiercest internal fights.
AIPAC has become a taboo subject in Democratic circles, shaping several critical battles for the party’s nomination ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Insiders say even mere association with the organization may hurt a candidate in the primaries.
In Michigan, Democrats vying for the state’s open Senate seats are tiptoeing around the topic of AIPAC, considering it a “toxic” buzzword that could tank a contender’s chances.
In Illinois, during the televised Democratic debate for Chicago’s congressional district, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss claimed that Illinois state Sen. Laura Fine was “bankrolled by AIPAC and MAGA donors.”
A third candidate, self-described democratic socialist Kat Abughazaleh, jumped in to attack the dueling Jewish candidates for what she called “bickering over who likes AIPAC more.”
Biss eventually won the Democratic primary with 29.4% of the vote, and Abughazaleh finished behind him with a close 26.3%. Fine received only 20% out of the crowded 15-candidate field.
AIPAC’s influence is also looming over Democrats’ White House aspirations.
AIPAC-FUNDED DEMOCRATIC LEADERS BUCK ISRAEL ON IRAN STRIKES
Asked by Politico about accepting funding from AIPAC, several Democrats eyeing 2028 presidential runs pledged not to take the group’s money, including some, such as Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who had received donations as recently as December.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) declared on camera he never has and “never will” take donations from the group, and Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) swore off support, vowing in March he would no longer take AIPAC cash.