AIPAC is changing the way it participates in American elections.
The pro-Israel organization said this week that it will stop issuing candidate endorsements, making direct PAC contributions, and earmarking donations for candidates. Its affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, will continue operating, and AIPAC says it will expand organized giving directly from individual members.
In its letter to members, AIPAC called this election cycle “one of the most challenging environments in recent memory” and warned that the challenges facing pro-Israel political advocacy would continue to grow.
Political organizations change tactics all the time. The troubling part is why this change appears necessary.
Why has an American political organization concluded that openly putting its name behind a candidate may hurt that candidate?
AIPAC has given critics plenty to argue about. Its spending is substantial. Some object to its intervention in Democratic primaries. Others have condemned its past endorsements of Republicans who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election. Still, others oppose Israeli policy in Gaza or Iran.
Those are legitimate political arguments. Criticism of AIPAC is not inherently antisemitic.
But they do not tell the whole story.
Hostility toward Israel has grown sharply, particularly among Democrats. Pew Research Center found this spring that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents viewed Israel unfavorably, up from 53% in 2022. Republicans remain considerably more favorable toward Israel, although younger Republicans have also become more negative.
The backlash against AIPAC is not exclusively Democratic. But much of the most visible pressure has come from within a Democratic coalition whose relationship with Israel has changed dramatically.
That makes AIPAC’s retreat from public endorsements more than campaign inside baseball. An American organization devoted to maintaining the U.S.-Israel relationship has apparently concluded that its visible support can itself become politically damaging.
That is worth thinking about.
Political action committees are easy to dislike. Money in politics is unpopular for understandable reasons. Large donors can acquire access that ordinary voters do not have, and outside spending can overwhelm local campaigns.
But PACs also allow Americans with shared convictions to organize, combine resources, and support candidates who agree with them. That is part of democracy, too.
The Supreme Court has wrestled with that tension for decades. In Buckley v. Valeo, the court upheld limits on direct campaign contributions while recognizing important First Amendment interests surrounding political speech and association. Citizens United v. FEC later protected independent political expenditures while leaving contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements in place.
One can disagree with where the court drew those lines. The broader point is simpler: Collective political advocacy is not some aberration in American democracy.
That brings us back to AIPAC.
I am not asking anyone to like AIPAC. I am asking that the same standard be applied to everyone.
If the objection is to PAC money, apply that objection generally. If enormous independent expenditures are the problem, confront super PACs generally. If single-interest organizations should not spend millions rewarding allies and defeating opponents, use the same standard for organized labor, gun-rights and abortion-rights groups, environmental organizations, fossil-fuel interests, technology companies, and the cryptocurrency industry.
The principle should not change when the cause does.
Nor is AIPAC an Israeli political committee. The Federal Election Commission identifies AIPAC as an American membership organization PAC. AIPAC says its members and donors are Americans and that it is neither funded nor directed by the Israeli government.
Critics are entitled to challenge AIPAC’s positions, spending, and conduct. They should not casually turn “Americans who support Israel” into “foreign agents.”
That distinction matters even more in the present climate.
The Anti-Defamation League recorded 6,274 antisemitic incidents in the United States in 2025. That was down substantially from the extraordinary 2024 peak but still the third-highest total since ADL began tracking such incidents in 1979. Physical assaults reached a record.
Meanwhile, Israel remains in an active conflict with Iran after years of war with Hamas and Hezbollah. For Israelis, threats to their security and even their existence are not abstractions.
None of that puts AIPAC beyond criticism.
It makes precision and equal treatment more important.
At precisely the moment when antisemitism remains elevated and Israel faces genuine danger, Americans who believe supporting Israel serves American interests retain the same right as everyone else to organize, contribute, and vote accordingly.
There is something particularly sad about reaching the point where an American organization representing that cause feels it must make itself less visible to help the candidates it supports.
Cuban Americans may organize around Cuba. Armenian Americans may organize around Armenia. Indian Americans may advocate for closer U.S.-India relations. Americans concerned about Ukraine, Taiwan, or NATO may make those issues central to their political participation.
Support for Israel cannot be the exception.
Criticize AIPAC for what it does. Do not stigmatize Americans for the cause they choose to support.
There is a simple test.
State the standard you believe should govern political advocacy before you say the name AIPAC. Then apply it when the organization supports a cause you agree with.
IRELAND HOSTED AN ANTISEMITISM SUMMIT. A DUBLIN HOTEL SHOWED WHY IT WAS NEEDED
If the standard suddenly changes, the problem was never simply money in politics.
And that double standard demands an explanation.
Arie Blitz, M.D., M.B.A., is a retired physician and independent writer in Weslaco, Texas, who writes on foreign policy, medical ethics, and public policy.