AIPAC has become such a liability for politicians, and those aspiring to politics, that the pro-Israel lobby is tweaking how it funnels money to candidates. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter this week to members announcing it will no longer directly endorse candidates or give them money through its political action committee, or PAC.
But this doesn’t mean the organization has any intention of dialing back its influence on politics. AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, will continue operating, and the organization will still organize individual donors’ contributions to candidates. According to the letter it sent to members, “AIPAC staff and local leaders will continue working with you on political fundraising efforts, recommending contributions to candidates who are worthy of your support, and ensuring your resources are deployed in the most effective ways possible.”
United Democracy Project raised more than $112 million this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings. “Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures, such as ads,” The Wall Street Journal pointed out.
This move is likely a response to growing resentment among Americans toward Israel as a result of its military campaign in Gaza and the outsized influence many believe Israel has on U.S. foreign policy. Multiple Democrats have vowed to say no to AIPAC money, with prominent Democratic lawmakers—including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom—swearing off or pledging not to accept campaign contributions from AIPAC, as have many progressives.
Only one New Jersey federal lawmaker has taken more money from AIPAC than Booker’s $851,721: Republican Representative Tom Kean. Gallego has received $141,670. In an article reporting Newsom’s claim that he’s never taken AIPAC money and never will, The Times of Israel noted that “signs are piling up that support for Israel is a mounting liability for national politicians.”
Trita Parsi, a Middle East foreign-policy analyst and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on X: “AIPAC’s name now carries such toxicity that the group doesn’t want its own name on its political donations.” Democratic strategist Jim Manley added AIPAC had become “radioactive” for many candidates.
In its letter, AIPAC bragged that it “helped 290 pro-Israel candidates win their elections and helped defeat 29 detractors.” Among those detractors is Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie. He criticized the announcement: “What a joke! AIPAC has been funneling money through ‘democracy engine’ instead of doing direct donations and bundling. I introduced a bill that would require AIPAC to disclose their influence campaigns just as others do under FARA.”
Massie lost his reelection bid this year in the most expensive House race in history, with $37 million total spent—$19 million against him. United Democracy Project contributed $4.1 million of that amount. Pro-Israel neocon and hedge fund manager Paul Singer also donated $3 million.
AIPAC claimed credit for Massie’s defeat in a statement: “Our community was proud to support Gallrein [Massie’s opponent] and help ensure Massie’s defeat.” The organization admitted roles in several other races.
While AIPAC is not a registered foreign agent, many—including Massie—argue it should be treated as such. A primary goal of the group is fostering foreign policies and cultural narratives that favor closer ties with Israel, contrary to early American statesmen’s prescriptions. As Alexander Hamilton wrote:
“These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Washington warned that foreign influence risks corrupting lawmakers and dividing the nation: “Such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!”
Today’s views on foreign entanglements differ starkly from Washington’s warnings 230 years ago. Yet AIPAC remains a key player in shaping U.S. policy—despite not being legally classified as a foreign agent.