AIPAC’s Democratic Romance Is Hitting the Rocks

Leave a CommentAIPAC’s Democratic Romance Is Hitting the RocksCommentary, Politics

For decades the American Israel Public Affairs Committee treated Democrats as reliable partners. It spent heavily to protect pro-Israel incumbents and candidates inside the party, assuming the relationship was mutual and durable. That assumption is cracking. Progressive primary voters, especially those aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, have turned AIPAC money into a campaign liability. The group is adapting—sometimes by punishing Democrats, sometimes by looking harder at Republicans.

Where the Money Is Going Now

AIPAC and its super PAC arm, United Democracy Project, have poured record sums into the 2026 cycle. The bulk of primary spending has still targeted Democratic races. The single largest outlay was more than $30 million aimed at boosting Rep. Haley Stevens and stopping Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Senate primary. That effort failed. Similar investments have gone into defending or elevating other pro-Israel Democrats against progressive challengers, with mixed results—success in some House races, high-profile losses in others.

At the same time the group has broadened its Republican support. After more than 100 Democrats voted for an amendment that would have cut military aid to Israel, AIPAC closed its fundraising portal to many of the lawmakers it had previously endorsed. Public tallies now show a majority of its active congressional endorsees are Republicans. The organization is no longer treating Democratic loyalty as automatic.

Why the Affection Is Cooling

Democratic voters have shifted. Polls consistently show a majority of Democrats now view Israel negatively and believe the United States is too supportive of it. In primary electorates dominated by younger, more progressive, and in some places heavily Arab-American voters, “AIPAC money” has become an effective attack line. Candidates who take it or are seen as too close to it face organized opposition.

The Democratic Socialists of America and the candidates they back accelerate this. Their platform and rhetoric treat unconditional support for Israel as a moral and political failure. They frame AIPAC as a foreign influence operation and make rejection of its money a litmus test. In New York, DSA-aligned candidates used the issue to help unseat or sideline establishment figures. In Michigan, El-Sayed turned the record spending against him into proof that the establishment and its donors were out of touch. The message worked with the voters who show up in those primaries.

The Feedback Loop

Every successful progressive primary win that features anti-AIPAC messaging makes the next Democratic candidate more reluctant to accept the group’s help. AIPAC responds by spending more aggressively to stop the next challenger, which further brands the money as toxic inside the party. After the Michigan loss the organization signaled it remains determined to oppose El-Sayed in the general election and may put significant resources behind the Republican nominee. That is a departure from its traditional preference for working inside Democratic primaries.

The old bipartisan model assumed both parties would maintain a baseline pro-Israel consensus. The DSA and its orbit reject that consensus outright. Their growing success in Democratic primaries forces AIPAC to choose: keep pouring money into a party whose activist base treats the group as the enemy, or diversify toward candidates and parties more reliably aligned with its priorities. The spending patterns and the post-Michigan statements show the latter option is gaining ground.

The relationship is not dead. Plenty of Democrats still take the money and still vote for aid. But the easy, decades-long love affair is over. Primary voters, organized by the left, have made the cost of association higher than many candidates are willing to pay. AIPAC is adjusting accordingly.