On May 20, headlines underscored Representative Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) loss in his state’s GOP primaries, losing his 14-year position to Republican opponent Ed Gallrein.
Though many politicians are being cycled out by incoming candidates, Massie’s loss drew particular attention to what made his opponent fundamentally different. Many have narrowed this assessment down to an organization backing Gallrein, and many other politicians, known as AIPAC.
But why is this detail drawing so much attention? What even is AIPAC? Does it really impact how American politics functions?
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a non-profit organization that advocates for stronger relations between America and Israel. Lobbying for congressional action, AIPAC helps to ensure the United States continues its support for Israel, both politically and materially.
The essential function of AIPAC in promoting American-Israeli ties is to back pro-Israeli politicians in America’s Congress. Unlike the many issues dividing the U.S. today, AIPAC’s efforts to promote Israeli favor in Congress are bipartisan, meaning Democrats and Republicans alike are backed by the organization.
Subsequently, the initiative to implement pro-Israel politicians in Congress means lobbying against those who are anti-Israel or neither. Thomas Massie, a prominent House representative whose opposition to many Republican efforts, such as those concerning the Epstein files and funding Israel, was among the politicians AIPAC sought to unseat.
In total, Ed Gallrein would beat out Massie with almost $33 million in campaign funds. Much of this money would be sourced from AIPAC and similarly pro-Israel donors.
On its website, AIPAC lists several initiatives it currently intends to pursue alongside its general goals of promoting pro-Israeli politicians in Congress. These goals include:
- Locally supporting politicians safeguarding American arms sales to Israel
- Promoting a greater defense partnership between America and Israel
- Supporting the Enhanced Iran Sanctions Act, a bipartisan legislation that discourages aiding improper Iranian petroleum exports; shutting down Iran’s oil economy will deteriorate the sitting regime’s ability to recover from war
- Expanding the Abraham Accords, which have historically ensured peace between Israel and surrounding Arab nations, to further strengthen regional peace and bring about Israeli-Palestinian peace
- Backing the Iran Human Rights, Internet Freedom, and Accountability Act to expand Iranian citizens’ independence and communication
- Advocating for the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, which imposes sanctions on those who aid International Criminal Court (ICC) efforts to prosecute Americans or Israelis
America and Israel have historically maintained a strong relationship, tracing back to the latter’s founding with the express support of former U.S. President Harry S. Truman.
Granted this allyship, why then do so many Americans take issue with AIPAC and Thomas Massie’s loss in the GOP primaries, even though it was a legal action?
Objectively, there exist three key reasons Americans may feel uneasy with AIPAC and its involvement in politics.
To start, AIPAC as a concept isn’t exclusive to Israel. Nations like France have their own political action committees that fund American political campaigns. More prominently, though, PACs typically represent domestic companies and interests. In fact, the overwhelming majority of PAC donations come from domestic parties, which reflects politicians’ representation of American interests.
Great examples of American PACs include the National Association of Realtors, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the American Bankers Association.
In the 2024 election cycle, ranking by contributions to American candidates, AIPAC was the third most prominent PAC. By total funds raised, AIPAC still made the top 20 PACs that year.
While these statistics alone may not be immediately noteworthy to some, it is also worth understanding that all other PACs on these lists represent domestic American interests, like labor unions or auto dealers. For a lobby representing foreign interests to rank so high in monetary contributions in US political races is a singular trend worth pointing out.
Another concern many Americans may justifiably have with AIPAC is its prevalence in politics. Besides the large sums of money it invests in political campaigns, AIPAC’s influence is spread widely throughout Congress.
Out of the 535 members sitting in America’s Congress, only 22 have reportedly abstained from AIPAC funding and its subsequent campaigns. The widespread nature of pro-Israel money amongst American politicians suggests many representatives and senators have a financial incentive to support pro-Israeli legislation.
The noticeably small minority of politicians who do not receive AIPAC funding speaks to an area of politics that is heavily biased towards a foreign nation, which, again, is abnormal to say the least. Massie’s loss in the GOP primaries further exacerbates this issue.
As the voices of the American public that vote them into office, however, the overwhelmingly pro-Israeli sentiment of Congress may just be a reflection of Americans’ views.
In reality, however, the opposite appears to be true. According to polls released by the Pew Research Center, favorable opinions of Israel amongst Americans have declined from 55% to 37% over the last 4 years, while negative sentiment has risen from 42% to a whopping 60%.
Similarly, expressions of confidence in Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have declined over the past 4 years, albeit only from 31% to 27%. In stark contrast, the preeminent 42% majority that voiced a lack of confidence in Netanyahu in 2022 rose to 59% in 2026.
From these numbers and similar data available online, it is clear that Americans as a whole have lost favor in Israel. The simultaneous boost in pro-Israel opinions in Congress, however, fails to reflect this trend, calling into question the legitimacy of American values of representation in the face of foreign influence.
Though AIPAC in general is neither illegal nor unique, its ties to unpopular foreign interests, matched with unprecedented widespreadness and monetary efforts, make it stand out and draw attention to the concept of PACs and the influences driving political action in contemporary American Congress.
It is crucial to understand that AIPAC is unaffiliated with the Israeli government and is only a supporter of its policies. More so, AIPAC isn’t a representation of America’s Jewish communities. Though critique of AIPAC can be objectively driven, using it as a means to channel antisemitic rhetoric is inappropriate and a blatant form of racism not tolerated by Bellevue College or The Watchdog.
If you or an associate sees antisemitic or similarly malicious behavior on campus, please use this link to notify the Bellevue College administration.
