by David Dayen, Ryan Grim, Nicolae Butler, Pablo Manriquez
Jun 18, 2025
The pro-Israel lobbying group has sent a flurry of communications to members of Congress, citing specific language for them to parrot in support of Israel’s strikes on Iran.
This is a collaboration with Drop Site News, an independent news site about politics and war.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has been furiously urging House Democrats to release messages of steadfast support for Israel in its war with Iran, the Prospect and Drop Site News have learned, even as bipartisan lawmakers come together on a War Powers Act resolution to prevent U.S. troops or funds being used in yet another Middle East conflagration.
One member relayed that a colleague had received literally 100 phone calls from members of AIPAC and its allied pressure groups. AIPAC wants House Democratic members to state explicitly that they “stand with Israel” in its actions against Iran aimed at destroying the Islamic Republic’s nuclear capability, and add that Iran “must never have a nuclear weapon.”
In addition, AIPAC has taken particular pains to denigrate the moderate pro-Israel group J Street, both in private conversations with members of Congress and in public, picking a fight aimed at blocking any Democrats from using J Street as cover to deviate from AIPAC’s maximalist position. “They’re worried their members in Congress may start to shift toward J Street and they’re trying to head that off,” said an aide to one Democrat.
“I did see that AIPAC took issue with my statement,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state. “They were taking on J Street for endorsing me, which was ridiculous.” To get a sense of how extreme AIPAC’s demands are, note that J Street’s own statement merely calls for diplomacy while still supporting Israel. “We urge the Trump Administration to meaningfully pursue a diplomatic resolution to this conflict as quickly as possible while making clear the US will do what is necessary to defend Israel and US troops from retaliation,” the statement read.
AIPAC’s urgency may be due to a somewhat surprising amount of dissent among some congressional Democrats against Israel’s coordinated attacks on Iran.
AIPAC issued the same tweet in response to any statement that fell short of its expectations, such as one by Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, which called for a diplomatic resolution: “Consistent pattern: J Street endorsees issue anti-Israel statements. @jstreetdotorg is many things, but it’s not pro-Israel.”
The messages reflect one way special interests shape policies in Washington, where a conforming statement is a metric lobbyists can cite to show their dominance. While not everyone received this bombardment of communications from AIPAC officials—particularly progressives who have made their views known about Israel’s actions—judging by a substantial portion of House Democrats, the effort appears to be having an effect.
According to a review of member statements at their congressional websites and on social media, 28 House Democrats have issued messages saying explicitly that they “stand with Israel,” or some close variation thereof. Another 35 express unequivocal support for Israel without using the magic words “stand with Israel” precisely, but they leave no doubt as to the member’s support. And 16 others express “soft” support for Israel, without quite the same inflammatory language.
Three statements have been held up by AIPAC in particular, according to sources familiar with the situation, as models for others to follow. Those are from Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Mike Levin (D-CA), and George Whitesides (D-CA). All are “frontline” members who had relatively close elections in 2024.
“Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people,” Landsman said in his statement. “Iran’s nuclear program isn’t just an existential threat to Israel and the Middle East, it’s a threat to the world … I stand with Israel and the rest of the West as we confront this threat together.” Levin similarly states that “the Iranian regime … must never obtain a nuclear weapon … No nation can be expected to stand by while another openly threatens its existence.” Whitesides, a freshman from northern Los Angeles County, followed suit: “The government of Iran, which has sown death and destruction across the Middle East for decades, cannot be allowed to develop an operational nuclear weapon, and we must stand with our ally Israel.”
The “stand with Israel” caucus includes some usual suspects who have long backed up Israel’s actions, from Reps. Ted Lieu and Brad Sherman in California, to Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Lois Frankel in Florida, to Problem Solvers and New Democrats like Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). But freshman and swing-state members are also well represented—precisely the type of members who survive on large campaign donations from the likes of AIPAC.
First-term representatives Johnny Olszewski (D-MD), April McClain Delaney (D-MD), Herbert Conaway (D-NJ), John Mannion (D-NY), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) were all in the explicit “stand with Israel” caucus, while freshman members Luz Rivas (D-CA), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Laura Gillen (D-NY), and George Latimer (D-NY) agreed with the sentiment but without the explicit “stand with Israel” wording. Other members in perennially difficult electoral battles, like Reps. Jared Golden (D-ME) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), stood with Israel as well, along with numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), who recently won the nomination for governor of New Jersey, also released a statement that reflected hard support for Israel. Her race in the general election against Republican Jack Ciattarelli will be prohibitively expensive.
AIPAC’S URGENCY MAY BE DUE to a somewhat surprising amount of dissent among some congressional Democrats against Israel’s coordinated attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, military sites, and residential compounds, killing senior Iranian commanders and six nuclear scientists along with hundreds of civilians.
For example, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Israel’s “alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran” was “a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.” Other military veterans like Reed, such as Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Jason Crow (D-CO), were similarly skeptical.
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) echoed the AIPAC-provided language, saying, “There’s no one here that disagrees that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.” Yet he expressed concerns about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s posture, calling for “secure briefings” that he says have not yet occurred. Luján also pointed to surprising Republican voices, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have advocated for noninvolvement, signaling a potential shift in GOP sentiment.
These modest splits from the party line have opened new and critical questions about presidential war powers, where several members of the House and Senate are poised to challenge executive authority as the president considers airstrikes against Iran.
“The Constitution is very clear that no president can bomb another country or begin a war with the country without the permission of Congress,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) insisted. My hope is that there won’t be any U.S. involvement.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) echoed this, arguing, “The president can’t undertake military action without a vote of Congress. Right now, I don’t see any circumstance in which direct U.S. military involvement would make us safer.”
Two pieces of legislation aim to quash U.S. involvement. One, introduced by independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is titled the No War With Iran Act and has seven Democratic co-sponsors. Sen. Tim Kaine’s War Powers Resolution seeks to reassert congressional authority over military engagements. In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced on Monday that he would issue a War Powers Resolution, which quickly got support from 15 Democratic members.
But several other U.S. senators seemed to abandon the constitutional role they have in authorizing military action, stating their general opposition to entering the Middle East but—in the words of Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks—their absolute “trust” in Trump.
“I trust President Trump. He’s the commander in chief. He’ll decide what role we play,” Banks declared. He framed Trump as a singular force for peace, asserting, “President Trump is the greatest peacemaker in my lifetime. If there’s anybody that can avoid war in the Middle East and bring peace, it’s him. He’s done it before.” Banks, a veteran of Afghanistan, tied his stance to a broader rejection of “prolonged ‘forever wars,’” vowing to dedicate his time in Congress to preventing another Afghanistan-like quagmire. “That was a mistake, a prolonged forever war. We should never do that again. But President Trump’s not going to allow that to happen.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a co-sponsor of the No War With Iran Act, lambasted Senate Republicans for their apparent inability to challenge Trump, quipping, “They’ve all had their spines removed. None of them seem capable of standing up to Donald Trump, which means they cannot fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.”
WHEN ASKED ABOUT PRESSURE from constituents, senators reported varying levels of engagement. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who expressed support for action against Iran, said he’s faced little pushback, stating, “I believe we need to move on Iran.” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) dismissed constituent concerns, noting, “Everybody’s living their own life over here. That’s a long ways away.” He deferred to Trump’s judgment, adding, “Whatever President Trump decides to do, I’m all for helping them out.”
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) aligned his constituents’ views with Trump’s desire to end the “carnage,” saying, “The pressure that I feel is the same that President Trump has articulated. He wants this to come to an end.”
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) acknowledged widespread concern, stating, “The whole country is very concerned about what’s going on over there,” but avoided committing to a specific stance.
Conversely, Sen. Murphy noted a lack of appetite for war among his constituents, saying, “There’s not an appetite in this country for another war in the Middle East.” Luján highlighted the need for more transparency, suggesting that public and congressional unease stems from a lack of information.
That was also the assessment of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), an early co-sponsor of the War Powers Resolution in the House, who cast the debate in political terms. “Donald Trump took the anti-war lane from us in 2016 and 2024. We have a chance to take it back by clearly opposing Netanyahu’s strikes and being a bold voice for diplomacy,” Khanna said. “Democrats underestimate how much ordinary Americans are tired of war.”
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
