Washington, DC — Mounting public anger over Israel’s war in Gaza is prompting a strategic recalibration within the United States’ most powerful pro-‘Israel’ lobby, AIPAC, as once-visible election tactics increasingly risk becoming political liabilities.
An investigation by The Intercept details how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is quietly stepping back from the aggressive, highly public electoral interventions that defined recent election cycles. Instead, the lobby is returning to indirect funding strategies designed to preserve influence while minimizing public backlash ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
From Demonstration of Power to Political Exposure
During the 2024 election cycle, AIPAC made an unusually open display of its electoral reach, spending more than $100 million to defeat candidates critical of Israel and publicly claiming credit for supporting 361 pro-‘Israel’ candidates who won races nationwide.
That approach, however, collided with a rapidly shifting political climate. Growing public opposition to the war in Gaza, described in the report as outrage over “genocidal crimes”, transformed AIPAC’s visibility from a symbol of influence into a source of controversy.
Political correspondent Akela Lacy described the response as “popular revulsion,” noting that widespread anger over Gaza has begun reshaping how voters assess foreign policy alignment and campaign financing.
Candidates Distance Themselves
The backlash has fueled a coordinated effort by grassroots groups and activists to elevate candidates who explicitly pledge to reject funding from AIPAC and affiliated organizations. What was once considered a political asset is now increasingly viewed as an electoral risk, particularly in Democratic primaries.
Former Democratic congresswoman Marie Newman, who lost her seat in 2022 following heavy spending by pro-‘Israel’ donors, said the lobby is fully aware of the shift. “AIPAC knows full well that its reputation is at rock bottom,” she said.
Hamed Bandas, communications director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, echoed that assessment, stating that AIPAC money has become “an electoral burden” for some Democratic candidates.
However, Bandas noted that uncertainty remains over whether candidates rejecting AIPAC funding will also turn away support from allied groups such as Democratic Majority for ‘Israel’, which promotes similar policies, including expanded US arms transfers to Israel.
Retreating From the Spotlight, Not the System
Despite the reduced public profile, analysts caution against interpreting AIPAC’s shift as a loss of power. Instead, the lobby appears to be reverting to long-established methods that dominated US politics for decades — operating through intermediaries, aligned political action committees, and individual donors.
According to the investigation, pro-‘Israel’ donors have continued to finance congressional races across multiple districts without formal disclosure linking the funding directly to AIPAC. This allows candidates to accept support while avoiding overt association with the organization.
Newman described the tactic as a deliberate effort to remain influential while evading scrutiny, with funds routed through other committees so candidates can claim backing from independent contributors rather than a centralized lobby.
A Return to Old Playbooks
For much of its history, AIPAC exerted influence primarily behind the scenes, focusing on legislative lobbying, policy briefings, congressional trips to Israel, and cultivating regional activist networks. Direct involvement in elections was limited.
That changed in the early 2020s as more candidates began campaigning against unconditional US military support for Israel. In response, AIPAC escalated its tactics, including funding high-profile advertising campaigns through Democratic Majority for ‘Israel, ‘ notably during the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries against Senator Bernie Sanders.
The current shift, The Intercept argues, represents repositioning rather than retreat: a calculated move to survive in a political environment increasingly skeptical of Israel’s actions and of the influence wielded by its most prominent US advocates.
Influence Adapts to Pressure
As the 2026 midterms approach, AIPAC’s evolving strategy reflects broader changes within US politics, where public opinion on Gaza is exerting pressure on longstanding foreign policy alignments.
The report concludes that while AIPAC may no longer seek the spotlight, its underlying objective remains unchanged, sustaining congressional support for Israel through quieter, less visible means in a political landscape more resistant to its agenda than at any point in recent history.