The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a historically influential pro-Israel lobbying group, is facing new challenges in its political strategy. After a highly visible and expensive campaign in the 2024 election cycle – spending over $100 million to influence races – AIPAC is now adjusting its approach as the 2026 midterms approach.
Shifting Tactics and Growing Opposition
AIPAC’s previous strategy involved directly confronting candidates critical of Israel, endorsing 361 pro-Israel candidates, and celebrating its super PAC, United Democracy Project, as “one of the largest bipartisan super PACs in America.” However, this assertive approach met with “public disgust” related to Israel’s actions in Gaza, fueling a movement aimed at diminishing AIPAC’s influence.
Now, the group appears to be pulling back from its aggressive tactics. While no new candidates have been formally endorsed for the upcoming midterms, AIPAC continues to work behind the scenes, including hosting a fundraiser in Illinois for a candidate who has publicly stated she does not seek the group’s endorsement, and seeing support from AIPAC donors for a congressional candidate in Chicago.
A Brand in Decline?
Former Rep. Marie Newman, D-Ill., who was herself ousted with the help of pro-Israel donors in 2022, stated bluntly, “They are fully aware their brand is in the toilet.” This sentiment reflects a growing perception of AIPAC as toxic among Democratic voters, with many expressing a desire to see less influence from both AIPAC and corporate PACs.
Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, notes that simply rejecting AIPAC money is no longer sufficient. The focus is shifting to candidates’ positions on key issues, as AIPAC is likely to find alternative ways to support its preferred candidates.
Navigating a Complex Landscape
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent statements – including that he won’t accept money from AIPAC – reflect this changing landscape. However, his past record on Israel policy, including accolades from groups like the Anti-Defamation League and a delayed call for a ceasefire in Gaza, raises questions about the extent of his commitment to the Palestinian cause. He also recently signed a bill addressing antisemitism in schools that opponents argue could censor criticism of Israel.
AIPAC is returning to strategies it employed for decades – quietly lobbying Congress, funding trips to Israel for members, and building a network of local activists – while also utilizing alternative funding channels, such as dark-money groups like 314 Action, to support candidates without directly attaching its name to the contributions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted AIPAC to change its strategy?
Public backlash over Israel’s actions in Gaza and a growing movement to reject AIPAC’s influence prompted the group to shift from a highly visible, direct approach to a more subtle strategy.
Is AIPAC losing influence?
The source does not state that AIPAC is losing influence, but rather that it is adapting its strategy in response to changing political circumstances and a growing perception of its brand as toxic among some voters.
What is AIPAC doing to maintain its influence?
AIPAC is returning to its traditional lobbying efforts, working through alternative funding channels, and continuing to support candidates behind the scenes, even if it doesn’t formally endorse them.
As AIPAC navigates this evolving political climate, it remains to be seen whether it can successfully maintain its influence while distancing itself from the growing criticism it faces. Will candidates continue to openly reject AIPAC’s support, or will the group find new ways to shape the political landscape?
