AIPAC has become so politically toxic that even centrist Democrats are abandoning the group

Last week, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) announced that he will stop accepting political donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) and will return all the money that he has received from the lobbying group thus far.

“In recent years, AIPAC has aligned itself too closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” said the Congress member in a statement. “I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission today is to back that government. I don’t support that direction. That’s why I’ve decided to return the donations I’ve received, and I will not be accepting their support.”

“Rep. Moulton is abandoning his friends to grab a headline, capitulating to the extremes rather than standing on conviction,” said AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann in response to the move. “His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them.”

Moulton, who is attempting to oust Ed Markey from his Senate seat, is certainly no dove. In 2022, the Marine veteran led a letter calling on then-President Biden to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organization. When the Trump administration bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year, he refrained from criticizing the action.

Moulton’s been a consistent supporter of Israel, not just abroad, but at home too. He voted for the Antisemitism Awareness Act and other resolutions that conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, and he condemned his alma mater, Harvard University, over a student letter that blamed the October 7 attack on Israeli policies.

In short, Moulton is not the kind of Congress member one would expect to criticize an Israel lobby organization. Criticism of AIPAC generally emerges from the left flank of the Democratic Party, from lawmakers like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

However, that has changed in recent weeks. Moulton is the fourth politician to reject AIPAC money after previously accepting it, joining Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), and Deborah Ross (D-NC).

These developments come amid a slew of recent polls showing that support for Israel is plummeting among U.S. voters. A September survey from The New York Times and Siena University found that only 34% of U.S. voters back Israel, compared to the 47% who did shortly after October 7. A New York Times article on the poll referred to the shift as a “seismic reversal.”

“Disapproval of the war appears to have prompted a striking reassessment by American voters of their broader sympathies in the decades-old conflict in the region,” noted the paper.

Democratic consultant Peter Feld says such moves clearly show that the lobbying group has become a pariah among the public, but notes that voters want more than opposition to AIPAC from their elected officials. They’re looking for lawmakers who will actually oppose Israel’s actions.

“Some of the candidate polling lately misconstrues AIPAC for the core issue, when it’s really the continued support for arming Israel that has alienated so many Democratic voters,” Feld told Mondoweiss.

However, he also noted that Moulton’s move shows how AIPAC is now “radioactive.”

That reality hasn’t just been reflected in polling on Israel, but also through recent media appearances by pro-Israel lawmakers.

For years, the Israel lobby was seemingly regarded as a third rail issue that couldn’t be acknowledged, but now politicians are being consistently pressed on the issue.

In a recent episode of The Breakfast Club, host Charlamagne tha God challenged Governor Josh Shapiro (D-PA) on AIPAC, asking him whether U.S. foreign policy is shaped by lobbying groups as opposed to national interest.

Governor Gavin Newsom was left tongue-tied and fidgeting on a recent episode of The Ringer’s Higher Learning podcast, after host Van Lathan told the presidential hopeful that he wouldn’t vote for a 2028 candidate who accepted AIPAC money.

AIPAC has adopted a more defensive posture as its reputation has declined. The group recently put out an ad insisting that its work benefits Americans, a clear rebuttal to recent criticisms it has faced from the U.S. right, which have only increased in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder.

“Funded by Americans. Directed by Americans. Strengthening an alliance that benefits America!” reads the organization’s pinned tweet, which promotes the ad.

It’s unclear whether AIPAC’s toxicity will impact its ongoing ability to influence U.S. elections, especially because it already conceals its role in many races.

“Candidates’ rejecting AIPAC money will probably be a growing theme of the 2026 midterm elections, but that doesn’t mean AIPAC will become entirely marginalized,” Eli Clifton, a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft told Mondoweiss.

“While some candidates may reject AIPAC’s money, others will see the group’s enormous funding capabilities as a means to finance primary and general election campaigns that otherwise might not be viable,” he added, noting the vast sums that AIPAC’s United Democracy Project Super PAC spent on Democratic primaries.

No matter what happens, it’s clear that AIPAC will face a level of backlash during the upcoming midterms that it hasn’t previously encountered.

One race where it will presumably take center stage is Missouri’s 1st District, where former U.S. House member Cori Bush announced that she was running to take back her seat. Bush was defeated by current Rep. Wesley Bell (D-Mo.) in a 2024 primary, and AIPAC spent $8.5 million backing the challenger.

At a town hall event in August, Bell was confronted by constituents over his AIPAC support.

“There’s a lot of folks who don’t want to have the conversation,” Bell told the crowd, while denying that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. “They just want to spew what they think is important, but they don’t want to have an actual debate because these are tough issues.”

“Wesley Bell wanted to argue for semantics so that he can have some ethical, moral standing ground that his complicitness isn’t perpetuating the genocide, and he really failed on showing the community that he cared about it,” an attendee told NPR after the meeting.

“I ran for Congress to change things for regular people,” declared Bush in her first 2026 campaign ad. “I’m running again because St. Louis deserves leadership that doesn’t wait for permission, doesn’t answer to wealthy donors, and doesn’t hide when things get tough.”

Braxton Payne, a Missouri political strategist, told Jewish Insider that this election would be Bush’s best chance to reclaim her seat.

“Her strongest place is inside the city [of St. Louis] and you’re seeing… a strong pendulum swinging in regards to the conflict in Gaza and Palestine, and I think that is going to be probably one of her main narratives that she’ll lead with,” said Payne.