Congress
AIPAC looms large ahead of New York primaries
NEW YORK — The country’s most prominent pro-Israel special interest group isn’t even spending in Rep. Dan Goldman’s high-stakes primary. It could be his biggest problem anyway.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has a familiar electoral playbook: funnel millions of dollars into an election through a super PAC to boost pro-Israel candidates, attack those critical of Israel or both. The group’s massive spending over recent cycles has established it as a boogeyman among progressives, who’ve attempted to use AIPAC’s intervention, or the threat of it, to activate their base.
With days to go before New York’s primary, AIPAC hasn’t claimed involvement in any competitive races across the city. But it still looms large.
Across the country, attacks over AIPAC have hit a fever pitch this cycle on both sides of the aisle, speaking to the public’s increasingly negative view of Israel. In New York, insurgent challengers in Democratic primaries are using AIPAC as a cudgel to criticize opponents over their support for Israel. Some are suggesting shadowy super PACs are actually funded by the group and have pointed to donors who’ve previously given to AIPAC.
David Greenfield, a former New York City Council member and head of the Met Council, a Jewish charity, described that form of scrutiny as “a little obscene.”
“When we look back, this will have been the high point of anti-AIPAC fervor. I think some of it is irrational and unfair,” Greenfield said. “Crossing from anti-Israel to discriminating against Jewish constituents, I think that’s a very dangerous place to be.”
The tensions over AIPAC are especially prominent in Goldman’s race, where his challenger, former city Comptroller Brad Lander, has repeatedly hammered the incumbent over his ties to the group.
“We can’t let AIPAC and other pro-Netanyahu groups make an example out of me,” Lander wrote in a fundraising plea, one of more than two dozen that mention AIPAC. “Now when pro-Netanyahu groups are trying to control who gets elected to Congress, I’m asking you to join our movement to stop them.”
Lander — who, like Goldman, is Jewish — has positioned himself as more critical of Israel than the incumbent. He’s criticized Goldman for voting for U.S. military aid to Israel, called the country’s actions in Gaza a “genocide” and vowed to never take AIPAC money.
The message has persuaded many in the party’s progressive wing to side with him. The deep-blue 10th District, which covers parts of Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, is where Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who endorsed Lander, had a dominant performance during last year’s mayoral primary.
At a “solidarity rally” for Jews and Muslims in Brooklyn on Sunday, Lander drew cheers from the hundreds gathered when he said he won’t take money from AIPAC. Mamdani appeared as a featured guest.
Goldman, who’s said the “legal terminology” of genocide should be avoided, has also criticized Israel. But no matter how much he tries to neutralize Lander’s attacks, they remain a prominent factor in the race.
The incumbent rolled out an ad denouncing President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iran war. He suggested he and Lander aren’t so different, saying last month: “We are both progressive Zionists who believe in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and we both support a two-state solution to bring peace to the region.” Goldman has also tried to shift focus away from Israel, arguing voters are more interested in kitchen table issues. And he’s even returned campaign donations he received from AIPAC, which endorsed him (though he still receives contributions from people who’ve donated through the organization).
When asked if AIPAC’s endorsement is harming him in the race, Goldman said: “It’s quite possible that it is.” But he took issue with Lander’s rhetoric around the group, which he’s called a “dog whistle.”
“It’s just continuing a pattern of lying to and deceiving voters with buzzwords and litmus tests that are not factual,” he said. “I am very concerned that people — Jews like Brad, who are using Israel and AIPAC as a wedge issue in a race — ultimately may win this battle, but do serious damage to the Jewish community.”
Speaking to Blue Light News after Sunday’s event, Lander called that assertion “cynical.”
“I find that language offensive. Like, I don’t want the support of antisemites. I’m a proud Jew, I wear it on my sleeve,” he said. “What AIPAC is doing is a shanda, is bad for American democracy, is of course bad for Palestinians who are created b’tzelem Elohim, in God’s image, is bad for Israel, has shredded U.S. credibility in the world. And most people in this district, including, I believe most Jews in this district, agree with me.”
Lander acknowledged there’s no evidence of AIPAC super PACs getting involved in the race — either through its known entity or a newly created group, a strategy it’s employed in other races. But he pointed to AIPAC supporters donating to Goldman’s campaign and through a joint fundraising committee supporting Goldman along with Rep. Adriano Espaillat, who’s also facing a tough primary.
Lander said the “whole set of tropes around Jews and money” and rising antisemitism makes him “very anxious.” Still, he accused AIPAC of “corroding our democracy and making Jews less safe.”
During a debate Monday, the candidates were asked if they believe AIPAC is hurting the Democratic Party. Lander said it is — “by the way it spends money” and “demanding unconditional U.S. support for Netanyahu’s wars.”
Goldman said AIPAC “has some real problems and is harmful in many ways.”
“But they are an organization that I coordinate — or that I discuss things with — as is J Street, as are many, many other people, and I will always be independently focused on this issue,” Goldman continued.
Lander’s campaign quickly clipped that quote and shared it online. Goldman accused Lander of taking his words out of context “to mislead the public.”
The exchange underscores just how salient attacks over AIPAC are in Democratic primaries. But some are raising concerns.
In an interview with POLITICO last month, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, one of a handful of Jewish governors, said criticisms of AIPAC spending have “been used cynically by some to try and silence certain voices, to try and say that certain people participating in politics shouldn’t count or should be viewed in a toxic way.”
Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, which is backing Goldman and Espaillat, said the rhetoric across Democratic primaries “has shifted into what I consider to be a dangerous place in this election cycle.”
“I’m concerned about the public demonization of perhaps what started as AIPAC, but now appears to have grown into rhetoric that includes the Israel lobby or Zionists,” Soifer said — noting that “can very quickly” blur into antisemitism.
While Lander has made criticizing Israel central to his campaign, Greenfield said he doesn’t think he’s crossed a line. But candidates in other races, Greenfield continued, are “seeing AIPAC ghosts wherever they turn.”
One race he thinks that’s happening is the contest to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez.
Assemblymember Claire Valdez, who has the backing of Mamdani and the city chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, has sought to tie her most prominent opponent, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, to AIPAC. Both have called Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide,” though Valdez has frequently criticized Reynoso for taking so long to use the term.
She’s suggested that Real Fight NYC, a super PAC boosting Reynoso, is funded by AIPAC — despite there being no clear evidence of that. Real Fight NYC, which did not respond to a request for comment, will not have to disclose its donors until after the primary. But at least one donor to it has emerged: the American Federation of Teachers.
Valdez’s campaign pointed to AIPAC funneling money into shell PACs in other races, as well as a report that Reynoso supporters have also donated to AIPAC. But Reynoso has insisted he doesn’t take AIPAC money, and his campaign said it returned the money referenced in the story.
“These false accusations are an attempt to distract voters from the real issues,” said Jasmine Gripper, head of the state Working Families Party, which is backing Reynoso. “We should be focused on improving people’s lives, not spreading misinformation.”
Morris Katz, a top Mamdani strategist and Valdez adviser, wrote in a since-deleted X post that it’s “deeply dishonest” for progressives to “pretend that a new PAC just emerging now is anything other than an AIPAC shell.”
Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s main super PAC, United Democracy Project, has denied involvement in the race. As far as playing in other local primaries, Dorton said on Sunday that they’re “evaluating all of the New York races very carefully” but “don’t have anything to announce right now.”
Espaillat, like Goldman, is endorsed by AIPAC. In his run to retain his seat in upper Manhattan and the Bronx, progressive organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier has made criticizing the group a mainstay of her campaign, with her supporters suggesting some of the super PACs supporting Espaillat are funded by AIPAC.
The incumbent recently had his endorsement from the New York Progressive Action Network rescinded because it said he “has continued to accept money from AIPAC-related entities, has not signed the Block the Bombs Act, and recently declined to call the destruction of Gaza a genocide.” When asked if he broke a promise not to accept AIPAC money, Espaillat said he hasn’t “broken any promise in my political career.”
A recent poll commissioned by Justice Democrats, a pro-Avila Chevalier group, found 56 percent of likely Democratic voters in the district had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of AIPAC. Espaillat was asked in a debate Tuesday if he regrets accepting its support following the war in Gaza.
“No one dictates or tells me how to vote. My constituents do that,” he said, quickly pivoting to Avila Chevalier’s support from American Priorities, a super PAC seeking to counter pro-Israel entities.
That group is also supporting Lander and Valdez. Goldman and Reynoso have also criticized their opponents over American Priorities’ involvement.
But during their debate, Avila Chevalier once again turned the conversation back to AIPAC.
“I’d like to note that my opponent has yet to actually clearly and directly answer the question regarding his AIPAC money,” she said.
Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.
Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.
The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”
Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.
“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”
Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.
“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”
“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”
Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.
But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.
Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.
Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.
Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”
“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”
“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”
Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”
“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”
Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.
“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”
Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.
Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.
Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.
“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”
Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.
Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”
“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”
Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.
“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”
Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.
“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”
The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.
Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.
In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”
It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.
“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”
Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.
Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.
“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”
The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.
“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.
Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”
Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”
- Stephen A. Smith on Trump, Democrats and the politics of chaos
- Elon Musk unleashes first wave of spending on key races in the midterms
- House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members
- These mayors live along Lake America’s shores. But they won’t be calling it that.
- Markwayne Mullin safe after Coast Guard jet makes emergency landing due to engine failure
- White House pushes companies to ditch Macron’s space summit
- Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster
- No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP
- Thune: Data centers should be ‘self-sufficient’
- Mike Johnson says he has ‘no plans’ to campaign with Max Miller
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words