When Bernie Sanders moved last April to block a U.S. arms sale to Israel, only 14 Democratic senators joined the Vermont independent.

What a difference a year makes: When Sanders objected to another Israeli arms sale this month, 39 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus joined him — a sea change that has raised eyebrows from Washington to Jerusalem.

In a recent interview, Sanders reflected on the sudden and massive shift, one that has some observers saying he — not Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has voted to support the arms sales — is leading Senate Democrats on Israel policy.

“That’s true,” Sanders said of the claim. “I mean we got 40 votes, and Schumer got seven. We have more support for our position than Chuck has for his.”

While Republicans and a handful of pro-Israel Democrats have so far been able to push the weapons shipments through, allies of Sanders say the momentum behind his blocking effort has sent an unmistakable signal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that they cannot count on unquestioned U.S. support for their military campaigns targeting Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran.

One Democrat who continues to support the sales, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said the Netanyahu government should be reined in but said Sanders was pursuing “the wrong vehicle to try to achieve those changes.” And most of those who recently came to oppose the arms sales cited the Iran War and the risk of further escalation in the region — not Sanders.

But fellow Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, a Democratic co-sponsor of the two most recent blocking resolutions, said Sanders “absolutely” deserves recognition for the growing support they have found:

“Having been with him from the beginning, he has been outspoken and influential,” he said.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Were you surprised Chuck Schumer didn’t change his vote? And do you think it could change in the future?

You’ll have to talk to Chuck about that. But you’re right. I mean I think what is noteworthy — and I think people are discussing it — is that you have two major leaders of the Democratic Party, both Chuck and [DSCC Chair] Kirsten Gillibrand, being in the significant minority of the party in terms of their votes on continuing to fund military aid to Israel. [Schumer and Gillibrand did not respond to requests for comment.]

The split was reportedly a topic of discussion during a Senate Republican lunch last week. Semafor reported that Majority Whip John Barrasso argued you lead Democrats on Israel — not Schumer.

That’s true. I mean we got 40 votes and Schumer got seven votes right? We have more support for our position than Chuck has for his position. That’s obviously the case.

Were you surprised by any of the votes you got this month?

As you know, we’ve had a solid group of people who have voted with us in the past. But also what we are seeing, you know, folks who are looking at both policy and politics — people like Mark Kelly of Arizona, Cory Booker of New Jersey and a number of others — who are saying it’s time that we began to vote the way our constituents would like us to vote.

Are you doing any lobbying? Are you just calling these votes up, or are you actually talking to your colleagues behind the scenes?

Well, I think the answer is mostly no. I think the issue is so clear. Every member of the Democratic Caucus fully understands that Israel is now sadly and tragically run by a right-wing extremist government led by Netanyahu. Democrats are going home, they’re holding town meetings and people are saying, “Why the hell, when we can’t afford housing and health care, are you spending our money providing military aid to Israel, which is doing such horrible things in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon and the West Bank?”

The polling out there now is quite clear that the majority of the American people, including independents and Republicans combined, now think that we should not be giving military aid to Israel. The problem for the Democrats is that [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is enormously powerful — they’ve spent tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and they have something like $93 million in their war chest right now. For Democrats to take on AIPAC is not easy, but they’re increasingly choosing to support what the people back home want.

What do you say to colleagues who have concerns about looking like they don’t support Israel as a state or don’t want to be seen as antisemitic?

Antisemitism is an absolutely disgusting ideology which has resulted in the deaths of many, many millions of people over the years, 6 million people under Hitler, and it needs to be combated in every way, shape or form. But I will oppose with every ounce of my fiber, anybody who suggests that taking on the racist and extremist policies of the Netanyahu government is antisemitic. That is nonsense.

All over this country, there is growing opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel. The reason for that is not difficult to understand: The American people were shocked and horrified by the Hamas terrorist attack against Israel and were prepared to support Israel going after Hamas, but what they were not prepared to do was to support Israel waging an all-out war against the Palestinian people. And then they look up one day a few months ago, and Israel gets the United States to engage in an absolutely unnecessary, unprovoked war with Iran, which is doing massive damage economically to us and people all over the world.

Do you have plans to force more of these arms-sale votes in the future? Do you think you can eventually win?

Obviously yes. We are going to stay on this issue. There are going to be a certain group of hardcore people in both parties who are going to remain loyal to AIPAC. But I think you’re going to see significant defections in the Republican Party and maybe some more votes in the Democratic caucus as well.

President Donald Trump’s allies in Congress want to quickly authorize completion of the White House ballroom after the Saturday shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. But it’s not going to be simple.

Trump’s ambitious ballroom project was put on hold earlier this year after a federal judge said Congress needed to explicitly approve it. Responses from lawmakers were relatively muted at that time. Then over the weekend, Trump and several members of the presidential line of succession were sitting down to their salads at a Washington hotel when a gunman tried to storm past a security checkpoint.

Now, what was once regarded by many lawmakers as a nice-to-have is being viewed as a necessary venue for future events and celebrations. Multiple Hill Republicans have made public promises to try to approve the ballroom’s construction as soon as this week despite there being no clear path to getting a bill quickly to Trump’s desk.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.S.C) said he has been hearing from Trump directly about the ballroom and wants Senate Majority Leader John Thune to “expedite” consideration of his new bill with GOP Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama and Eric Schmitt of Missouri that would provide up to $400 million for the project.

Schmitt told reporters that while the ongoing legal battle isn’t over and that he believes Trump has the authority to build the ballroom on his own, Saturday’s shooting “renews the focus” on finding ways to finish the project without delays or complications.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is expected to try Tuesday to pass his bill that would authorize construction of the ballroom. Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) is also expected to go to the Senate floor this week to try and pass his own bill.

Yet Republicans are facing multiple hurdles, the most serious of which is that senators don’t have support to overcome a filibuster. Democrats are furious the ballroom is being built on the rubble of the East Wing that Trump bulldozed without consulting with lawmakers or planning and preservation review boards.

That’s giving way to talk among some Republicans about trying to jam it into the party-line immigration enforcement bill Trump wants on his desk by June 1 — a maneuver that might not work or could, at the very least, complicate the GOP’s ability to meet its deadline as the Department of Homeland Security shutdown drags on.

Trump himself urged the House to approve the budget blueprint as-is that the Senate advanced last week, which would tee up a bill through the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol activities — part of a two-step plan to reopen DHS after bipartisan negotiations fell through.

Even House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, who has called for expanding the pending reconciliation bill, is warning against making changes.

He said Monday the package will be “completely focused” on ICE and Border Patrol funding. And he warned that if Republicans start adding things now, it would open the door to adding items from a much larger conservative wish list.

“Listen, if we were going to add stuff to this, I’ve got a list and it’s going to start with fiscal reforms on preventing more fraud, and then you’ve got a host of other reforms on health care and housing affordability,” Arrington said.

Three Senate aides said Monday that a ballroom-related provision would not comply with the chamber’s rules for inclusion in the measure under the budget reconciliation process, anyway. Further complicating matters is that Republicans aren’t united behind one specific ballroom proposal, with Paul noting he would support putting a nominal amount of funding in but not hundreds of millions of dollars like Graham is envisioning.

Thune kept his options open Monday, telling reporters his conference would see what was “achievable.” But he acknowledged that the budget blueprint his chamber drafted did not task all of the relevant committees with oversight of the ballroom project to draft the reconciliation bill itself.

“I don’t know,” Thune said when pressed if it could be included in the immigration enforcement package.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) also urged his colleagues to tread carefully on the reconciliation plan.

“If we change it, then we put it in jeopardy. So I would prefer not to put it in jeopardy,” he said to reporters Monday evening. “I understand that there’s a desire to move forward with some of the construction over there, but let’s get a win under our belt.”

Graham, who chairs the Budget Committee, didn’t close the door to trying to tackle the ballroom through the party-line process but appeared to be frustrated about the prospect that it could come to that.

“I’d like to do it as a freestanding bill with an offset,” Graham said at a news conference Monday. “Let’s give it a chance, and if we fail, we’ll have to go to Plan B.”

Yet so far, with the exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), no Senate Democrat is biting.

“If Republicans truly want to improve security, they should join Democrats in funding the Secret Service, not Donald Trump’s luxury ballroom,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday on the Senate floor.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Some House Republicans spent weeks warning against a drastic redraw of Florida’s congressional map.

Now that it’s out — with Gov. Ron DeSantis targeting as many as four Democratic seats for a GOP takeover — they’re mostly keeping any criticism to themselves.

“I think they did a pretty good job,” said Rep. Gus Bilirakis, who said he was one of the Florida Republicans whose district changed “quite a bit.”

“But I think they could touch it up a little bit, too,” he added.

Rep. Scott Franklin said he is set to represent his third constituency in four terms. He still lives within the confines of the 18th district, he said, though it is much smaller in area.

“Mine gets significantly less red than it was,” Franklin said. “But it’s still a conservative performing seat.”

DeSantis’ map still has to be approved by the Florida legislature, and it’s almost certain to face challenges in court. But many of the states’ 20 Republicans are already making peace with new districts that will be at least slightly more competitive.

Many warned that redrawing the existing GOP-favored map to pick up more than one or two Democratic seats could dangerously dilute the Republican vote. And at least one, Jacksonville-area Rep. John Rutherford, said targeting four “could be a bit much.”

Down the Atlantic coast, the reviews were more positive. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar’s Miami-area district remains largely untouched under the new maps, while her neighbor Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart could see his safe Republican seat only slightly diluted.

“Not bad, right? I’m used to those lines, so I’m happy,” Salazar said. “And I was one of the people that could have been highly damaged.”

She declined to comment on whether she expects the new map to net the four seats the GOP is craving: “God knows what’s going to happen.”

Several of the Florida Democrats who are now in danger expressed more concern. They now face running in unfriendly districts or switching districts and possibly running against a current colleague.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, a South Florida Democrat, said he plans on running again and that he believes DeSantis’ effort will backfire by creating more tossup districts. Rep. Darren Soto called the map a violation of state and federal law but said he plans to run in his current Orlando-area district nonetheless.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a veteran Democrat representing a district south of Fort Lauderdale called the new map “a completely unconstitutional partisan gerrymander” and said she was waiting to review detailed data on her redrawn district.

“But the main thing is that this is illegal, and we’re going to sue,” she said.