The Rise and Decline of AIPAC

By Mohamad Hammoud

For decades, AIPAC turned political contributions and electoral pressure into extraordinary influence over American foreign policy. But Gaza and changing public opinion are challenging a political establishment that once appeared untouchable.

From a Small Lobby to a Washington Powerhouse

For much of modern American political history, few organizations exercised as much influence over Washington’s Middle East policy as the American “Israel” Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]. Supporting “Israel” became a political expectation, while challenging the relationship could expose lawmakers to organized opposition, well-financed electoral challengers, and the risk of losing their seats. AIPAC did not need to control every member of Congress. Its influence rested on convincing politicians that opposing its priorities could carry a greater political cost than supporting them.

That system now faces an increasingly difficult test. The devastation in Gaza following October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war with Iran have intensified scrutiny of Washington’s unconditional support for “Israel,” prompting more Americans to question whose interests their elected representatives serve.

How Money Became Political Discipline

AIPAC’s origins date to 1951, when Isaiah Kenen organized lobbying efforts to secure American assistance for “Israel”. By 1959, the organization had adopted its familiar name, eventually developing a powerful network connecting donors, political activists, congressional offices, and policymakers.

In their 2007 book, The “Israel” Lobby and US Foreign Policy, political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that this network helped redirect American Middle East policy toward “Israeli” priorities. They described how campaign financing, political pressure, and congressional relationships rewarded supportive lawmakers while discouraging dissent.

Former Senator Ernest Hollings captured that influence when he declared, “You can't have an “Israel” policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.”

Former AIPAC director Thomas Dine likewise celebrated the 1984 electoral defeat of Senator Charles Percy, whose positions had angered the lobby. The message was unmistakable: challenging AIPAC could threaten a political career.

When Endorsements Became Liabilities

For decades, AIPAC’s influence depended on persuading candidates that its financial support was indispensable. However, as the devastation in Gaza and subsequent regional wars shifted American public opinion toward “Israel,” that once-valuable political support increasingly became a liability.

The shift became evident as candidates faced mounting criticism for accepting AIPAC’s money. Some rejected contributions, while others distanced themselves from previous endorsements. According to The Guardian, more than a dozen former recipients publicly distanced themselves, including Congressman Pat Ryan, who announced plans to return nearly $250,000.

This reversal exposed a weakness in AIPAC’s traditional strategy: its financial influence remained considerable, but public association with the organization could now damage candidates rather than protect them.

Michigan: Millions Spent, Voters Unconvinced

Michigan offered one of the clearest examples of this political shift. According to Axios, AIPAC’s affiliated United Democracy Project reserved approximately $19 million in television advertising during the Democratic Senate primary. Yet Abdul El-Sayed defeated establishment-backed Haley Stevens before defeating Republican Mike Rogers in November, despite opposing unconditional military assistance to “Israel.”

His victory reflected a broader electoral pattern. According to a tally cited by Al Jazeera, approximately $55 million of the $84 million spent by AIPAC and associated groups went toward losing candidates. Although many AIPAC-backed candidates still won, these setbacks suggested that its financial power no longer guaranteed electoral success.

A Strategic Retreat, Not Yet a Collapse

Against this backdrop, AIPAC announced on October 21 that it would discontinue formal candidate endorsements and direct political-action committee contributions after the 2026 election cycle. Although the organization described the decision as a strategic adjustment and insisted its mission remained unchanged, its super PAC would continue operating, while individual supporters would continue financing favored candidates.

Nevertheless, the timing was significant. An organization that once promoted its endorsements as symbols of political strength was now abandoning that public practice amid growing Resistance. While AIPAC retains substantial financial resources, congressional relationships, and organizational capacity, its electoral setbacks have raised questions about the limits of its influence.

For decades, AIPAC made support for “Israel” appear politically indispensable. Today, that assumption faces growing challenges as more Americans question whose interests their representatives serve. The question is no longer simply whether politicians can survive without AIPAC’s endorsement, but whether association with the organization has become a political liability.