The final version of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act negotiated by Senate and House leaders includes a full and unconditional repeal of U.S. sanctions on Syria under the Caesar Civilian Protection Act, as well as a repeal of the war authorizations that allowed for the Iraq war and the first Gulf War.

The Caesar sanctions repeal comes in spite of hesitation from some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who argued that the sanctions should remain on the books, with relief contingent on the Syrian government meeting various benchmarks. Supporters of full sanctions relief have argued that it’s necessary in order to put Syria on a more predictable and stable financial footing and provide confidence to foreign investors to support reconstruction projects.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who had been skeptical of the prospect of unconditional repeal, ultimately decided to provide his approval to include it in the bill.

The legislation requires the administration to report to Congress twice per year to certify whether the Syrian government is complying with a range of U.S. priorities, including cooperating with counter-ISIS efforts, removing foreign fighters from the Syrian government, protecting minority rights, non-aggression toward Israel, integrating the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic forces, complying with U.S. sanctions, prosecuting human rights abusers and combating narcotics production.

It includes a nonbinding provision that “the president may consider whether to impose targeted sanctions on individuals under existing authorities” if these conditions are not met for two reporting periods, but includes no binding snapback provisions mandating the reimposition of sanctions.

The repeal of the Iraq war authorization has been a longtime priority for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, but others have argued that a more deliberative approach is needed to ensure that the U.S. maintains its ability to target Iranian proxies or terrorist groups in Iraq.

Largely outside of Middle East policy, the legislation contains a number of provisions seemingly aimed at countering isolationist pushes from within the administration, including provisions to ensure that U.S. aid to Ukraine continues and that the U.S. does not significantly draw down its troop presence in Europe or South Korea.

It also includes a provision seemingly aimed at responding to senators’ public concerns about a lack of transparency and communication by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, mandating that he personally brief Congress twice next year about the national defense strategy.

Overall, the bill proposes a defense budget $8 billion above the Trump administration’s 2026 request — though any actual funding allocations will have to be approved separately through the still-pending appropriations process.

Within the Middle East domain, the NDAA authorizes annual funding for joint missile-defense programs with Israel, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, guaranteed under the memorandum of understanding with Israel that lasts through 2028. 

The explanatory report accompanying the bill requires the administration to brief Congress on Israel’s current Arrow stockpiles — systems that saw heavy use during Iran’s ballistic missile attacks on Israel earlier this year — including potential obstacles to increasing Arrow production capacity and inventory and the possibility of creating “fully redundant Arrow production capacity in the United States.”

Addressing existing regional air- and missile-defense cooperation programs, the report directs the administration to brief Congress on progress toward an integrated air and missile architecture, as well as lessons learned during the past two years of war in the Middle East and the impacts of existing cooperation efforts during that time.

It also requires the Pentagon to brief Congress on any delays in providing aircraft or air-launched munitions to Israel and the “feasibility and advisability” of providing Israel with American systems to fill those gaps in the interim.

The NDAA proposes increasing funding for joint U.S.-Israel anti-tunnelling programs to $80 million, a $30 million increase. The report requires the administration to study potential steps to secure the border between Egypt and Gaza to cut down on smuggling into the enclave via tunnels, drones and the Mediterranean Sea.

The legislation also expands existing U.S.-Israel cooperative programs countering airborne drone threats to include other unmanned systems, including sea- and land-based drones, and proposes funding of $70 million, a $15 million increase.

It extends both the counter-tunnel and counter-drone programs through 2028.

The bill also proposes providing $35 million for a new program to pursue military applications of emerging technologies such as AI, quantum computing and cybersecurity in cooperation with allies like Israel.

The legislation also directs the administration to create a U.S.-Israel Defense Industrial Base Working Group to expand defense production cooperation with Israel, and study the possibility of integrating Israel into the National Technology and Industrial Base, alongside other key U.S. allies.

The explanatory report directs the Defense Department to consider creating a “regional outreach center” of the Defense Innovation Unit in Israel; the House draft of the NDAA had included a requirement that the Pentagon establish such an office.The DIU is a relatively new Pentagon unit with offices around the U.S. that works to allow the military to more quickly adopt emerging commercial technologies.

In an effort to address international boycotts and other punitive measures against Israel, the NDAA requires the administration to continually assess the impact of arms embargoes, sanctions and other restrictions imposed on Israel and the ways the U.S. might be able to mitigate those impacts.

The explanatory report instructs the Pentagon to avoid participating in international arms exhibitions that exclude Israeli companies.

But the final NDAA does not include a provision from the House draft of the bill instructing the administration to engage with top allies to ensure they do not enforce International Criminal Court arrest warrants against the U.S. or Israel.

The report states that the U.S. should engage in “regular military exercises of increasing complexity” with Israel, to include “other regional partners as well when feasible,” and requires the administration to report to Congress on such exercises.

In an effort to address growing cooperation among Iran, China, Russia and North Korea, the legislation instructs the administration to establish a whole-of-government effort to respond to such alliances, including establishing working groups in several Cabinet agencies, charged with providing recommendations to the administration and Congress.

The NDAA expands existing required reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, mandating the administration provide additional information to Congress about Iran’s support to its terrorist proxies, its nuclear advancements and its production of new weapons systems like single-use drones.

It further requires prompt notification to Congress if the intelligence community finds that Iran has made the decision to produce a nuclear weapon from its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.

The bill also includes a new authority permitting the U.S. to quickly send weapons seized in transit from Iran to the Houthis to U.S. allies, potentially including Israel and Ukraine.

The NDAA instructs the administration to create a strategy for expanding U.S. security partnerships with Jordan and Lebanon, including working to ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah. It requires the Defense Department to set out benchmarks for cutting off support to the Lebanese Armed Forces if they fail to make progress in or are unwilling to disarm Hezbollah.

The legislation also includes a provision to withhold 25% of U.S. security assistance to Iraq until the administration certifies that the Iraqi government is taking steps to weaken Iran-aligned militia groups in Iraq and remove members of Iran-aligned groups operating as part of the Iraqi security forces, though the secretary of defense can waive those conditions.

And it requires the administration to declassify all documents related to the Iranian proxy attack on the U.S.’ Tower 22 Facility in Jordan in January 2024, which killed three U.S. service members.

Matching an executive order from the Trump administration, the legislation codifies a new designation and sanctions regime for countries engaging in wrongful detention of U.S. citizens, with a requirement that the State Department report to Congress on whether Iran should be so designated.

In addition to the Caesar Act repeal, other Syria-related provisions in the bill require the administration to report to Congress on the possibility and security concerns involved in reopening the U.S. embassy in Damascus, the U.S.’ force posture in Syria and any planned changes to U.S. forces in the country. 

It does not include a more stringent provision from the Senate version of the bill requiring the Pentagon to certify that drawing down U.S. forces in Syria would not compromise U.S. priorities.

The NDAA also provides continued authorization for the U.S. to assist vetted Syrian groups in combating terrorism in the country.

The bill additionally mandates that the Defense Department report to Congress on the possibility of expanding the Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement — an economic and security pact with Bahrain — to include other countries.

And it requires the administration to develop a plan to counter foreign efforts to “continue or expand” the civil war in Sudan.

The legislation does not include a House-proposed provision extending through 2029 the authorization — currently set to lapse on Jan. 1, 2027 — for the U.S. weapons stockpile in Israel, which Israel can tap into in emergencies. 

It also excludes House provisions that aimed to tackle Hezbollah’s operations in South America and to encourage defections by senior Iranian officials. A House provision awarding medals to those servicemembers involved in the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June was not included either.
Other provisions from the House draft of the bill relating to antisemitism, including prohibiting Department of Defense funding for schools that failed to take action against antisemitic demonstrations, and requiring reports on antisemitism in the Pentagon and transnational antisemitic extremism, were also excluded.

When Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) won his first election to the House in 2022, Jewish leaders in his Orlando, Fla., district who had been encouraged by his personal outreach were optimistic he would follow through on a range of commitments he had made vowing to uphold support for Israel.

Despite some initial concerns about his history of involvement in pro-Palestinian demonstrations as well as relationships with anti-Israel activists, Frost had circulated a lengthy Middle East position paper in consultation, in part, with a top pro-Israel group that largely assuaged lingering reservations among Jewish community leaders over the sincerity of his views. 

In the paper as well as a candidate questionnaire solicited by Jewish Insider during his first primary, the young progressive organizer, describing himself as both “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian,” voiced opposition to conditioning aid to Israel — arguing that the security threats facing the Jewish state are “far too grave” to enact such measures. In backing a two-state solution, he clarified that any agreement should require “the basic recognition that Israel has a right to exist” as well as “an end to the antisemitic rhetoric and positions of Hamas.” And if elected, he pledged to visit Israel — which he called “one of the United States’ most important allies and strategic partners.”

Now, almost midway into his second term, Jewish and pro-Israel leaders are expressing some buyer’s remorse as Frost, 28, has embraced positions that put him at odds with his past commitments, fueling frustration among those who had believed he would be a more dependable ally on key issues concerning Israel. 

Frost, for his part, insists that the humanitarian conditions in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza have deteriorated so drastically during his tenure that he had no choice but to change his views, though that has not quelled discontent among his former allies.

“He has broken a lot of promises,” said one Jewish leader, echoing others who expressed dismay with Frost’s turn in Congress.

The most recent move to draw scrutiny from Jewish and pro-Israel leaders is a letter Frost signed urging the Trump administration to recognize a Palestinian state over growing concerns with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The letter, signed by several prominent House progressives and led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — who plans to introduce a similar resolution — said such a state “will need to fully recognize Israel” and guarantee “the disarmament of and relinquishing of power by Hamas.” But pro-Israel activists broadly see the renewed effort as a misguided concession to Hamas amid the ongoing war — as the terror group seeks to leverage international outrage over Israel’s military conduct.

Democratic Majority for Israel, whose political arm had provided input on Frost’s position paper during his primary, took issue with his decision to join the letter. While the group felt sufficiently comfortable with Frost’s Middle East policy views when he first ran for Congress, opting not to intervene on behalf of a top primary rival who had won an endorsement from its super PAC, it has become dissatisfied with his approach as he has continued to stake out more adversarial stances toward Israel during his time in the House.

“We strongly support a two-state solution that ensures Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state with recognized borders and upholds the right of Palestinians to live in freedom and security in a viable state of their own,” Brian Romick, DMFI’s president, said in a statement to JI on Tuesday. “But unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state at this time — as the terrorist group Hamas still governs parts of Gaza and continues to hold Israeli hostages — would not advance peace. It will instead prolong the war by incentivizing Hamas to reject any ceasefire deal, and reward the terrorism we saw on Oct. 7 while making future acts of terror more likely.”

In addition to the letter — which followed a similar resolution he co-sponsored in 2023 during his first term — Frost in May joined legislation to place unprecedented new conditions on aid to Israel by withholding offensive weapons over its alleged violations of international law.

Last year, he also voted against a widely approved bill to provide supplemental aid to Israel six months after Hamas’ attacks. In a statement explaining his thinking at the time, Frost wrote that he was “only able to justify aid for defense, not offense, and this legislation did not allow me to separate the two,” as the war “has claimed the lives of countless innocent Palestinian civilians and brought us no closer to the return of innocent Israeli hostages held by Hamas.”

“For me, the North Star here is having a two-state solution, and everything, all the decisions we make, have to point to that,” Frost said, arguing that he has remained consistent in upholding his core beliefs on the conflict even as his positions on specific policies have changed since he launched his initial campaign for Congress. “The thing I have in mind is the safety and security of everybody, of Israel, of Palestinians — of everybody.”

Meanwhile, Frost has yet to fulfill his campaign vow to travel to Israel, and has declined invitations to do so while in Congress, according to a person familiar with the matter.

In an interview on Wednesday, Frost acknowledged that his approach has changed since he entered the House, attributing his new positions to his revulsion at Israel’s behavior in Gaza — which he described as “completely unacceptable” and “abhorrent” in light of the civilian death toll. “In terms of specific policy points, things have changed,” Frost told JI. “Things have changed a lot — and unfortunately, not for the better.”

“For me, the North Star here is having a two-state solution, and everything, all the decisions we make, have to point to that,” he added, arguing that he has remained consistent in upholding his core beliefs on the conflict even as his positions on specific policies have changed since he launched his initial campaign for Congress. “The thing I have in mind is the safety and security of everybody, of Israel, of Palestinians — of everybody.”

Even as he condemned Hamas and said the terror group should have no role in rebuilding postwar Gaza, Frost said the conflict has evolved into what he regards as a “war on innocent people,” resulting in “massive loss of innocent life” that has fueled his decision to speak up against the Israeli government and its ongoing military campaign.

In the Middle East position paper he wrote in his first primary, Frost had rejected placing additional conditions on aid to Israel because, he wrote at the time, it would “undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself against the very serious threats it faces.” But he explained on Wednesday he had also felt such measures were “already written into the law” and “we didn’t really need to go further” in enforcing it at the time. 

Now, however, “I do believe that the law is being violated,” he told JI, clarifying his recent support for legislation that seeks to withhold transfers of offensive weapons to Israel. “Because of that, we have to look at the way that we are both complicit but also encouraging the current behavior of the Netanyahu government,” he said.

Unlike a handful of his far-left House colleagues who have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza, Frost hesitated to use the term himself, calling it a “difficult” word because of its historical connection to the Holocaust. Still, he said he would not seek to discourage others from such charges. “I’m not going to sit here and defend what is going on right now in any way, shape or form,” he said. “I understand why people use that word. But when we see what’s going on, it’s hard to find the words for it.”

“There’s a lot of things to hold, but the main thing is, yes, there are many things that have changed,” he reiterated. “But for me, what has not changed is the main goal, which is making sure that everyone’s safe and everyone’s secure.”

Frost is hardly alone among Democratic lawmakers who in recent months have become more critical of Israel’s behavior, with even some of the staunchest supporters of the Jewish state struggling to defend the Israeli government as the humanitarian situation in Gaza has continued to worsen nearly two years into the war.

“It’s a radical shift,” one community activist told JI, voicing frustration with Frost’s positions, even as he described their ongoing conversations as “very open and honest.” 

His vacillating stances also illustrate some of the cross-pressures facing progressive Democrats who are not completely aligned with the party’s far left on its hostility toward Israel. Pro-Israel Democrats have recently voiced their concerns that anti-Israel policies could become a litmus test for the left in the midterms, particularly amid Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s moves to occupy the enclave.

But Jewish community leaders in Frost’s district, who spoke on condition of anonymity to address what they characterize as an increasingly delicate relationship with the congressman, explained they are particularly disappointed with his evolution on Middle East policy, given their initial hopes that he would be among a dwindling number of progressive allies committed to defending Israel in the House.

“It’s a radical shift,” one community activist told JI, voicing frustration with Frost’s positions, even as he described their ongoing conversations as “very open and honest.” 

The activist noted that Frost, who had been a prominent gun control advocate before he was elected to Congress, has “a good heart and doesn’t want to see people dying.” But “as a result,” he said, Frost has “a lot of blind spots” in his assessment of the conflict. The activist argued that Frost’s critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza has ignored Hamas’ role in perpetuating the crisis as it refuses to surrender.

“At the end of the day, he very much comes from the ‘oppressor-oppressed’ worldview and sees Israel as the oppressor,” the activist said.

Frost, for his part, said his statements have been misconstrued by a wide range of critics across the spectrum, including pro-Palestinian activists who allege that he made separate commitments during his first primary bid that he has failed to uphold in Congress.

He stressed that he does not “do tit-for-tat stuff” while addressing the war. “Whenever I post about the hostages, I’ll have people sending me messages. ‘What about this?’ No,” he said. “Whenever I post about Palestinians, I’ll have people saying, ‘What about this?’ No, I will post about it all. I will talk about it all. I will say how I feel about everything.”

“I’m very firm in that, just coming from a place of, since I was 15 years old, being involved in the fight to end gun violence, and have grown up through a movement of death,” he told JI. “I just don’t think that’s the way to live as a human, quite frankly.”

“We’ve been disappointed that he has not met the commitments he gave to us,” one DMFI source told JI. “At the same time, we’re grateful that he has come to realize he made a mistake in at least one case, but members of Congress should think through their votes fully and discuss them with knowledgeable people before casting them.”

Even as Jewish and pro-Israel leaders say their relationships with Frost have worsened in recent months, frustration over his approach to Israel has been mounting since his first term, when he called for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza just days after Hamas’ terror attacks. As a freshman, he also voted against a resolution condemning rising antisemitic activity on college campuses, but he later said that vote had been a mistake after meeting with Jewish students in his district.

While Frost had shown contrition for his vote on the resolution in November 2023, DMFI still expressed dissatisfaction with his initial decision at the time — alleging he had not performed proper due diligence beforehand. “We’ve been disappointed that he has not met the commitments he gave to us,” one DMFI source told JI not long after the vote.

“At the same time, we’re grateful that he has come to realize he made a mistake in at least one case, but members of Congress should think through their votes fully and discuss them with knowledgeable people before casting them,” the source stated.

A spokesperson for Frost told JI at the time that the congressman “is trying to hold multiple truths all at once” as he receives input from constituents pushing opposing interests.

“I’m very comfortable with the decisions I’ve made,” Frost said of his approach to Israel. “As I walk the streets of my district, as I speak with the people in my district, this is where I find most people are at. They’re not really at the extremes that I’ve heard from.”

Speaking with JI on Wednesday, Frost said he has appreciated his ongoing discussions with pro-Israel leaders in his district — even if they have not been aligned on major policy questions in recent months. “Hearing their perspective is really important,” he confirmed. “What I always tell people is I might not always come to the conclusion that you agree with,” he said, “but I hope you’ll always feel I’ve engaged in good faith.”

He suggested that Jewish community activists who have been irked by his approach to the Middle East have not fully reckoned with his belief that Israel’s military actions have damaged its reputation in the United States. “It’s palpable across the country, and I think a lot of this has to do with the decisions that are being made by Netanyahu,” he argued.

“I’m very comfortable with the decisions I’ve made,” Frost said of his approach to Israel. “As I walk the streets of my district, as I speak with the people in my district, this is where I find most people are at. They’re not really at the extremes that I’ve heard from.”

When he assumed office in 2023, Frost had sought guidance from pro-Israel Democrats including Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who enthusiastically backed his campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), one person familiar with the matter told JI. But the congressman has since drifted away from the two lawmakers on Israel while staking out positions that have put him more in line with the far left.

More recently, Frost has built closer relationships with such leading Israel critics as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the source told JI, even if he has resisted identifying as an official member of the so-called Squad of progressive House Democrats. 

Owing in part to his network in Congress, Jewish community leaders are doubtful Frost will change his views on Israel. “It may be the best that we can hope is that he doesn’t become an actual member of the Squad,” said one activist, while noting that Frost is “totally safe” in his deeply blue district as he seeks a third term next year. 

Still, the activist said, “his refusal to actually go and see” Israel “first-hand is a problem,” particularly in light of his primary vow to visit the Jewish state as a congressman.

Frost, who acknowledged the commitment that he had made, said he hopes to see the region “at some point,” but added that it has “been difficult to figure out the timing.”

After the interview, Frost asked his spokesperson to clarify that he would “like to travel to the region at a point where he’d be able to visit both Israel and the Gaza Strip,” indicating a potential visit is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future.

The latest Democratic primary battle between the left and center where Israel has emerged as a point of division is playing out in a special House election in Tucson, Ariz., later this month, as five candidates vie to replace former longtime Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), who died in March.

The July 15 primary in Arizona’s dependably blue 7th Congressional District has kept a relatively low profile, even as it features ideological tensions over Middle East policy that could hold implications for the party’s increasingly fractious approach to Israel in the lead-up to next year’s midterm elections.

Adelita Grijalva, 54, a former Pima County supervisor, is viewed as the heavy favorite to win the seat in what is expected to be a low-turnout race, owing in part to her significant name recognition in the area represented by her late father for over two decades. 

She has also consolidated endorsements from top establishment Democrats, including Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), while securing the backing of progressive leaders such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), among other high-profile critics of Israel in Congress.

But her limited record of commentary on Israel has raised questions among pro-Israel activists rallying behind one of Grijalva’s chief primary rivals, Daniel Hernandez, a former state lawmaker who identifies as a pro-Israel progressive and claims support from Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and the political arm of Democratic Majority for Israel.

The 35-year-old Hernandez, recently named the board chair of the Zionist LGTBQ organization A Wider Bridge, has pitched himself as a “consistent champion” of pro-Israel causes, in contrast with the late Grijalva, who during his long tenure embraced hostile positions toward Israel — most prominently when he joined a small handful of House Democrats to oppose additional funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system in 2021.

Like her father, the younger Grijalva appears more skeptical of Israel amid its war in Gaza, even as she has yet to publicly clarify her own views on a range of key issues, such as continued U.S. security aid to Israel, which has faced vocal resistance from some of her supporters on the left.

Grijalva called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas 10 days after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. In her role as a county supervisor, she also reluctantly voted for a resolution that condemned Hamas, while voicing frustration that she “couldn’t talk about peace and humanitarian aid” for Gaza.

More recently, Grijalva has struggled to clearly articulate her approach to Israel and the broader Middle East, suggesting in a recent discussion with a progressive organization that speaking candidly about her views could draw outside spending from pro-Israel advocacy groups such as AIPAC, which has targeted Israel critics in Democratic primaries, into the race.

“The frustration for me, and it will always be, I think, is that there were some things that my dad could get away with that a lot of these organizations that come in and try to influence races and stuff, he predated them,” Grijalva explained during a Zoom call in May with Progressive Democrats of America, an anti-Israel group that is backing her campaign.

Her father, who died at 77, “was like this mountain in the middle, like no one’s moving him one way or the other,” she continued on the call, some portions of which were recently reviewed by Jewish Insider. “But I do think that in this environment, when we are not in normal times and you can’t negotiate with terrorists, there is a difference here, where walking in, I know it’s going to be a different experience for me than it was for my dad.”

A spokesperson for AIPAC said on Wednesday that the group is “not involved” in the race. DMFI PAC, which has also engaged in several House primaries in recent cycles, has so far refrained from investing in the race, despite backing Hernandez. The group did not respond to a request for comment about its plans for the final days of the election, now less than two weeks away.

Elsewhere in the Zoom discussion, Grijalva dodged a question about her position on sending U.S. arms to Israel amid its war against Hamas in Gaza, which she called an “atrocity,” while echoing a section on her campaign site calling for “an immediate release of the remaining hostages in Hamas captivity” and “rapid and complete restoration of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip” to set “the foundation for a two-state solution.”

“The surest way to bring them home, defeat Hamas and begin the process of rebuilding Gaza for the Palestinian people,” Grijalva said on the call, “is through a long-term, just and peaceful resolution, which the United States has a responsibility to work towards.”

Still, she suggested that U.S. involvement in the ongoing conflict “has not been helpful at all,” and vaguely argued that “the United States has been a part of interfering with this process and trying to aid in different ways.”

Pro-Israel activists in Arizona, none of whom would agree to speak on the record over concerns of antagonizing a likely future member of Congress, have voiced apprehension about Grijalva’s comments on Middle East policy, pointing to a lack of general clarity on major issues.

During a Zoom conversation this week with the Arizona Democratic Party Jewish Caucus, for example, Grijalva was asked about her “understanding of the term ‘intifada,’” a recent subject of heated debate as Zohran Mamdani, the far-left Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, has faced backlash for doubling down on defending calls to “globalize” the Palestinian uprisings against Israel — which critics have interpreted as stoking violence against Jews.

Grijalva, who has condemned recent antisemitic attacks, indicated that she was unfamiliar with the term, according to a brief recording of the Zoom discussion shared with JI on Wednesday. “I don’t really know in this case what that means,” she said in response.

Grijalva’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Limited public polling on the primary has shown Grijalva leading the field, which includes Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old political influencer who says she has raised $500,000 as her campaign has continued to gain some traction. On Wednesday, Foxx notched an endorsement from David Hogg’s political action group, which said “she has translated her story to represent a new vision of generational change that speaks truth to” President Donald Trump’s “cruel policies.”

An internal poll commissioned by Foxx’s campaign and publicized earlier this week reportedly showed her in second place behind Grijalva with 35%, marking a major improvement over her standing in a previous survey, released in April, where she claimed 5% of the vote. 

Foxx has rarely addressed developments in the Middle East, but she has indicated that she would be among the more outspoken critics of Israel if elected. In a video she shared on social media late last month, Foxx is seen addressing voters about the war in Gaza, arguing that “this is the issue that has politicized my entire generation.”

“We have watched devastation unfold on our screens as we have come of age,” she said in her remarks, while adding, “I want to be really clear that in one of the richest countries in the world, it is unconscionable that we send money abroad for weapons that disproportionately hurt women and children and families when families right here do not have food or insurance or housing.”

Jose Malvido Jr., a longshot candidate who has appeared in debates, has for his part repeatedly called Israel’s military actions in Gaza a “genocide,” an accusation his opponents have at least publicly avoided.

In perhaps a rare moment of unity on Middle East policy, both Grijalva and Hernandez have suggested that they would support an impeachment inquiry on Trump’s unilateral decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities last month. Foxx forcefully condemned the attacks, saying that the U.S. “should not be dragged into another endless war by a reality TV president.”

Mike Noble, a pollster and political analyst in Arizona, said Grijalva is “in the driver’s seat” as the primary enters its final stretch, noting it is “her race to lose.” Foxx, he speculated, could potentially peel support from Grijalva’s progressive base, but said it is unlikely that even a split vote would amount to a meaningful change in the outcome. “I’m less bullish on Hernandez,” he told JI, even as he acknowledged that the former state lawmaker could “pull off some votes.”

Grijalva’s ambiguous comments addressing Israel, meanwhile, do not appear to have tangibly stunted her path to the nomination — particularly as recent political developments have shown that embracing firm pro-Israel positions may no longer be as strong a prerequisite for a winning Democratic campaign amid declining voter sympathy for the Jewish state.

Pro-Israel activists are also preparing for a Grijalva victory, while continuing to voice reservations over the direction she will take on key Middle East policy issues if she is elected to succeed her father in the House. 

No such questions surround Hernandez, said Alma Hernandez, his sister and a top campaign surrogate, who is an outspoken defender of Israel in the state Legislature. 

“His record speaks for itself,” she told JI, saying that he “will always fight for what’s right and bring principled leadership to Congress.”