The Democratic National Committee’s resolutions committee is set to consider resolutions condemning AIPAC and Israel at its upcoming meeting next week in New Orleans — a sign of the continued and growing discord in the party over Middle East policy. 

It’s unclear at this point how great of a chance the resolutions stand of passing in their current form, but they are emerging as the AIPAC brand has been tarnished inside the Democratic Party.

The resolution targeting AIPAC, described in a resolution packet obtained by Jewish Insider as a “Resolution On Electoral Integrity, Transparency, And Limiting The Influence Of Corporate Money In Democratic Elections,” specifically calls out the pro-Israel group for its spending.

“The use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spending approximately $14 million in a single Illinois Democratic primary,” the resolution reads.

It goes on to accuse “corporate money PACs” of also weighing in against “candidates who have advocated for Palestinian human rights, ceasefire efforts, or changes to U.S. foreign policy.” It states that opposition to such spending should be part of the party’s 2028 platform. Though the rest of the resolution is generally aimed at condemning dark money and independent spending in primaries, AIPAC is the only group singled out by name.

AIPAC and the DNC declined to comment on the resolution.

The resolution was submitted by a DNC delegate from Florida who pushed a resolution last year calling for an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. aid to Israel, which was ultimately rejected by the same panel. At DNC Chair Ken Martin’s direction, the DNC set up a working group to discuss Israel-related issues.

In addition to the AIPAC resolution, another resolution highlights accusations of genocide against Israel and suggests that Israeli military units are in violation of U.S. arms sales laws, requiring a suspension or conditioning of arms transfers. A third condemns U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran and its partners, and calls for conditions on U.S. aid to Israel.

Democratic insiders took differing views on whether the resolutions — particularly the one relating to AIPAC — are likely to pass in their current form.

Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, emphasized that any of the 44 members of the resolutions committee can introduce resolutions. She said that the fact of a resolution being introduced doesn’t mean that it will be considered by or adopted by the full DNC. Resolutions are debated and can be amended by the resolutions committee before they are voted on.

“What you’re seeing here doesn’t reflect a position that’s been adopted by the DNC. It reflects one person[’s] — who filed these resolutions — views,” Soifer said. “I don’t expect that these resolutions will be adopted as they’re drafted.”

Soifer argued that, though there’s “broad concern” about dark money across the U.S. political system, targeting AIPAC in particular doesn’t serve the goal of combating the issue as a whole.

“There are many ways to express such concern, I don’t think solely identifying one organization —  especially not in this incredibly difficult moment when such a singling out can be viewed as potentially antisemitic — I don’t think that that is effective,” Soifer said.

A DNC official told JI that the resolutions committee is required by DNC bylaws to consider all resolutions as long as they are compliant with DNC rules, that the committee considers dozens of resolutions at each meeting — totaling more than a hundred in the last year — and that the resolutions are not legally binding. If the resolutions committee votes to advance a resolution, it is then voted on by the entire DNC.

Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist in Minnesota, said that he also doesn’t see the AIPAC resolution going forward because it lacks “teeth” — the DNC “can’t tell candidates where they can and cannot raise money … that’s not our purview.” He also emphasized the diversity of DNC delegates, many of whom do not have an intensive focus on AIPAC or the Middle East.

He also lamented that some Democratic activists seem “hyper-focused on something that doesn’t impact [the day-to-day lives of Americans] and [something] they have very little knowledge on, but they have big emotions for,” referring to the situation in the Middle East. But he also predicted the party will ultimately come together around a nuanced position of supporting allies and opposing Iranian aggression while also opposing “needless war.”

But another senior Jewish Democrat, speaking to JI on condition of anonymity, predicted that an anti-AIPAC resolution of some form could move forward, pointing to discontent and frustration among Democratic insiders over AIPAC’s spending to block former Rep. Tom Malinowski’s (D-NJ) special election primary bid earlier this year, as well as its involvement in Democratic primaries in Illinois.

“I think anyone who is surprised by this sort of potential action by the DNC hasn’t been paying close attention to how AIPAC has been seen within the Democratic Party, especially after their relatively recent decision to get actively involved in Democratic primaries,” the Jewish Democrat said. “The Democratic Party is going to respond when outside groups try to manipulate primaries.”

The Jewish leader said that AIPAC has alienated even some Democrats who were previously aligned with or had donated to AIPAC through its recent political maneuvering, potentially putting more fuel on the fire.

At the same time, the leader urged the party to “go out of their way to ensure that they were not singling out AIPAC for any other reason than it was actively involved in Democratic primaries, which of course other outside forces were too. It’s totally legitimate to criticize a pack in a way that you would criticize any other PAC or outside organization trying to influence Democratic primaries.”

Joel Rubin, a Democratic strategist, former senior J Street official and former Jewish liaison for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign, emphasized that he’s worked at odds with AIPAC at many points in his career, but said he is nonetheless concerned about the singling out and targeting of the group.

“Anytime you single out a specific organization where … at least half of the members are Democrats, and you say they’re banned, you’re opening up a litmus test Pandora’s box that is not going to be easily shut. It’s just bad politics,” Rubin said. “There are ways to criticize — as there should be — an organization’s views and even their electoral efforts without putting forward a resolution of policy of the party that is creating a dynamic that will only further alienate Jewish Democratic voters, period.”

Jewish Americans, he emphasized, have been a core constituency to the Democratic Party for decades, as voters, organizers and fundraisers, and the specific targeting of AIPAC “is a great way to kick out perhaps the most loyal voting bloc from the party.” He said that the effort “plays right into the Republicans’ hands.”

And, Rubin noted, the DNC has no ability to control which candidates run in Democratic primaries, from whom they accept contributions or how AIPAC and its supporters spend their money.

He also predicted that some Democratic activists would treat the resolution, and rejection of AIPAC, as an organizing tool and litmus test for Democratic candidates going forward, regardless of whether this particular resolution is approved.

“It’s going to take leadership amongst people to say, ‘This is not how we treat people in our party. This is not what we do. And if we have a problem with AIPAC and the way they use dark money and the way they have Republican donors go through in a sort of stalking horse, we should call that out and point that out every single time,’” Rubin said. “But that does not mean every single dollar that AIPAC uses … is solely Republican.” 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Wednesday that he still hopes to pass supplemental military funding to support the war in Iran through regular legislative procedures, rather than incorporating it into an anticipated party-line budget reconciliation bill.

Graham, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, which oversees reconciliation, announced on Wednesday that the committee would be pursuing a new reconciliation bill, to include funding for both the military and homeland security.

But asked by Jewish Insider whether he expects Iran war funding — the Pentagon has proposed an ask of more than $200 billion for the war — to be included in the reconciliation bill, as some Republicans have been discussing, Graham said he would still like to pass it through normal procedures.

“That might be difficult — hopefully we can do it through normal order,” Graham said.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, also previously expressed a preference for approving the funding through regular order, rather than reconciliation.

Both paths come with significant hurdles: With nearly all Senate Democrats opposed to the war and many opposed to additional funding, trying to pass the Iran war supplemental through normal procedures may run up against a Democratic filibuster.

But the reconciliation process, which only needs a 50-vote majority, would require near-unanimous support from House Republicans, something that may be difficult to rally on any reconciliation bill — regardless of the policy issues — but especially so when a handful of House Republicans have expressed opposition to or skepticism of the war effort.

Graham said Wednesday morning on X that the Budget Committee would “expeditiously move toward creating a second budget reconciliation bill.”

“The purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to make sure there is adequate funding to secure our homeland and to support our men and women in the military who are fighting so bravely,” Graham said. “President Trump and Leader [John] Thune [R-SD] are right to push for a second reconciliation bill to address the threats we face and keep our elections secure and fair.”

Even outside of the war-related funding, President Donald Trump is seeking a $1.5 trillion budget for the Pentagon for 2027, an increase of more than 50%. Some reporting around the ongoing talks to reopen the Department of Homeland Security has suggested that funding for immigration enforcement could be separated from the current funding debate and passed through reconciliation.

Dan Caldwell, a vocal GOP critic of the administration’s Middle East strategy who hails from the isolationist wing of the party, has been hired for a job at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Caldwell, once a top advisor and ally to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, was dismissed last spring, accused of leaking to the press, and publicly criticized by Hegseth. Caldwell blamed his firing on opposition from the “foreign policy establishment.”

“In his new position, Mr. Caldwell will serve as an adviser to senior intelligence officials who are responsible for coordinating the work of 18 federal intelligence agencies and drafting the president’s daily intelligence briefing,” The New York Times reported.

A spokesperson for the ODNI said in a statement, “Any individual who is hired by ODNI goes through an extensive background review, including record checks and personal interviews, with a trained official to ensure the individual is trustworthy and does not pose a threat to national security.”  

An administration official said that there “was no evidence released to suggest Mr. Caldwell had, in fact, leaked information from the Pentagon. The matter was investigated, and he was cleared” and that he has not yet started in his role but that it “would be an administrative role.”

Caldwell joins the administration amid ongoing operations in the Middle East — after having adamantly opposed the more limited U.S. strikes on Iran last June, maintaining his view that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should not be a top U.S. priority.

The isolationist wing of the party has established an apparent power base inside ODNI under officials including Gabbard, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent and Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration Will Ruger, who like Caldwell worked for the isolationist Koch-backed Defense Priorities think tank before joining the Trump administration.

Prior to Ruger, Gabbard sought to hire Daniel Davis — also a Defense Priorities affiliate and a strident critic of Israel and opponent of U.S. action against Iran — for the role but reversed course amid public scrutiny.

Donald Trump Jr. praised Caldwell on Monday as a “true loyalist to my father and the entire MAGA movement” and an “America First Patriot.”

One former administration official told JI they see the hire as part of an ongoing effort by Ruger to “undermine the president on Iran,” “bring down” the U.S. operations against the Islamic Republic and attack CIA Director John Ratcliffe. “The sooner the president gets rid of Gabbard the better. He needs someone loyal at DNI, not leakers with political agendas,” the former official said.

Right-wing commentator Laura Loomer also lamented Calwell’s rehiring, alleging that Caldwell threatened to kill Hegseth when he was fired and that “to be hired to work at ODNI, you have to be an anti-Semite, a Trump hater, a Never Trump, funded by Koch, or a Democrat,” adding, “Their whole purpose is to undermine Trump and amplify the Tucker Carlson shadow government network.”

Caldwell’s first stop after his firing last April was an interview with Tucker Carlson, on whose show he has made subsequent appearances. He said in his initial appearance on the program that his dismissal was instigated by individuals who objected to his restrained approach to foreign policy matters. 

“I have some views about the role of America in the world [that], as we’ve discussed, are a little controversial. All of us in our own ways threatened really established interests,” Caldwell told Carlson in April of himself and the other accused Pentagon leakers. “We threatened a lot of established interests inside the building and outside the building, and we had people who had personal vendettas against us.” 

In between his two roles in the second Trump administration, Caldwell served as a senior fellow for foreign policy at American Moment, an organization aimed at staffing Republican political offices with young conservatives that advocates for a restrained foreign policy. He was also a frequent online commentator on Middle East policy issues.

Ahead of the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year, Caldwell argued adamantly against them, warning that they would turn into an extended nation-building effort and accusing Israel of trying to drag the U.S. into a war and undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts. He also dismissed a report suggesting that Iran had resumed its nuclear weapons program.

“The costs of a conventional strike against Iran’s nuclear program are potentially catastrophic in lives, dollars, and instability,” he said. “Yet, the long-term impact on the effectiveness of Iran’s nuclear program is likely to be limited.”

Throughout the war, he repeatedly warned that the U.S. and Israel lacked the air defense stockpiles to defend against sustained and ongoing Iranian attacks.

When the U.S. attacked Iran, Caldwell co-wrote an op-ed lamenting the U.S. decision and stating that the “move carries immense risks, potentially plunging the United States into yet another costly, dangerous quagmire in a region that is less important to Washington than foreign-policy elites would have you believe.”

The op-ed continued, “If Trump’s military operation isn’t tightly defined or properly managed, or if actors in the US government or outside of it are allowed to willfully expand the scope of the operation, the second outcome is the most likely — and the most disastrous,” referring to an extended war aimed at regime change.

After the strikes he said, in a co-written report, that no military approach other than a full occupation of Iran would permanently stop its progress toward a nuclear weapon and that U.S. strikes “may set the program back without destroying it, allowing Iran to reconstitute and even speed up its program over time.”

In the wake of the operation, Caldwell argued in a co-written analysis piece that the U.S. force posture in the region is “more of a burden than a benefit” and that around two-thirds of U.S. forces deployed to the Middle East as of July 2025 be withdrawn. 

He said that there is no “existential military threat to the U.S. homeland” in the Middle East, therefore additional assets deployed after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks should be removed, U.S, air defenses should be pulled back, carrier strike groups should be removed from the region and all U.S. forces should be removed from Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some of the U.S. forces in Jordan.

“While a nuclear-armed Iran is not ideal, it does not pose an existential threat to the United States, as Tehran has no delivery vehicles capable of reaching the U.S. homeland,” Caldwell wrote. “Israel might view the threat posed by a nuclear Iran differently, but the interests of a U.S. partner — one that itself has nuclear weapons and receives significant U.S. military aid — should not solely drive the U.S. posture in the region.”

He additionally claimed that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East has no impact on the Iranian regime’s calculations “when it comes to the country’s nuclear program or its wider regional military strategy.”

And he said that the U.S.’s military presence “encourages risk taking by Israel” and that Israel might not have launched strikes on Iran last year if not for the U.S. presence.

Caldwell argued last November that conservatives shouldn’t rule out opposing U.S. aid to Israel.

He also dismissed the “freak out” among conservatives about a reported plan to establish a Qatari air force training facility in the United States.

And he warned that ongoing U.S. strikes against the Houthis could have dragged the U.S. into “another forever war in the Middle East.”

The conservative Caldwell additionally defended progressive Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner when Platner first disclosed that he had a tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol, claiming that Nazi tattoos were “fairly common” in the Marines during the war on terror.