A group of six additional Senate Democrats plan to file new war powers resolutions this week to halt the war in Iran, a move that would allow Democrats to continue forcing votes on the war for the foreseeable future. 

Previously, a different group of six Democrats introduced similar resolutions, and Democrats have called up two of them thus far, with plans to call up a third this week. So far, the resolutions have all failed along mostly party lines, with all senators remaining consistent in their votes.

The latest group of lawmakers includes Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Andy Kim (D-NJ). 

The array of lawmakers involved in the latest effort spans from staunch progressives and critics of Israel to generally more pro-Israel members. 

“President Trump chose to start a war knowing it was going to raise gas prices on Americans already struggling to get by,” Gillibrand said in a statement. “The president, and his party, just don’t care about anyone other than themselves. They lie, cheat and steal to enrich themselves and leave regular folks with the bill. It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to stand up and do their job.”

House Democrats also plan to call up a war powers resolution this week, which may pass given that some Democrats who previously opposed a war powers effort and a handful of Republicans have indicated they plan to change their votes.

The latest set of six resolutions will not be eligible for floor votes immediately, but Democrats can call up the other four resolutions introduced previously at will. Senate Democrats are also likely to force votes on matters related to the Iran war during the upcoming reconciliation process, which Republicans aim to use to fund immigration enforcement and other priorities.

Texas Democratic Party activists are set to consider a series of resolutions condemning Israel for alleged genocide and pushing for an arms embargo, as well as criticizing pro-Israel involvement in U.S. politics — characterizing it as foreign influence in American elections — and urging penalties for candidates who accept their support.

Close to 20 resolutions have been introduced on these issues ahead of the Texas Democratic Party’s convention in late June. They would need to be considered and approved at preliminary levels before being put before the full convention.

The resolutions echo similar efforts being undertaken within the Democratic National Committee at a meeting in New Orleans this week, and within other state-level parties across the country. The resolutions were introduced by seven individuals, and several of the resolutions are highly repetitive of, if not identical to, others. 

Several of the resolutions suggest that U.S. institutions are compromised by pro-Israel interests, which they describe as vectors of “foreign interference in U.S. elections.” 

“Foreign-aligned political action committees and advocacy organizations exert disproportionate influence in U.S. elections through coordinated expenditures, endorsements, and political pressure that undermine democratic accountability,” one of the resolutions states, going on to specify that it is referring to “the political network commonly referred to as the ‘Israel Lobby.’”

The resolution names both AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel, claiming they “exist primarily to promote policies aligned with the interests of a foreign government rather than the independent interests of Democratic voters” and that their policies have “contributed to prolonged military entanglements, regional instability, civilian suffering, and the erosion of U.S. credibility abroad, while failing to achieve lasting peace or security.”

The resolution, and another similar one, would set as party policy that Texas Democrats should reject campaign contributions, endorsements and other support from pro-Israel groups, and seek to penalize Democratic candidates who accept their assistance with measures such as withdrawal of party endorsements, ineligibility for fundraising and campaign assistance and censure and review by the state party ethics committee.

The resolution urges local Democratic parties to adopt similar penalty policies.

It further urges Democrats to investigate AIPAC and DMFI as potentially violating lobbying disclosure and foreign agent statutes.

Several of the resolutions accuse Israel of apartheid and genocide, and urge Democratic lawmakers from the state and nationally to support a halt to not only U.S. financial aid to Israel but also any shipments of weapons purchased from the U.S. and logistical support provided to Israel until international human rights groups declare that Israel is no longer engaged in apartheid or genocide.

Some of the resolutions urge adoption of a statewide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions policy, calling for Texas state institutions to cut ties with companies implicated in to Israel’s supposed genocide. One resolution calls for the creation of a statewide task force to review Texas’ “financial, institutional and trade relationships” with states engaged in genocide and to require “public reporting on any associations with entities implicated in genocide or human rights violations.”

Another urges Texas Democrats and others to support the congressional Block the Bombs Act and the Justice for Hind Rajab Act, as well as to investigate American citizens who have volunteered for the IDF for participation in “gross violations of human rights … and subject the perpetrators of such violations to Congressional Oversight or prosecution as appropriate.”

Still another describes the state’s existing anti-BDS law as an “infringement of the [F]irst [A]mendment” and states that it should be a “top legislative priority” for the state Democratic Party to seek its repeal.

“Anything short of that is a derelict of duty to represent the people of Texas and ensure their constitutional rights are fully protected,” the resolution continues.

Other resolutions call for the recognition of Palestinian statehood. One of those also urges support for the release of “Palestinian political prisoners detained without trial in Israel” and calls on the U.S. to adopt as its own policy the Arab Peace Initiative.

“Pushing for the Abrahamic Accords without resolving the Palestinian issue is of no value, and even if signed by some Arab Governments, it has not led to real peace between the Israelis and other neighboring Arab countries’ populations, seeing their Palestinian brethren suffering under the occupation for 58 years,” the resolution states.

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.” 

The University of Maryland, College Park student government unanimously passed two resolutions hostile towards Israel on Wednesday night, including one that called for the school to ban members of the Israel Defense Forces from speaking on campus. 

The resolution, targeting Israelis, called for the university to prohibit people who are “committing war crimes” and “genocide” from speaking on campus. 

It came as a response to an event hosted by the campus chapter of Students Supporting Israel on Oct. 21 featuring former IDF soldiers who spoke to students about their experiences serving during Israel’s war with Hamas. 

During the event, protesters packed the outside hallway shouting “baby killers” and “IOF [Israel “Occupation” Forces] off our campus,” while several others protested from outside of the building with chants comparing the IDF to the Ku Klux Klan, the university’s student-run Jewish newspaper, The Mitzpeh, reported. 

The second resolution called on the university to issue an apology to students who faced disciplinary action for protesting that event. The resolution stated that “two student journalists were wrongfully detained by the University of Maryland Police Department for over an hour while attempting to document the event.” At the time, UMPD said in a statement that the student journalists refused to provide identification or credentials. 

Both resolutions passed 25-0, with one abstention. 

UMD has one of the largest Jewish student populations in the country — nearly 20% of the College Park undergraduate student body of more than 30,000 students is Jewish, according to Hillel International. But there are “very few” Jewish students remaining in student government, junior criminology and criminal justice major Meirav Solomon told Jewish Insider.

Solomon was removed as a student government member in 2023 after being put on a “blacklist” of students who she said were accused of “not believing in human rights.” She told The Mitzpeh at the time that the list profiled candidates with “Jewish-sounding names,” and most students denounced by the document had never voiced a public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The current student government is mostly composed of Students for Justice in Palestine members, or people who support the group, Solomon said. 

The latest resolutions follow the passing of a separate resolution — voted on at the start of Yom Kippur — calling on the university and its charitable foundation to implement a boycott of companies and academic institutions with ties to “Israel’s regime of apartheid and occupation.”

“Jewish students on campus are already feeling very unsafe,” said Solomon. “But these resolutions have the most shocking language I’ve seen. This is extreme language and doubles down on making Jewish students feel that they don’t have a voice in student government.”

When the BDS vote was announced in October, UMD President Darryll Pines told the university’s newspaper, The Diamondback, that the university supports SGA’s right to debate the issue. But he added that the university wants to ensure the process is “open and fair and has dialogue from all parties of our broad student body.” 

“Resolutions voted on by the Student Government Association are student-led and reflect perspectives of voting members of the SGA,” a university spokesperson told JI at the time of the BDS resolution vote. “They have no bearing on university policy or practice.” 

This story was updated on Thursday to reflect the outcome of the vote.

When Democratic National Committee members gather in Minneapolis later this month for the party’s summer meeting, they’ll consider two Israel-related resolutions — a more balanced one, which has the backing of party chair Ken Martin, and an anti-Israel measure that calls for an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel. 

Sources within the DNC say they don’t expect the anti-Israel resolution, which was authored by a committee member from Florida, to pass. But the fact that it will be considered by the body has unnerved Jewish Democrats, who are working behind the scenes to promote the more balanced resolution. That one calls for an “immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages, living and deceased, held by Hamas.” It also reiterates Democratic Party support for a two-state solution. (The text of the two resolutions was first reported by Semafor.)

The Martin-backed resolution is co-sponsored by the DNC’s entire leadership, including DNC associate chair Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Jewish Labor Committee, according to a copy of the resolution obtained by Jewish Insider. Both measures will first be voted on by the DNC’s Resolutions Committee.  

“It sends a strong signal that the chair himself has chosen to sponsor and lead the resolution that clearly condemns the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, affirms Democrats’ commitment to bringing home the hostages and addresses the need for humanitarian aid in Gaza,” Jewish Democratic Council of America CEO Halie Soifer told JI on Wednesday. “We are hopeful the DNC Resolutions Committee will reject the arms embargo resolution and reaffirm its support of a two-state solution and a release of the hostages.”

A DNC spokesperson declined to comment on the specific measures. “Any DNC member can submit resolutions for fellow members to consider,” the spokesperson told JI, noting that “submitted resolutions might not necessarily represent the views of the entire DNC.” 

The anti-Israel resolution was submitted first; the competing resolution came later, as an attempt to reiterate the positions adopted in the Democratic Party platform at the convention in Chicago last year. The platform stated that former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris were committed to “Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge [and] its right to defend itself.” The measure being advanced by Martin and his allies leading the DNC strongly condemns the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, and it takes aim at both Hamas militants and “far-right ministers in the government of Israel.” 

JDCA and Democratic Majority for Israel have both been part of conversations with DNC officials to offer suggestions on the Martin-backed resolution. 

DMFI CEO Brian Romick said in a statement that the group is “deeply troubled by the introduction of a flawed, irresponsible” anti-Israel resolution  “that will further sow division within our party and do nothing to help bring an end to the Israel-Hamas.” 

Other left-leaning Jewish groups, like Zioness, offered feedback as well and called on Democrats to reject the anti-Israel resolution, which did not mention Hamas or the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks. 

“DNC members should vote against this attempt to reopen and rewrite the party platform that was adopted with overwhelming enthusiasm at the convention less than one year ago,” Zioness CEO Amanda Berman told JI. “Americans want to see Democrats fighting for housing, healthcare, education, economic opportunity and democracy, not fighting about support of our democratic allies abroad.” 

The intra-party fight comes soon after Martin faced criticism from some Jewish leaders for an interview in which Martin fumbled a question about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.” 

A divide is emerging in the Democratic Senate primary in Illinois over resolutions the Senate voted on earlier this week to block certain arms sales to Israel.

Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton’s campaign and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi told Jewish Insider on Friday that they wouldn’t have supported the resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), even as they condemned the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 

But Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) announced earlier in the day that she would have voted for the resolutions if she’d been in the Senate.

The split could help shape the potentially crucial Jewish community vote in the upcoming Senate primary.

“As a mother, it’s heartwrenching to see images of children forced to go without food. Israel and the United States need to take every possible step to end the humanitarian crisis and ensure aid is immediately and widely made available,” Stratton said in a statement to JI. “I continue to pray for a ceasefire that ends the suffering in Gaza, for the return of the hostages still held by Hamas to their families in Israel, and for lasting peace in the region.”

Stratton’s campaign elaborated that the lieutenant governor believes, “[w]e should all be speaking with a clear voice that the Netanyahu administration must be doing more to get food and aid to the citizens of Gaza right away, but Juliana believes that cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel could risk standing in the way of the ultimate goals of a true ceasefire and sustained peace.”

The campaign also said that Stratton believes in Israel’s “right to defend itself as one of the United States’ closest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East.”

The campaign said Stratton “strongly disagrees” with how the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has executed the war in Gaza, but she “has been vocal in her support of Israel in the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas on October 7th.”

Krishnamoorthi — who, in an interview with JI earlier this year, said he did not support efforts to cut off or condition U.S. aid to Israel — said Friday that the Sanders resolutions would not have solved the humanitarian crisis.

“We need an immediate ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and regional partners and that is swiftly accepted by Hamas, along with the release of the remaining hostages and the emergency provision of humanitarian aid,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement to JI. “The U.S. must use all of its diplomatic influence to make that happen as quickly as possible. Ultimately, the only path to a lasting peace is a two-state solution. The first step and my focus today is ending the current humanitarian disaster and getting food in as quickly as possible. Wednesday’s resolutions did not right that wrong.”

He said that he has “long been a steadfast supporter of our nation’s alliance with Israel” and that it “had every right to defend itself,” but said that “[w]hat we see going on today in Gaza is a moral catastrophe.”

“As Americans, we can never sit by and allow widespread starvation and disease among a civilian population that includes the elderly, the disabled, women, and children,” Krishnamoorthi continued. 

He highlighted that he wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Friday, urging them to surge aid into the strip and to ensure accountability that it reaches its intended recipients. 

He said in the letter that, despite acknowledging the starvation in Gaza, the administration has not done enough to remedy the situation. Krishnamoorthi also urged others in the region, including Hamas, to cooperate in the proper delivery of aid.

Kelly, meanwhile, said in a statement Friday that she would have voted for the resolutions.

“Israelis and Palestinians must work to secure a path forward where both peoples can live in peace, safety and security,” Kelly said in a statement. “I have supported Israel, but in this moment, I cannot in good conscience defend starving young children and prolonging the suffering of innocent families. Now is the time for moral leadership in the U.S. Senate.”

Both Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — who is retiring — and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) supported the resolutions.

Durbin has supported every similar effort Sanders has made since November to block various arms sales to Israel, but Duckworth had voted against them in the past and, in fact, argued forcefully against them in a letter to constituents.

The votes on Sanders’ proposal to cut Israel aid are also proving to be a dividing line in Michigan’s Senate primary: Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) announced Friday that she would have opposed them, while state Sen. Mallory McMorrow said she supported them.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said Thursday that she supported two resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to cut off shipments of assault rifles and bombs and bomb guidance kits to Israel, in a pivot from her previous stances.

Slotkin missed the votes on the resolutions which occurred Wednesday, having spent part of the day taping an episode of “The Late Show with Steven Colbert.” Slotkin’s support brings the total number of Democrats supporting the two resolutions to 28 and 25, respectively. Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a potential future colleague of Slotkin in Michigan’s Senate delegation, also voiced support Wednesday for cutting off offensive weapons to Israel.

“I have struggled with this Joint Resolution of Disapproval more than any previous votes in the nearly two years since Hamas initiated the attacks of October 7,” Slotkin said in a statement. “Had I made it back for the vote yesterday, I would have voted yes to block offensive weapons to Israel based on my concerns over lack of food and medicine getting to civilians in Gaza.”

She said she remains a “strong supporter of the Jewish State of Israel … But despite the fact that Hamas began this bloody round of conflict — and refuses to release the hostages — the images of emaciated children are hard to turn away from. As are the calls from Michiganders who have friends and family trying to survive in Gaza.”

The senator called the resolution votes “a bad way to do foreign policy” and said that it’s the role of the executive branch to set foreign policy and negotiate with other countries, but that the Israeli government believes “there are no limits to what they can do while still receiving U.S. support. And so, I believe a message has to be sent.”

She said her support for future similar resolutions would be determined “on a case-by-case basis,” pending changes to the humanitarian situation. She said she “continue[s] to support the U.S.-Israel security relationship” and defensive weapons sales including missile defense systems.

“While the leaders of Hamas deserve what they’re getting in response to October 7, and Israel — like any other country in the world — has the right to defend itself, that doesn’t include letting children go hungry,” Slotkin continued in the statement. “That is despite Hamas’ sick refusal to relent, prevent further destruction, negotiate in good faith and release the hostages.”

She also argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions endanger Israel because they “threaten the longstanding bipartisan consensus that have helped keep Israel safe since its inception,” describing her position as one based on “deep concern and conviction for Israel’s long-term security” and the threats Israel has faced since the day it was founded.

McMorrow, a Democratic Senate candidate running for the seat of retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), said on the campaign trail on Wednesday that she supports stopping offensive weapons transfers to Israel.

“The United States has to stop providing Netanyahu with offensive weapons that do nothing but continue to extend this war,” she said.

McMorrow said that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is “indefensible” and that “we cannot let [Netanyahu] tell us that what we are seeing with our own eyes is not what is actually happening.”

She also demanded that Hamas release all of the hostages and disarm and that the parties must reach a permanent ceasefire.

“It feels like we’ve lost the humanity in this issue and what is true is that Palestinians deserve security and peace. Israelis deserve security and peace,” McMorrow said. “And the United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has to do everything in our power and our influence to make it all happen.”

The other Democratic candidates in the race, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a longtime vocal supporter of Israel, and Abdul El-Sayed, an Israel critic, haven’t responded to requests for comment on the prospect of blocking offensive weapons sales to Israel.

The two other Senate Democrats who missed Wednesday’s votes, Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), both said they would have voted against both resolutions.

Twenty-seven Senate Democrats, a majority of the caucus, voted Wednesday night for at least one of two resolutions to block shipments of U.S. aid to Israel.

The votes are a signal of the depth of Democratic outrage with the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the breadth of the anti-Israel shift within the party. Previous efforts, also led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), to advance such resolutions, picked up 19 and 15 votes, in November 2024 and April 2025, respectively.

Twenty-seven Democrats voted for the first of the two resolutions, which addressed automatic weapons that supporters said were destined for police units controlled by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right official in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

They included Sanders and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Angus King (I-ME), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM).

Reed — the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Murray — the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Blunt Rochester, Baldwin, Klobuchar, Duckworth, Alsobrooks and Whitehouse have not supported past efforts to cut off aid to Israel.

Ossoff, Warnock, Shaheen and King voted for some or all of the first round of resolutions Sanders introduced to block arms for Israel in November, but opposed a second round in April.

Twenty-four Democrats voted for the second resolution on Wednesday, regarding bombs and bomb guidance kits. Reed, Whitehouse and Ossoff flipped on the second vote, opposing freezing that tranche of aid.

Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) — who on Tuesday said she would consider cutting off offensive weapons for Israel — were not present for either vote. Both Kelly and Gallego were present for votes earlier in the day on Wednesday. Slotkin spent part of the day taping an interview on Stephen Colbert’s late night television show.

A Kelly spokesperson said he missed the votes due to a “previously planned visit to Cape Canaveral to support his friend and former Astronaut classmate Mike Fincke as he launches into space. Senator Kelly has been pushing the Israeli government and the Trump administration to get desperately needed food into Gaza to prevent the starvation of innocent Palestinians. He also has been consistent about supporting Israel in their self defense.” 

Kelly’s office said that he would have voted against both resolutions.

A source familiar with the situation said Gallego, who is a new father, was absent because of family duties, and that the last-minute notice for the votes made scheduling difficult. The source said Gallego would have voted against the resolutions.

Ossoff said in a statement that he voted for the first resolution because he “do[es] not believe the United States Senate should acquiesce without objection to the extreme mass deprivation of civilians in Gaza, including the intolerable starvation of children, that have resulted from the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Furthermore, these weapons would likely have been allocated to police forces under the control of Itamar Ben-Gvir.”

He said he voted against the second resolution because, “[d]espite my opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conduct of the war in Gaza, I believe the United States must continue to support the Israeli people, who face the persistent threat of rocket and missile attack and have been subjected to intense aerial bombardment from Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen. Israel’s capacity to strike those who would launch missiles and rockets at Israeli civilians depends upon the deterrence provided by the Israeli Air Force.”

Up for reelection in 2026, Ossoff faced significant backlash for his previous votes against U.S. aid to Israel, but had been working to repair relations with the Jewish community — though that’s been a rocky process.

Alsobrooks, whose views on Israel policy came under close scrutiny from Maryland’s sizable Jewish community during the 2024 election cycle, characterized this as a history-defining moment.

“There are moments in history where our silence will not only be remembered — it will be judged,” she said. “I joined the voices of so many who feel the moral imperative to demand change. To witness the inhumanity of starving children and say nothing is not just a dereliction of duty but of conscience.”

She said that she remains “committed to the U.S.-Israel relationship and my belief that the people of Israel have a right to defend themselves.”

Duckworth had previously rejected the idea of voting for resolutions to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, arguing that the legislation was “symbolic,” would not produce a resolution to the conflict and would disincentivize Hamas and Hezbollah from agreeing to ceasefires, as well as endanger U.S. forces in the region.

On this vote, Duckworth said in a statement that the Israeli government has ignored pressure from her to take steps to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and that her votes were intended to reflect “deep frustration” with the Israeli government and “send a message” to the Trump administration.

“Israel’s unacceptable choice to restrict humanitarian and food aid from entering Gaza — for months — is now causing innocent civilians, including young children, to starve to death. Ending this famine is not only a moral imperative, it is also in the best interests of both Israel’s and our own country’s long-term national security,” Duckworth said. “While I have always supported Israel’s right to defend itself and protect the Israeli people, these dire circumstances must end.”

Murray said she voted for the resolutions to “send a message” that the Israeli government cannot continue its current strategy.

“This legislative tool is not perfect, but frankly it is time to say enough to the suffering of innocent young children and families,” Murray said. “Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that should be eliminated, but the level of suffering and loss of life we are seeing in Gaza must come to an end.”

She put the onus on the American and Israeli governments to secure a diplomatic solution to the conflict and accused Netanyahu of dragging the war out to remain in power.

Blunt Rochester said in a statement that “until Israel significantly shifts its military posture to end the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, I cannot in good conscience support further military aid and arms sales to Israel.”

She cited a range of concerns including the “seemingly deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure, the alleged killing of Gazan civilians seeking food aid, the man-made famine among the Palestinian people, the increased presence of illegal settlers and violence in the West Bank, the killing of an American citizen without an impartial investigation, and the continued refusal to responsibly work toward a two-state solution.”

Warnock said that the Israeli government is committing a “moral atrocity that cannot abide the conscience of those who believe in human dignity, freedom and human thriving” and that “the Netanyahu administration must change course.”

Esther Panitch, a Jewish Georgia state legislator, responded by condemning Warnock for failing to mention Hamas’ role in the situation and the United Nations’ failure to distribute aid inside Gaza, adding “it’s becoming increasingly untenable to be a pro-Israel Democrat when the U.S. Senate empowers Hamas.”

Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Israel “has not conducted its military operations in Gaza with the necessary care required by international humanitarian law” or allowed sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza. “I will also continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself, but I cannot in good conscience vote in support of weapons until the human anguish in Gaza comes to an end,” Shaheen continued.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reiterated his opposition to the Sanders efforts, saying in a statement, “I have long held that security assistance to Israel is not about any one government but about our support for the Israeli people. For that reason, I voted no on the resolutions of disapproval on aid to Israel.”

One pro-Israel Democratic strategist lamented the state of discourse about Israel policy within the Democratic Party.

“There is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and Netanyahu’s strategy has failed. Yet the alacrity — and even glee — one saw among Democratic officials and commentators to believe and amplify every smear against the Jewish state has been bracing,” the strategist told JI. “When you give no agency to Hamas, Qatar, or the U.N. and reflexively set up Bibi as the devil, there is a word for it — and Jews have seen this movie many times before.”

All Republicans present voted against the resolutions.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the resolutions “misguided” and said that the conflict and the situation in Gaza is “the fault of Hamas.”

“These are not good people, and it is in the interest of America and the world to see this terrorist group destroyed,” Risch said. “And I couldn’t agree more with my colleagues who want an end to this war. We all want to see an end to this war, an immediate ceasefire, and for the hunger crisis in Gaza to end. But the solution to all of this isn’t to deprive Israel of the weapons it needs. The solution is in the hands of Hamas” if the terror group surrenders and gives up its arms.

Jewish Insider’s congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein criticized the resolutions passed by the state’s Democratic Party last month targeting Israel, urging party leaders on Monday to instead prioritize efforts that tackle the problems “we’re facing here in North Carolina.”

One of the adopted resolutions calls for an arms embargo on Israel and accuses the Jewish state of apartheid and genocide, while another draws an equivalence between Hamas and Israel, claiming that both have committed “terrorism” and taken “hostages.” Another resolution calls on the U.S. to exert influence to remove certain Israeli officials from power. 

Stein, a Democrat and the state’s first Jewish governor, told Jewish Insider in a statement on Monday that he was not in support of the measures, all of which were approved by the North Carolina Democratic Party’s State Executive Committee in late June. 

“I disagree with the party’s anti-Israel resolutions and believe that our state party should focus on issues we’re facing here in North Carolina like the high cost of living, harmful cuts to people’s health care, and rising levels of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate. What’s happening in Gaza is devastating. Israel must allow in food and humanitarian supplies; Hamas must free the hostages; and they must work to achieve a just and lasting peace,” Stein told JI. 

The resolutions have faced pushback from other Jewish leaders in the Tar Heel State, including former Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC), who now chairs the board of Democratic Majority for Israel, and former Gov. Roy Cooper, who announced his bid on Monday for retiring Sen. Thom Tillis’ (R-NC) Senate seat. 

Cooper similarly called for Israel to ensure enough humanitarian assistance is allowed into Gaza to support Palestinians on the ground in his statement on the measures, which was provided to JI on Monday. 

“I don’t agree with the party resolution, and Israel is an important ally. Israel needs to take seriously the job of getting humanitarian aid into Gaza right now. The hostages must be returned and I continue to pray for a swift end to this war and a meaningful peace in the region,” Cooper told JI. 

The resolutions have also highlighted tensions between Jewish Democrats in the state and the NCDP, which voted against recognizing the NCDP Jewish Caucus in 2023 and has been beset by intra-party fights over Israel in its state policy platform. 

The NCDP Jewish Caucus said in a statement at the time that it had been trying to work “in good faith with party leaders to promote a balanced, inclusive approach to complex international issues” but that “those efforts have been met with resistance throughout the party’s resolutions process.”

House and Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with efforts to bring forward votes this week in both chambers on resolutions that aim to constrain the administration from taking any further military action against Iran in spite of President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Trump’s diplomatic breakthrough is creating some political awkwardness for Democrats who had insisted the president would escalate the war, but many are still likely to support the resolutions, which reflect their dissatisfaction with the president’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without congressional authorization. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the lead sponsor of one war powers resolution in the House, said he no longer plans to force a vote on it, explaining, “if we’re not engaged in hostilities, I think it’s a moot point.” He said he had told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that he would not attempt to bring the resolution to the floor.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Massie’s lead co-sponsor, said, “The anti-war advocacy of the left and right broke through. I am glad cooler heads prevailed and Trump seems committed to stopping this war. I spoke with Rep. Massie this evening and we are taking a wait and see approach about whether a vote will be needed now on our War Powers Resolution.”

But a group of senior House Democrats introduced a separate resolution on Monday evening, which they are expected to continue to advance.

The U.S. strike, Massie’s resolution and broader questions about the situation in Iran have been causing heartburn for many House Democrats, particularly supporters of Israel, Democratic staff sources told Jewish Insider earlier Tuesday.

Democratic staffers not authorized to speak publicly explained that, behind the scenes, the largely unified public Democratic opposition to the strikes has been driven by several factors, including the perceived lack of political support for the strikes, concerns about an escalating war and frustration with the Trump administration.

“I think a lot of members support the strike privately but see this as a politically vulnerable issue for [Trump],” one Democratic staffer said.

Another staffer said that Democrats are afraid of echoes of the Iraq war: If the U.S. ends up in a full-scale, protracted, politically unpopular war with Iran, they don’t want to be on record as having supported it.

And, the staffer said, there’s a deep level of distrust for the Trump administration, which acted largely unilaterally in the strikes, did not make efforts to keep congressional leaders informed about the strikes and hasn’t yet presented any evidence to Congress of the need for the strikes or their success.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who worked with other top Democrats on an alternative war powers resolution, said the resolution effort should continue “if United States forces remain engaged.”

Himes, along with Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrats on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, introduced their own war powers resolution Monday evening, after the ceasefire was announced.

Whether that resolution will come to the floor remains an open question. The House speaker was reportedly working on a procedural plan that would strip the Massie resolution of its privileged status, sidestepping a vote on the House floor, and could potentially use the same tactic to defuse the new Democratic resolution.

On the Senate side, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said he also plans to push forward with his efforts, and said that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is working with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to facilitate a vote.

“Whether or not a ceasefire between Israel and Iran comes to fruition — and I hope it does — I will move forward to force a vote on my resolution to require Congress to debate and vote on whether or not the United States should engage in a war with Iran,” Kaine said in a statement to JI. “Americans don’t want matters of war and peace, bombing and ceasefire, to rest upon the daily whims of any one person.” 

“That’s why the Framers of our Constitution decided that war should only be declared following a public debate and congressional vote,” Kaine continued. “Congress must affirm its commitment to that principle and send a clear message: no more endless wars.”

Other Democrats agreed that a war powers resolution should still receive a vote in spite of the ceasefire.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told JI, “At the end of the day, I think that a war powers resolution makes good sense to vote on and for Congress to finally reassert what is in black-and-white letters in the Constitution, which is that only Congress and the consent of the American people can start a war.”

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), a former Army intelligence officer, argued that the uncertainty of the situation necessitated that Congress step in.

“It’s a very volatile situation, which, to me, makes it even more urgent that we make clear and reassert what the Constitution of the United States says, which is that it is the Congress that has the authority to declare war or authorize the use of [force],” Ryan told JI.

He added that it “should be concerning to every American that multiple days after doing — not even a preemptive strike — a preventive strike, there’s still no legal justification, there’s still no clarity about the effectiveness.”

A memo sent by Trump to the Senate cited presidential foreign relations authorities enshrined in the U.S. constitution as the legal backing for the strike.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), among the few House Democrats who supported the strikes, told JI that he wants to see Congress reclaim its power but that the administration also has the ability to take defensive action without consulting Congress. He said that the war powers resolution push is likely no longer relevant if the ceasefire continues.

“Based on the ceasefire that was announced, it if holds, it appears that the issue in this current climate is moot, but overall, still important,” Moskowitz said. “[The war powers resolution] is no longer relevant to this particular purpose. It would be more of a general ‘us reasserting our authority as Congress.’”

Kaine told reporters earlier in the day that his resolution in the Senate would come up for a vote on Thursday or Friday.

Kaine said that the vote was “fluid” but he expected to see Republican support, and that he expected nearly all Democrats, with the exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), to support it.

“I think the fluidity and change is something that I think warrants — this is why you get a congressional discussion, because these things can escalate,” Kaine said. “They can move in ways that are hard to predict, and that’s why a discussion and a vote is a good idea.”

He said that, “my colleagues on the Democratic side, regardless of whatever they feel about Iran, [believe] wars without Congress, wars that bypass us, are a bad idea.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) confirmed he planned to support the resolution as well, arguing that the Constitution is clear that war powers are vested in Congress and that his position on the issue has been consistent across administrations.

“There have always been people who argue the president can do whatever he wants,” Paul said. “The problem is, that’s a recipe for chronic intervention. It’s a recipe for endless war.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a pro-Israel Democrat, also said he supported the resolution.

Ahead of the ceasefire, some specific concerns with the wording of the Massie resolution had split Democrats, one Democratic staffer said. That prompted the separate resolution from Meeks, Himes and Smith. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) claimed at a press conference on Monday that he hadn’t reviewed the Massie resolution yet, indicating that he would not be supporting it. 

A Democratic staffer explained that there were fairly widespread concerns that Massie’s resolution could block the U.S. from continuing to support Israel’s defense.

The Democrat-led resolution includes a specific exception allowing the U.S. to defend itself or any ally or partner from “imminent attack,” whereas Massie’s resolution only allowed for continued defense of the United States and intelligence sharing with allies. The Democrats leading the resolution emphasized in a statement that it would allow U.S. forces defending Israel to continue their activities.

“What we’re trying to get clarity on is to ensure that there’s no ambiguity or doubt about our ability to fully support the defense of Israel and the Israeli people, that we can continue … intelligence sharing and information sharing, cyber,” Ryan said earlier, of the Massie resolution. “There are key dimensions where we have to continue to be very closely aligned.”

“My concern is less about the language of the resolution and more about who introduced it, frankly,” Ryan continued. Massie has a history of comments that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have condemned as antisemitic.

Jeffries, at his press conference, largely focused on the fact that the Trump administration had failed to inform Congress about the strikes in the normal manner and had still not provided a proper justification for the strikes or accounted for Iran’s nuclear material.

He also argued that the administration’s claims to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program completely couldn’t be trusted.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a former House majority leader and perhaps the most prominent Democratic supporter of the strikes, told JI that his support for the strikes was consistent with unilateral action taken by administrations dating back to President Bill Clinton. 

He added that it would be “hypocritical” not to support the strikes now, when administrations have said for decades that they will not permit a nuclear Iran, and said that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was “too close” to a nuclear weapon and “stopping them was the right thing to do.”

Hoyer also noted that Congress moves more slowly than the executive branch and that a slow public debate over a potential strike in Congress over strikes would have “incentivized [Iran] to move ahead as quickly as possible.”

He said that as a general matter, however, he believes that it is important for Congress to be able to put a check on the administration’s ability to go to war, though he said that the decision to strike Iran was a long time coming.

Fetterman, the only Senate Democrat who has announced he plans to oppose the war powers resolution, blasted some colleagues who have called the strikes unconstitutional. He said he would have opposed the Kaine resolution before the strikes.

He noted that previous Democratic administrations had conducted similar “one-off” strikes and argued that congressional approval would only be needed if the U.S. was going to start a broader, protracted war.

Fetterman also blasted Democrats for joining Massie’s effort calling him, “that weirdo from Kentucky.”

Among Republicans, Massie’s resolution may have seen some additional support from a handful of isolationist Republicans, but likely not many. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), the Republican who, alongside Massie, has been most outspoken against the U.S. strike, told Punchbowl News she would not support the effort.

But she also said she wanted to push to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, and has previously condemned Israel’s military action against Iran. 

The Senate on Wednesday defeated two resolutions aimed at blocking certain weapons sales to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with five Democrats voting with nearly all Republicans against both resolutions.

The 56-39 votes came as a pressure tactic from some progressive Democrats on the two U.S. partners and the Trump administration over dealings between President Donald Trump and the two Gulf states — Qatar’s provision of a luxury jumbo jet to serve as Air Force One and the UAE’s investment of $2 billion in a Trump-linked cryptocurrency.

Democratic Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) voted against the two resolutions. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voted present.

Coons said in a statement that “these resolutions don’t hold President Trump accountable” and will not punish Trump at all, but will rather “target other countries for the actions of our president, countries that host more than 10,000 U.S. troops on strategically important bases and are our partners.”

He said that blocking the sales would weaken two pillars of stability in the region and create space from those partners at a critical time, as well as make other nations doubt Congress’ reliability. 

He said the sales were negotiated years ago. 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who led the effort with Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has framed the arms sales as a direct response to “cash payments” from the two nations. 

“Normally those might be deals that Congress would approve, but we cannot approve any security relationship today with countries in the Middle East that are engaged in the fundamental corruption of American foreign policy,” Murphy said earlier this week. “The Trump administration is moving these sales forward as part of a broader scheme which enriches Donald Trump to the tune of billions of dollars.”

He said the Qataris are looking to be “not left out” of the second Trump administration and that the Emiratis are seeking “our secrets,” specifically sensitive semiconductor technology that could be compromised by China.

Republicans’ essentially united front against the resolutions came even though multiple Senate Republicans have expressed deep skepticism of Qatar and called for its status as a major non-NATO ally to be reconsidered.

Murphy, meanwhile, in a Senate floor speech earlier this week expressed gratitude for Qatar in spite of the resolutions.

“What makes this moment so dangerous is that both UAE and Qatar, but especially Qatar, are key partners of the United States,” Murphy said. “They’re imperfect allies, but they are our allies. In fact, I’ve been down on this floor in the past arguing on behalf of Qatar and the U.S.-Qatar relationship, when other senators have tried to denigrate the Qataris’ contributions to regional peace. The Qataris have been a critical partner of ours on so many important issues.”

He suggested that Qatar had felt bullied by the Trump administration into offering the jet and “feels like it had little choice but to say yes when asked for this $400 million gift” because the U.S. had punished and isolated Qatar during the first Trump administration when Saudi Arabia and the UAE “effectively ganged up to blockade Qatar and Trump gave that move implicit consent.” 

He claimed that the UAE had first set the precedent for Qatar by investing in Trump’s cryptocurrency, leaving Qatar to play catch-up.

But he also noted that the U.S. has never allowed any other Middle East country to buy MQ-9 Reaper drones, the weapons sale to Qatar in question, because the U.S. has felt that such transfers are too risky.