Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said on Sunday he now opposes U.S. aid for offensive weaponry for Israel but continued to defend U.S. support for defensive systems like Iron Dome.

The new stance from Gallego, who positioned himself as a pro-Israel moderate during his 2024 Senate campaign, highlights the changing currents within the Democratic Party. Gallego also acknowledged in an interview with NBC News that he’s considering a 2028 presidential run.

Gallego said that he would not support providing Israel with funding for offensive weapons due to disagreements with the country’s military operations in Iran and Lebanon. Gallego, a military veteran, has been among the Senate’s most strident opponents of the war in Iran.

But he said he would continue to support aid for missile-defense systems.

“Like any other ally in this in this world, I can’t imagine stopping defensive weapons going to any of our friends, because in that situation, if they’re raining down bombs, you’re hitting people that are, especially in Israel, they’re Arabs, Christians, Jews, people that are pro-war, against war. It’s indiscriminatory,” Gallego said. “I know that’s not a popular thing. I’m sure everyone wants to be on the other side, but I’ve seen civilians get hurt in war by both sides, and it’s not, it’s not something you want to be responsible for.”

Gallego missed Senate votes last July on resolutions by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to block certain arms shipments to Israel, but a spokesperson said he would have voted against those resolutions — allowing the arms transfers to proceed. 

Sanders has introduced a new set of similar resolutions, which are expected to come up for a vote when the Senate returns from its Passover and Easter recess. It’s unclear whether Gallego’s stance will extend to blocking Israeli purchases of U.S. weapons, in addition to U.S. aid.

Gallego’s new stance nonetheless positions him in a more moderate lane than other prospective Democratic presidential candidates including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), who said last week they would oppose funding for Iron Dome and other missile defense systems, arguing that Israel should be responsible for paying for them itself.

With a series of pugnacious tweets and media appearances, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) has made himself a face of the Democratic opposition to the war in Iran, issuing one of the first comments from a U.S. lawmaker opposing the effort in the early hours of Saturday morning.

Gallego’s outspoken commentary, which has repeatedly pinned blame for the operation on Israel — a notion that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have disputed — also coincide with Gallego’s endorsement of Graham Platner, the progressive Maine Senate candidate who has faced a series of scandals related to antisemitism.

The high-profile moves come as Gallego, who claimed victory in Arizona in 2024 even as President Donald Trump won the state, is seen by political observers as positioning himself for a 2028 presidential campaign — and as anti-Israel policies have become a litmus test for the progressive left.

“So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First,” Gallego said earlier this week, in response to comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that seemed to suggest that the timing of the war was dictated by Israel.

“What the f*** happened to America First?” Gallego wrote in another post, adding that the U.S. should have left Israel to go ahead with the operation alone.

Though some lawmakers emerged from a Monday briefing echoing that line, Rubio has since said his comments were misrepresented, and others on both sides of the aisle have denied that Israel forced the U.S. into the conflict.

“They’re following Netanyahu, who has literally told us … that he’s been trying to do this for 47 years. I know — I suffered the first attempt at this in 2005, and now America is suffering again because of it,” Gallego said on MS NOW this week, referencing his service in Iraq. “There’s a lot of ways that we can be supportive of Israel. There’s a lot of ways that we could defend Israel’s existence, its sovereignty. I’m 100% for that. We don’t need to go to war for them, especially when it’s a dumb war.”

He said that the U.S. should have threatened to withhold intelligence, support and munitions from Israel if it went ahead with an attack on Iran. 

And he said on “Pod Save America” that the U.S. should have tried “calling Iran, saying ‘This is not us, we’re going to be staying out of this.’ No, we just decided that we’re going to let Netanyahu choose our wars. This is very disturbing to me.”

The Arizona senator also said he would not support funding to replenish U.S. munitions expended in the war, saying that Middle Eastern partners should be responsible.

“When the bill comes to pay for the replenishment of interceptors and munitions, the Middle Eastern countries that we have been protecting need to pay for it,” Gallego said on X. “We aren’t cutting more Medicaid, food stamps for protecting these countries in a war of choice and not in our interest.”

In a podcast appearance on The Bulwark this week, he also urged fellow Democrats to reject the war forcefully and wholeheartedly, without caveats or appeals to constitutional authority as other lawmakers have used to justify their opposition.

“Why are we spending all this money? All these countries in the Middle East have a lot of money. Why are we spending all this money?” Gallego continued, explaining questions he’s hearing from constituents. “These are the things that are very simple for people to understand. I think we should not be afraid to communicate that.”

Endorsing Platner, Gallego called him “the kind of fighter Maine hasn’t seen in a long time, someone who tells you exactly what he thinks, doesn’t owe anything to the special interests, and wakes up every day thinking about working families,” also referencing their shared history as veterans. 

Platner most recently faced scrutiny for appearing on a podcast in January with an antisemitic conspiracy theorist of whom Platner said he was a “longtime fan.” Just before that podcast appearance came to light, Platner came under fire for retweeting a prominent neo-Nazi influencer. Platner also, for decades, had a tattoo that closely mirrored a Nazi emblem on his chest.

While Platner has claimed not to have been aware of the significance of the symbol, both Jewish Insider and CNN reported that Platner described the tattoo as a Totenkopf, a symbol used by an SS unit.

Gallego and Platner are both represented by the same consulting firm, Fight Agency, which has signed on a number of far-left candidates who have made opposition to Israel a central focus of their campaigns. Another one of the Fight Agency’s clients is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who the senator defended during his polarizing mayoral campaign. 

Gallego, who has a Jewish child with his ex-wife, has spoken in the past about his concerns about antisemitism and its impacts on his own family. But pressed this week on Platner’s antisemitic ties, a Gallego spokesperson referred JI to an interview Gallego conducted on “Pod Save America” about the endorsement.

Asked about Platner’s appearance on and praise for the antisemitic podcaster, Gallego downplayed the situation, noting that many Democrats have appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast, which has also spread antisemitic conspiracy theories.

“A working class man goes and has a conversation on a platform that is very similar to what Joe Rogan talks about … but everyone freaks out on this guy,” Gallego said. “Why? Because the establishment doesn’t want him. This is very simple … so they’re going to make sure that he looks bad.”

Gallego also said that Platner was “young and stupid” when he got the tattoo but argued that it was not clearly identifiable as a Nazi symbol, and that subsequent security checks and physicals did not identify the tattoo as a problem.

And he argued that Democrats are too focused on finding “perfect” candidates who are ultimately unable to appeal to voters.

The Arizona senator separately said on a Bulwark podcast this week, “I also endorsed Haley Stevens and Angie Craig, right? And, I was accused by the left of being in the pocket of Israel.” He said that he’s supporting people he believes can win general elections.

Arizona state Rep. Alma Hernandez, a Jewish Democrat and outspoken supporter of Israel, said she was surprised and disappointed by Gallego’s endorsement of Platner.

“It is a really hard one to justify. I, quite frankly, do not care if they are both veterans. There are plenty of veterans who are not complete bigots and jerks who you could endorse,” Hernandez told JI. “There is a woman who’s running, who is the governor, who has not had any history of being a bigot like this individual. I mean, for God’s sake, he has a Nazi tattoo.”

She added, “you can’t excuse and pretend that there is no pattern of bigotry and, quite frankly, just a real disregard for Democratic values” from Platner, pointing to offensive comments about people of color and women that the Maine candidate has made.

“I’m disappointed as an Arizonan, as a woman and as a Jewish woman,” Hernandez continued. “I think it says a lot about a person who’s willing to put their name behind someone like him.”

Hernandez said that, in response to Gallego’s support for Platner and his shifting stance and recent comments on Israel, she’s heard from other Jewish Democrats in Arizona who say they won’t support Gallego going forward.

In the House, Gallego was generally a supporter of Israel — and voted against the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — within what was at the time the mainstream of the Democratic Party, but was not particularly active on the issue.

The then-congressman appeared to take a more hawkish position during and immediately after his Senate race in 2024, leading an effort to expand U.S.-Israel counter-tunneling cooperation, supporting efforts to sanction the International Criminal Court, backing the redesignation of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, strongly condemning Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for including the phrase “from the river to the sea” in a video she posted and quickly urging the administration to freeze Iranian assets shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, when other Democrats were slower to endorse that position.

He also said, through a spokesperson, that he would have opposed efforts earlier this year to block certain U.S. aid shipments to Israel that were supported by a majority of Senate Democrats. Gallego himself was absent for the vote, citing family duties as a new father.

But Gallego’s recent statements, particularly since the start of the Iran war, indicate a sharp tack in the opposite direction as he eyes a potential national campaign. Other potential 2028 Democratic candidates, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, appear to be making a similar calculation.

Watching several nationally ambitious Democrats, under pressure from the activist left, shift away from their measured support of Israel is reminiscent of watching the party’s 2020 presidential candidates rush to embrace a panoply of hard-left positions that turned politically costly in the long run. 

The biggest flip-flop under pressure came from former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who, in a recent appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast, tried to maintain some support for the U.S.-Israel alliance while criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for being responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 

That nuanced, largely-critical-of-Israel reaction, nonetheless, drew widespread opprobrium from the loudest anti-Israel voices within the party, including the former Obama administration operatives who host the show.

Within days, Buttigieg backtracked in favor of embracing a more hostile view towards the Jewish state. He came out against re-upping another long-term agreement to secure military aid to Israel — the type of deal that former President Barack Obama last secured before leaving office in 2016. He said he would have supported anti-Israel resolutions championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to cut off some military aid to Israel. And he called for recognition of a Palestinian state, a position held by only the furthest-left Democratic lawmakers in Congress.

Buttigieg’s rapid reversal does him little good in advancing his national political interests.  As a presidential candidate whose appeal was centered in his thoughtful pragmatism, his rush to pander to the far flank of his party threatens to undermine his more-moderate brand.  

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), to a lesser extent, is feeling similar pressure from the base as he hints at an interest in presidential politics. The swing-state senator, who has been critical of his party’s far-left, came out squarely against Sanders’ anti-Israel resolutions. But as anti-Israel activists aired an ad in Iowa targeting his position (he missed the actual vote in the Senate), he responded by saying his view on Israel is “evolving.”

And it wasn’t lost on the pro-Israel community that among the 26 Senate Democrats who voted with Sanders on the anti-Israel resolution was Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a pragmatic Democrat who nonetheless is watching the radical strains within the party grow in influence within her state. Klobuchar is also expected to consider another presidential campaign, after experiencing surprising success in her first run — running as a centrist.

Five years ago, Israel wasn’t driving the left-wing grassroots the same way it is today. Back then, the issues driving the Democratic base were calls to defund the police, protecting illegal immigrants, ending private health insurance in favor of Medicare for All and backing protections for transgender individuals. Other than then-candidate Joe Biden, few of the leading candidates could resist pandering to what looked like an ascendant social justice movement. These issues ended up becoming politically toxic for the party’s image.

In fact, former Vice President Kamala Harris’ biggest impediments as the 2024 Democratic nominee stemmed from the most out-of-the-mainstream positions she adopted in that 2020 primary campaign. 

It’s telling that Democrats who are focused on winning general elections in swing states or districts aren’t following suit with their anti-Israel rhetoric. It’s notable that the Democratic National Committee chairman is feverishly trying to head off an effort from the anti-Israel wing of the party calling for an arms embargo against Israel. 

Even the polling, which has swung against Israel as the war drags on in Gaza, is still evenly divided. By a 13-point margin, voters are still more sympathetic to Israelis than Palestinians, according to a recent Gallup survey. And in a spring survey from the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, Israel received a “50” favorability rating — one that reflects divided and more-partisan public opinion towards the Jewish state, not a total collapse in support. 

When the war ends and new Israeli elections are held in 2026 (if not earlier) with the possibility of a new prime minister, it’s not hard to imagine public opinion for Israel rebounding before the next U.S. presidential election. Indeed, racing to follow the ideological herd instead of focusing on the big political picture is the very mindset that drove so many Democrats off the political cliff in 2020 — a lesson that is being quickly forgotten in party circles.