Nearly all Senate Democrats wrote to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday to raise “grave concern” about a strike on a girl’s school that killed at least 168 people in the opening phase of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

Reports indicate that the U.S. is likely responsible for the strike on the school — which was reportedly located adjacent to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility — though President Donald Trump has offered varying explanations, including suggesting that Iran could have hit the school itself, potentially using sensitive and highly restricted U.S. munitions.

“The United States and Israel must abide by U.S. and international law, including the law of armed conflict,” the letter, signed by every Senate Democrat except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), reads. “There must be a swift investigation into the strikes on this school and any other potential U.S. military actions causing civilian harm, and the findings must be released to the public as soon as possible, along with any measures to pursue accountability.”

The administration has said it is investigating the strike, without commenting further.

The Democratic lawmakers also criticized strikes by the U.S. and Israel on hospitals, cultural sites, civilian infrastructure and Iranian cities including Tehran.

“Massive civilian casualty incidents like the attack in Minab are not only detrimental to the Iranian people, who have already suffered so much at the hands of its own government, but they also undermine U.S. national security interests,” the letter continues. “These concerns are compounded by the reported use of artificial intelligence tools to select and prioritize targets in Iran.”

The Democrats further called out Hegseth for rhetoric emphasizing the “death and destruction” from the operation and saying the military would impose “no stupid rules of engagement.”

The lawmakers said Hegseth’s rhetoric and the conduct it supports “only serves to endanger civilians, including American citizens, in the region and around the globe,” may run afoul of the Geneva Conventions and is part of a “broader pattern of policies abandoning the Defense Department’s commitment to minimizing civilian harm in U.S. military operations.”

The letter poses a series of questions to Hegseth about the strike on the girl’s school and procedures in place to prevent civilian harm and war crimes in the Iran war.

A group of six Senate Democrats is threatening to immediately begin obstructing proceedings on the Senate floor in order to force public hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee and debate on the chamber floor on the war in Iran.

Jewish Insider first reported that several of those lawmakers — including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) — introduced a series of five new war powers resolutions late last week.

The senators indicated in a meeting with reporters on Monday that they plan to force votes on those, and possibly additional, war powers resolutions when they become eligible for votes next week, but that those resolutions are just part of a broader strategy to disrupt normal Senate business in an attempt to force greater public discussion about the war in Iran.

“We’ve had no oversight whatsoever over what the executive is doing, as they’re spending a billion dollars a day. And we have failed to have any real substantive debate or discussion,” Booker said. “We are not going to let business as usual go on in the Senate … we are demanding that the Republican leadership of the Senate hold the adequate hearings and oversight, as well as to allow a debate that brings transparency to this onto the Senate floor.”

Booker declined to discuss their specific plans, but said that the senators would “use the levers that we have,” citing efforts over the years by Republican colleagues to block or slow down Senate procedure to compel votes on various issues.

“Each individual senator has a tremendous amount of power to disrupt the normal functionings of the Senate, as well as certain privileges that we can exercise,” Booker said. “And what we have agreed on right now is that we are not going to let the Senate continue its business as usual.”

Though the war powers resolutions won’t be eligible for Senate floor votes until next week, Booker indicated that the senators plan to begin other obstructionist tactics immediately, unless hearings are announced.

Murphy highlighted that the lawmakers have the ability, should they choose to do so, to “force a vote and debate every single day in the Senate” on the war powers resolutions. But Baldwin indicated that the lawmakers might not force the war powers votes if Republicans do schedule the hearings they request.

Booker said that the group is not necessarily speaking for the entire Senate Democratic caucus.

Murphy asserted that public hearings with administration officials, tasked with defending and explaining the war effort to the public, would only make the operation less popular with the American public. The Democrats also highlighted other costs, including increasing gas prices, associated with the war.

Kaine argued that the question for the Senate and the American people is not whether “Iran [is] a bad actor” or whether “in the abstract, [they have] done terrible things,” it is whether the war is worth risking American lives. Seven U.S. servicemembers have died in the course of the campaign so far.

Murphy and other Senate Democrats had also been pushing for a Senate vote on an authorization for use of military force regarding Iran. But on Monday, the six Democrats involved in this effort said they had ruled out the idea of a Democratic-led AUMF, arguing that the burden is on Republicans and the administration to put forward such a proposal and define its scope.

“They have to tell us and bring evidence to us that this war is worth an AUMF,” Duckworth said. “I personally don’t even want to have the discussion about an AUMF, because they haven’t even gone to the first step yet” of proving the need for the war.

Kaine said that the lawmakers, including Murphy, had “explored the procedural option” of an AUMF, but said that the “burden” to write such a bill should not be on the Democrats “who think this war is a bad idea.”

“It would be too unusual for the opponents to file the AUMF,” he continued. “The proponents are the ones that carry the burden of proof with the American public. They need to file it.”

The six Democrats did not appear to be entirely in agreement about how they would handle a potential request by the administration for supplemental funding to support the war effort or replenish U.S. armaments expended in it.

Kaine said he would withhold judgement on the issue until such a request was presented, explaining, “I want to end the war, I want to protect our troops.”

Schiff argued that the military has “plenty of money” from last year’s reconciliation bill, and also said that a congressional appropriation for a military effort could, legally, be considered an authorization for use of military force.

Should they secure the hearings they seek, the senators said they want to press administration officials on the goals and timeline for the war, the rules of engagement and restrictions imposed on U.S. forces, the circumstances that led to a deadly strike — which some have attributed to the U.S., though the administration disputes this — on a girls’ school, potential plans to support separatist movements inside Iran and the administration’s plans to support and protect Iranian demonstrators should another mass uprising occur.

“My goal is to end this war, to stop wasting millions of dollars and to protect further servicemembers from dying, and I think the way that you do that is by exposing to the public the fact that this is a war of choice, the fact that this president has ignored the law and the Constitution and the people through us, hold him to account,” Baldwin said.

Senate Democrats introduced five new war powers resolutions seeking to block military action in Iran on Thursday, a day after the Senate voted along mostly partisan lines to block an effort to immediately halt the operation.

One of the resolutions was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), with the other four being introduced by the same group of senators: Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Adam Schiff (D-CA). Murphy, who has also been pushing for the Senate to vote on an authorization for use of military force in Iran, is leading two of the resolutions, and Schiff and Booker are leading the other two, respectively.

Having a series of war powers resolutions already introduced could allow Democrats to continue teeing up votes on the war, or allow them to have several resolutions in reserve to vote on as the situation in Iran evolves.

War powers resolutions are subject to a 10-day waiting period between their introduction and when senators can force votes on them.

Kaine suggested last week after the initial war powers resolution failed that he would plan to force further war powers votes, as well as look for opportunities in other legislation to tee up votes on the war effort, which Democrats see as politically unpopular for the administration and for Republicans.

Kaine, Murphy, Booker and Schiff did not provide comment.

The text of one of the five resolutions was not yet available as of Sunday evening, but the other four are largely similar. As compared to the resolution led by Kaine, Schiff and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that the Senate voted on last week, each includes updated details about the U.S. campaign in Iran, which had not yet begun when the previous resolution was introduced.

Several of the resolutions also appear to narrow the scope of U.S. intelligence sharing and military cooperation with Israel and other allies that would remain explicitly exempt from the legislation’s mandate for an immediate end to military operations against Iran.

One of the Murphy-led resolutions allows for intelligence sharing with allies attacked by Iran “related to defense from threats from Iran or its proxies,” whereas the Kaine-Paul resolution did not include that specific reference to defense.

It also allows for the U.S. to assist partners in “intercepting retaliatory attacks upon their territory,” where the previous version allowed for assisting with “defensive measures to protect their territory from retaliatory attacks by Iran or its proxies” more broadly — without the reference to interception of active attacks alone.

The Baldwin-led resolution includes the same language as the Murphy-led resolution on interceptions of retaliatory attacks, but does not include the new language on intelligence sharing.

The Schiff-led resolution includes similar specifications around intelligence sharing as the Murphy resolution, but does not impose the same limitations allowing the U.S. to only intercept attacks on allies. It includes additional language allowing for continued evacuations of U.S. citizens.

The Booker-led resolution does not include any additional restrictions on intelligence sharing, but it restricts assistance to Israel and other allies to “directly defending against retaliatory attacks upon their territories by Iran or its proxies.” It also includes the carveout regarding evacuations of U.S. citizens.

Separately, in the House, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said Thursday that he plans to force a vote later this month on his war powers resolution that offers a 30-day wind-down period for the war effort in Iran, which Gottheimer is leading with several other moderate Democrats.

A group of eight leading Senate Democrats released a statement on Tuesday evening urging President Donald Trump to “clearly reinforce the opposition of the U.S. government to Israeli government actions that set the conditions for irreversible annexation” of the West Bank when he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Wednesday.

The statement emphasizes Senate Democrats’ opposition to Israel expanding its control over settlements in the West Bank, which Israel’s Security Cabinet approved measures to help facilitate on Sunday ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week.

“We are deeply troubled by the Israeli government’s decision to blatantly consolidate administrative control over and set the conditions to expand settlements into the West Bank,” the senators wrote. “The Israeli government’s actions contravene decades of bipartisan United States policy, including that expressed by President Trump, which asserts the United States supports a two-state solution and that it is not in the U.S. national security interest to support annexation of the West Bank.”

“We have long expressed our concern that these reckless moves make the possibility of a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security, further out of reach,” the statement continued. 

The group said they “urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to reverse course. When President Trump meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu this week, we also urge the President to clearly reinforce the opposition of the U.S. government to Israeli government actions that set the conditions for irreversible annexation.”

The statement was signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Senate Democratic whip; and Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI),  Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH),  Mark Warner (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Patty Murray (D-WA). The senators who joined Schumer and Durbin are, respectively, the ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, Intelligence Committee, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Trump has held firm on his opposition to Israeli settlement expansion since saying last September that he would “not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.” Trump reiterated this position in an interview with Axios on Tuesday. 

He said following a meeting with Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., in late December that the two were still on separate sides of the issue, but expressed confidence that all parties would reach “a conclusion,” though he declined to offer specifics.

“Well, we have had a discussion, big discussion, for a long time on the West Bank. And I wouldn’t say we agree on the West Bank 100%, but we will come to a conclusion on the West Bank,” Trump said at the time. “It’ll be announced at an appropriate time, but [Netanyahu] will do the right thing. I know that. I know him very well. He will do the right thing.”

In a letter sent to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Monday, a group of Senate Democrats raised concerns about the Pentagon’s decision to use xAI’s Grok chatbot in Department of Defense networks.

The senators said that Grok’s record of producing antisemitic content — pointing in particular to an antisemitic tirade by the chatbot in 2025 — as well as its more recent history of generating non-consensual pornographic images of people, including children, raises concerns about the Defense Department’s use of the model.

“We are particularly concerned by this development, given Grok’s reported recent track record promoting Holocaust denial, spreading racist ideologies, and generating deepfake pornography of children,” the lawmakers wrote. “Grok’s generation of such content has triggered various investigations of the platform and the potential use of this model by a federal agency is troubling.”

The lawmakers asked Hegseth to explain what rules and regulations are in place regarding the use of AI in the Defense Department, including safeguards against Grok promoting antisemitism, racist conspiracy theories and sexual content and what measures are being taken to ensure data privacy.

“While AI technology can facilitate innovation, it must be deployed, used, and regulated in a manner consistent with the national interest and standards of decency,” the letter continues.

The letter was led by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and co-signed by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).

Groups of House members have pressed both the Pentagon and xAI CEO Elon Musk about the antisemitic content produced by Grok and the Pentagon’s plans to utilize the chatbot.
xAI told lawmakers that the antisemitic rants were a result of an “unintended update” to the chatbot’s code.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and nearly all Senate Democrats are set to introduce a resolution on Monday condemning neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson for hosting Fuentes on his show. 

The legislation also highlights that Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts defended Carlson and Fuentes and notes that the Trump administration nominated an official who expressed affinity for the Nazis, referring to Paul Ingrassia.

The resolution comes weeks after Carlson’s friendly sit-down with Fuentes prompted a reckoning in the conservative movement over antisemitism on the far right and its normalization in certain circles. Schumer reportedly sought Republican backing for the resolution, but no Republicans have signed on at this point.

The resolution outlines Fuentes’ long history of overt antisemitic activity, as well as the series of antisemitic comments that Fuentes repeated on Carlson’s podcast. It highlights Carlson’s failure to “push back on or reject the claims made by Fuentes” and that Carlson “at times even validat[ed] his framing.” It also notes that Carlson was a keynote speaker at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

The legislation states that the Senate “strongly rejects the views of and platforming of Nick Fuentes” and “condemns the effort by Tucker Carlson to platform and mainstream Nick Fuentes.”

The resolution also specifically highlights that Roberts posted a video defending Carlson and attacking those criticizing him — accusing Roberts of employing “antisemitic dog whistles” — as well as for refusing to take down the video even as he as apologized for portions of it.

It calls on “all elected officials, thought leaders and community leaders to reject and condemn white supremacy and antisemitism whenever and wherever they occur.”

And it highlights that President Donald Trump nominated Paul Ingrassia — who said in an unearthed group chat that he has a “Nazi streak in me from time to time” — for an administration post and has since named him to a different role in the administration after his nomination was withdrawn. The resolution does not specifically name Ingrassia.

The resolution is being sponsored by every Senate Democrat.

The legislation has been supported by a series of Democratic-affiliated and progressive-minded Jewish groups, including Democratic Majority for Israel, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Jewish Women International, the Union for Reform Judaism, Hadassah and the National Council of Jewish Women.

“The platforming of individuals who promote hateful, antisemitic, and white supremacist rhetoric is dangerous and entirely at odds with American values,” JWI CEO Meredith Jacobs said in a statement. She said that Congress “must forcefully condemn any attempt to mainstream antisemitism” and other hatred and “the fact that such condemnation is not universal underscores the very real and present danger that these ideologies are gaining ground in our society.”

JCPA CEO Amy Spitalnick said that antisemitic and white supremacist extremism “threatens every single one of our communities and the core of our democracy – yet we’ve seen political leaders continue to embrace and platform this deadly hate and those who peddle it, like Nick Fuentes” and urged all senators to support the resolution.

DMFI urged the Senate to “send a powerful message that there is no place for these hateful ideologies in our society by passing this measure.”

Halie Soifer, the CEO of JDCA, condemned Republicans for not signing onto the resolution.

“This issue should not be partisan, yet not one Republican has joined this resolution, and the President of the United States has refused to condemn Fuentes, Tucker Carlson’s platforming of Fuentes, and the hate they’ve espoused,” Soifer said in a statement. “We’re deeply concerned about Republicans placing politics above efforts like this one to combat white nationalism, antisemitism, and hate, and strongly encourage them to join this effort.”

UPDATE: This article was updated to reflect that the legislation’s findings highlight Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts’s defense of Carlson and Fuentes but the resolution does not specifically condemn him.

Senate Democrats echoed their House counterparts on Tuesday in expressing concern about President Donald Trump’s announcement of a deal to sell advanced F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who serves on the Armed Services Committee, told Jewish Insider, “I think there are very serious, potential negative impacts on our national security and they include changing the qualitative edge for Israel, the possibility of a hostile use of them [the jets], the absence of any normalization agreement, which should be part of it, so I think there ought to be very close, critical scrutiny.”

The prospect of advanced weapons sales to Saudi Arabia — along with several other deals announced by Trump on Tuesday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — had previously been linked to Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, something the kingdom is unwilling to do without a “clear path to a two-state solution,” MBS said.

Blumenthal said he was unsure if he would meet with the crown prince during his visit to Washington this week, citing scheduling conflicts. The Connecticut senator said that he’d like to ask MBS about the path forward toward normalization with Israel and the kingdom’s role in the future of Gaza. 

“What’s the path to normalization? Realistically how can we get there as quickly as possible? Because it’s so important to peace and stability in the region,” Blumenthal told JI. “What are the Saudis willing to commit to do for the international security force and for reconstruction of Gaza and financial peace?”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) described the jets as an “incredibly capable airplane” and noted that “Israel has F-35s, [as do] some of our other allies.” The Arizona senator said that while he supports the U.S. engaging with the Saudis, he had reservations about selling them the jets.

“Is this the step to some kind of bigger security arrangement in the Middle East? We’ll have to see. I think there’s some benefits for Israel and for Saudi Arabia and for the United States if that’s the case,” Kelly told JI. “I am always concerned about our best technology winding up in the proximity of any of our adversaries. The Chinese have been attempting to build a port there in the UAE, that’s pretty close. So I do worry about these things.”

Some in the Defense Department have reportedly expressed concerns that a sale of the jets to Saudi Arabia would provide China with an opportunity to take or compromise sensitive American technologies.

“I have concerns about it, and also about how the Saudis are going to use these planes,” he added.

Kelly said that if he were a member of the Foreign Relations Committee he would want assurances that China would not have access to U.S. technology before approving the sales.

“If I was on SFRC and had the ability to approve this, I’d want a lot of assurances that the Saudis are going to protect that technology,” Kelly said. “The Chinese would love to get close to these airplanes, to get the radar signatures, if they’re not stealing it from us already.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who will have some ability to obstruct or slow the deal, was deeply critical of multiple announcements made by Trump during his White House summit with MBS.

Shaheen said in a statement that the F-35 deal “raises major concerns about protecting U.S. military technology and the military edge America shares with our allies” and demanded the administration “fully explain to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee why this sale is in the vital national interest of the United States.”

The senior Democrat also said that any security agreement made with Saudi Arabia without Senate approval “is very troubling” and would be non-binding and “easily reversed” by a future administration.

“Bypassing Congress on commitments of this scale sets a dangerous precedent, especially after a similar agreement with Qatar without Senate approval,” Shaheen said.

She also said that any nuclear deal with Riyadh, which Trump said on Tuesday he is pursuing, must ensure that it cannot enrich or reprocess nuclear material and include stringent inspections, and warned that “Saudi Arabia’s stated intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran does demands extreme caution.”

Shaheen also warned that any deal to provide advanced computer chips to Saudi Arabia must be made in consultation with Congress to protect America’s AI and technological edge over China.

Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), an Armed Services Committee member, indicated support for the deal, saying, “we have strategic partners around the region and this has been a discussion going on for a long time. … It’s, I think, a [move] in the right direction.”

Other Republicans have also backed the president on the issue.

Mullin said he’d also like to see the United Arab Emirates acquire F-35s. During his first term, Trump sealed a deal to sell the jets to the UAE — in connection with the signing of the Abraham Accords — but the Biden administration suspended the deal due to concerns about the UAE’s relationship with China.

The UAE has since expressed it is no longer interested in reopening the deal.

Mullin said he’s planning to meet with the Saudi crown prince on Wednesday if their schedules allow, to “continue [the] conversation” from past meetings.

Every Senate Democrat with the exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) wrote to President Donald Trump on Tuesday urging him to “reinforce” the White House’s pledge to oppose Israeli annexation of the West Bank.

In a letter led by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the senators offered their “support for your comments opposing any efforts by the Government of Israel to annex territory in the West Bank and to urge your Administration to promote steps to preserve the viability of a two-state solution and the success of the Abraham Accords.”

The missive was sent weeks after Trump vowed publicly to not allow Israel to annex the West Bank, telling reporters in the Oval Office in late September that, “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank, nope, I will not allow it. It’s not gonna happen.”

“Since your plan for Gaza does not address the West Bank, it is imperative that your Administration reinforce your comments and emphasize its opposition to annexation. As longstanding supporters of Israel’s security and Palestinian aspirations for statehood, we are unified in our opposition to unilateral measures by either party that undermine the prospect of lasting peace through negotiations to achieve a two-state solution,” the letter stated.

The senators argued that “any steps by Israel to annex territory or expand settlements that prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state” would be harmful to the peace process. 

“Such steps have elicited deep concern and opposition from Arab partners and place at risk your past achievements under the Abraham Accords and the possibility of expanding them further,” they wrote. “At the same time, terrorism, including the horrific terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023, must be uniformly condemned and will not bring the region closer to peace.”

“It is essential that the United States reject measures that undermine the viability of a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the letter continued. 

A group of seven Senate Democrats introduced a resolution on Thursday calling for the U.S. to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state.

The resolution was led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI).

The resolution came in conjunction with plans by several U.S. allies to recognize a Palestinian state and alongside a similar push from progressive House lawmakers. Merkley and Van Hollen recently traveled to Israel and released a scathing report accusing Israel of deliberate ethnic cleansing and collective punishment.

“Recognition of a Palestinian state is not only a practical step the United States can take to help build a future where Palestinians and Israelis can live in freedom, dignity, and security, but it is the right thing to do. America has a responsibility to lead, and the time to act is now,” Merkley said in a statement. “The goal of a Palestinian state can’t be put off any longer if we want the next generation to avoid suffering from the same insecurity and affliction.”

The resolution’s sponsors claimed that it constitutes a reaffirmation of long-standing U.S. support for a two-state solution.

The legislation highlights that “administrations of both political parties in the United States have long affirmed that a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable path to an enduring peace in the region” — but does not acknowledge that policymakers have traditionally seen unilateral recognition as contrary to that principle of a solution negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Kaine said that the Israeli government’s rejection of a two-state solution should cause the U.S. to change its own policies.

“Since July 2024 when the Israeli Knesset voted to deny a path to Palestinian statehood and made clear that Israel would not accept Palestinian autonomy, I have believed the U.S. should no longer condition recognition on Israeli assent but rather on Palestinian willingness to live in peace with its neighbors,” Kaine said. “We must redouble our efforts to work toward a future where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live in peace, security, and dignity.”

Welch said in a statement that “recognizing a two-state solution is long overdue and the only way forward — something Republican and Democratic Administrations have agreed on for decade. … This resolution signals Congress’ continued commitment for an enduring two-state solution for peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.” 

Though the U.S. has supported a two-state solution, no previous administration has backed unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.

Van Hollen said in a statement that Congress should assert its own stance on the issue because “the Netanyahu government has obstructed that goal [of a two-state solution] and the Trump Administration has abandoned it.”

The resolution condemns the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 and the group’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist and calls for Palestinian elections, as well as noting that some Arab states have conditioned normalization with Israel on a path to a Palestinian state.

“Failure to advance a two-state solution risks entrenching an unacceptable permanent occupation, further destabilizing the region, and undermining United States interests and values,” the legislation states.

It calls on Hamas to surrender and release the hostages and on Israel to end the war in Gaza.

J Street supported the resolution.

Breaking with many of his Senate Democratic colleagues, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sounded a supportive note on the Israeli strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar on Tuesday.

“I strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider. “I want to know more about the details of this particular strike — I’m learning about it in real time and anything done to destroy Hamas’ leadership or its terrorist capability or military capacity is a step in the right direction.”

Many prominent Senate Democrats have criticized the strike, saying it undermines negotiations for a ceasefire and that it should not have been carried out in Qatari territory. The White House expressed a similar view, breaking with top Senate Republicans who have been supportive of the Israeli attack.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was the only other Senate Democrat who has publicly been supportive of the Israeli action.

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is set to make a bid to return to the Senate in 2026, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. 

Brown, who lost his 2024 reelection race by four points to Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), will challenge Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), who was appointed earlier this year to fill Vice President JD Vance’s seat. President Donald Trump carried the state by more than 11 points in 2024.

The progressive Brown remained relatively popular in the state even as it has trended increasingly red in recent years, and maintained strong ties with the state’s large Jewish community. He had also been floated as a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2026, but was strongly courted by Senate Democrats to make a comeback bid.

In late 2024, Brown voted against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) first efforts to block certain U.S. arms transfers to Israel.

“Senator Brown strongly believes that Israel has a clear and undeniable right to defend itself against Hamas’ brutal terrorism and voted to send military aid to Israel, along with much-needed humanitarian aid to Gaza,” a Brown spokesperson said prior to the vote. “Ultimately, Senator Brown believes that Israel and Hamas must agree to a ceasefire that ends the war, frees the hostages, and delivers desperately needed humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.”

Numerous Democrats have since shifted their position on the issue, citing the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.

In 2022, Brown said that he believed that support for Israel was a majority position in both parties, and that those who opposed the Jewish state were a small group of “outliers,” rejecting the notion that “progressive values” were incompatible with support for Israel.

The former Ohio senator, then the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, took a relatively hawkish position on Iran last year, pressing the administration, after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks, to re-freeze Iranian funds previously released under a deal to free Americans held hostage in Iran.

Brown also called on the Biden administration, in early 2024, to re-impose a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation on the Houthis.

Husted has generally been seen as a moderate and has maintained a pro-Israel record in office, opposing efforts to block weapons transfers to Israel, joining with nearly all other Senate Republicans in demanding full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, supporting American and Israeli strikes on Iran and backing legislation to increase sanctions on Iran.

Speaking at a Senate hearing on campus antisemitism, Husted said that the disruptions in the days after the Oct. 7, 2023 terror attacks appeared coordinated.

After a majority of Senate Democrats voted last week to cut off some military sales to Israel, the issue has emerged as a dividing line in some key Senate primaries. The votes have become a pivotal test in determining which members have maintained their support for Israel, and those who are responding to the political pressure from the party’s progressive activist base.

All told, most of the leading recruits — from former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) to Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) — have said they would have voted with the pro-Israel wing of the party against the two resolutions sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). But there are some notable divisions that are emerging in key races.

Here’s a quick overview of the Democratic candidates’ views in the key open seat races:

MI-SEN: Stevens, a pro-Israel stalwart, said she would have voted against the Sanders resolutions on cutting off military aid, as the state’s delegation was divided on the vote. Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) voted against it, but newly elected Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who missed the vote to appear on Stephen Colbert’s talk show, said she would have supported the anti-Israel measure.

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who earlier this year had been meeting with Jewish groups to reassure them of her pro-Israel bona fides, publicly broke with her past positions. “The United States has to stop providing Netanyahu with offensive weapons that do nothing but continue to extend this war,” she said. At a campaign event last Wednesday, she slammed the Israeli prime minister further: “We cannot let this man tell us that what we are seeing with our own eyes is not what is actually happening.”

Abdul el-Sayed, a vocal Israel critic, didn’t release any statements about the vote or respond to requests for comment on the prospect of blocking offensive weapons sales to Israel. But as a longtime Sanders ally, it’s safe to assume he’s aligned with the push to withhold aid.

IL-SEN: Krishnamoorthi and Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton have come out against Sanders’ anti-Israel resolutions, while also calling for Israel to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) joined with Sanders in saying she would have voted for the resolutions despite her general pro-Israel voting record in the past.

NC-SEN: Cooper said he would support other ways of pressuring Israel to increase humanitarian aid into Gaza, but said he would have voted against the resolutions cutting off aid. Cooper is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination in a key swing-state seat. 

NH-SEN: Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), the expected Democratic nominee who has maintained a pro-Israel voting record in the House, said he would have voted against the resolutions in an interview with WMUR-TV: “I would have opposed these resolutions because I believe that we should be holding Hamas to account and realizing a future for the Palestinian people.”

MN-SEN: Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), the early front-runner and a pro-Israel moderate, has not publicly explained — or responded to JI — how she would have voted. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, running as the progressive in the primary, told JI she would have supported the resolutions, adding, “She believes all of the hostages need to be brought home, that leaders in the U.S. and Israel must do more to get aid into Gaza, and that all sides need this conflict to end.”

Stay tuned to JI for more reporting on where the candidates stand on an issue that’s emerging as a dividing line inside the party.

Sen. Jon Ossoff’s (D-GA) vote Wednesday night, with a majority of Senate Democrats, in favor of a resolution to block a shipment of automatic weapons to Israel is fueling renewed frustration with the senator within the Georgia Jewish community, setting back efforts by the senator to repair ties with Jewish voters who objected to similar votes last December.

Ossoff’s relationship with Georgia’s sizable Jewish community could be a critical deciding factor in his reelection campaign next November — with a tight margin of victory expected in the swing state, significant changes in Jewish voting patterns could help decide the election.

The Georgia senator alienated many in the Jewish community by voting in December for two of three resolutions to block aid shipments to Israel. In subsequent months — after a group of Jewish donors expressed support for Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp as a potential challenger — Ossoff reached out to Jewish community leaders and groups to work to repair ties, with some success.

Many leaders said at the time that he was making progress but had more work to do to fully regain their trust. Those efforts hit a stumbling block in June after Ossoff — whose second child had just been born — took nearly a week to comment on the war between Israel and Iran.

Ossoff said, of his votes on Wednesday, that he had voted for the resolution to block the automatic weapons to send a message to the Israeli government objecting to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as well as due to concerns that the weapons would be provided to police controlled by Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, a controversial figure even in pro-Israel circles.

He said he voted against a second resolution blocking a sale of bombs and bomb guidance kits, because those weapons are necessary to strike targets throughout the region attempting to launch missiles and rockets at Israeli civilians. Ossoff had similarly opposed a resolution on bombs and guidance kits in November, while voting for two other resolutions to block other weapons transfers. 

Norman Radow, a major Democratic donor in Georgia who spoke to Ossoff on Wednesday evening after the votes, told Jewish Insider, “I’m disappointed with him and he knows it. And I think he knows that a vast majority of the Jewish community feels the same way.”

Radow said that Ossoff’s justifications for his vote on the assault rifles resolution didn’t hold water for him and his logic was “sophomoric.” The Democratic donor said he’d argued to the senator that Ossoff had overstated the extent of violence in the West Bank and of starvation in Gaza. 

And he said he told the senator that non-binding efforts condemning Hamas and its backers are ineffectual, as compared to the real impacts that cutting off military supplies to Israel would have. 

He indicated he appreciated the senator’s call.

“I’m disappointed in his behavior, but I can’t say it’s a surprise. We’ve seen this before,” Cheryl Dorchinsky, the founder of the grassroots Atlanta Israel Coalition, said. “It’s insane to me that anyone would think that voting against weapons to Israel during a war is a good idea, regardless of who’s in power.”

She said she feels adrift from both political parties. “When people that I see going into politics as having hopefully an interest in doing the right thing fail us as a people, it just kind of breaks my heart,” Dorchinsky said. She argued that Israel should not be a partisan issue, and blamed “bad actors” trying to turn it into one.

“While I wish [Ossoff] would have voted against both of [the resolutions], I’m very pleased he voted against [the one on bombs and bomb guidance kits],” Dov Wilker, who serves as the regional director of the American Jewish Committee in Atlanta, said. Wilker also said he was “disappointed” that the state’s other senator, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), had voted for both of the resolutions.

Another Jewish Democratic donor in Georgia said, “The yes vote with Sanders, who only wants to destroy the U.S.-Israel relationship, is concerning [and] emboldens the terrorists to continue to reject the ceasefire that was agreed to by Israel. It’s exactly what Hamas wants.”

Rabbi Joshua Heller of Atlanta’s Congregation B’nai Torah told JI that, while he does not endorse candidates, he’s heard in conversations that “a lot of folks who had previously been strong supporters of [Ossoff’s] in the Jewish community are not happy about the stands that he has taken.”

Heller said that, in conversations with him about such positions, Ossoff and his staff have highlighted actions he has taken in support of Israel, “and that is true, but every time a vote like this comes around, there is a break in trust and that becomes harder to restore.”

He said that in conversations with Democratic Jewish voters, many onetime Ossoff supporters are “having second thoughts, at this point,” and that there is a real “challenge in his relationship with a lot of folks in the Jewish community right now.”

“No Jewish community is monolithic, but I definitely see a lot of folks in the community who are troubled by this,” Heller said.

Ossoff still maintains supporters in the Jewish community who back his stance on this week’s resolutions.

Beth Sugarman, a prominent J Street member in Georgia, told JI, “The Jewish community has diversity of opinions, but the people I know think Jon Ossoff is thoughtful and represents us well and his statement and split vote was a good reflection of where the community is. The senator’s statement and split vote was thoughtful and exactly what the community believes.”

J Street supported both of the resolutions to block aid.

Cary Levow, a supporter of pro-Israel causes and candidates, said, “I support Senator Ossoff and know of other Jewish Georgians who understand that Jon’s approach to the Gaza humanitarian issue is genuine.” 

“Senator Ossoff has voted for over $20 billion in aid to Israel, has family living in Israel and has spent a significant amount of time in the country,” Levow continued. “I think Jon has represented the Jewish community well and I have zero concern about a senator who is critical of how [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] Bibi is waging this war.”

Larry Auerbach, a Georgia lawyer and Ossoff supporter, said, “Senator Ossoff has done what the vast majority of Georgia’s Jewish community has asked him to do to represent us well by standing up for protecting the Israeli people’s security and saying that the extremists in the Netanyahu administration can’t continue like this.”

National Republicans see Ossoff’s positions as an opening to peel off Jewish voters in the upcoming senatorial election. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which has seized on Ossoff’s November votes to block aid to Israel, again slammed him on Wednesday.

“Jon Ossoff is a radical leftist who time and again refuses to stand with Georgia’s Jewish community,” NRSC spokesperson Nick Puglia said in a statement. “He’d rather please the pro-Hamas extremists in his party than stand with Israel and Jewish Georgians. In 2026, voters will send him packing.”

Radow, the Democratic donor, argued that Ossoff’s votes were “bad politics,” though he said he’s not sure any of the current or prospective Republican candidates can beat Ossoff.

“He’s kowtowing to Bernie Sanders — that does not win elections in Georgia,” Radow said. “The only thing that Jon’s got going for him right now is the Republican field of candidates is pretty weak. … I want him to win, and he’s not winning my vote right now, and he’s not going to win a lot of people’s votes supporting Bernie resolutions.”

He said that whether he ultimately supports Ossoff next year will depend in part on which Republican ultimately ends up as the nominee against him.

“It’s certainly going to be an interesting race, and my vote is still up for grabs,” Radow said. “I’m not going to be a knee-jerk Democrat on this issue.”

He urged Ossoff, going forward, not to show public daylight with Israel, “stop playing secretary of state” and keep disputes with the Israeli officials behind closed doors. And he called on the senator to consult with Jewish community members before critical votes like this one, rather than reaching out afterward to explain his votes.

Dorchinsky said that she would “never say never to anything,” when asked if Ossoff could win her support at this point, and that she’ll “be paying attention” and make her final decision when she’s in the voting booth next year.

“He has a responsibility to represent us all, and if he actually started to, I would be thrilled. As of right now, I’m clearly not,” Dorchinsky said.

A Jewish leader in Georgia agreed that a key deciding question for wary Jewish voters will be who the Republican Party nominates to run against Ossoff in 2025.

The leader told JI he thinks that Ossoff’s vote for the assault rifles resolution could help him “thread the needle” more easily than other resolutions and represented a more “considerate” approach, given the Ben-Gvir connection. “I think the majority of American Jews are not fans of Ben-Gvir,” the Jewish leader said.

“I think that if he is consistent with his messaging around the specific nature of why he voted against the assault rifles, I think it’ll help people that are more on the fence with him, but want to vote for him — versus those that are just against him,” the leader said.

But, the leader continued, “that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to buy it,” and noted that many members of the community are unhappy with the vote. 

They  said the vote is particularly “not going to help” Ossoff among Jewish community members upset by his delay in commenting on the Iran war, “but those that were able to give him some grace that he finally said something — this will help them.”

Heller was more skeptical that Ossoff’s vote-splitting approach would satisfy anyone, saying he thinks the strategy won’t help Ossoff with supporters of Israel who don’t believe in stopping weapons shipments nor with opponents of Israel who believe in cutting off all aid to Israel.

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.

A group of 40 Senate Democrats, nearly all of the caucus, wrote to administration officials on Tuesday raising concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and calling for a significant expansion of aid, describing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a failure.

The letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, led by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), highlights the extent of the concern even among Democratic leaders and pro-Israel stalwarts.

“The acute humanitarian crisis in Gaza is … unsustainable and worsens by the day,” the lawmakers said. “Hunger and malnutrition are widespread, and, alarmingly, deaths due to starvation, especially among children, are increasing.”

The senators said that the Israeli- and American-backed GHF aid distribution system had “failed to address the deepening humanitarian crisis and contributed to an unacceptable and mounting civilian death toll around the organization’s sites.”

They argued that aid must be significantly expanded, including through “experienced multilateral bodies and NGOs that can get life-saving aid directly to those in need and prevent diversion.” Israel has argued that other aid distribution mechanisms, particularly those affiliated with the United Nations, have failed to effectively distribute aid and prevent Hamas diversion.

The letter further states that efforts to finalize a ceasefire in Gaza “are as critical and urgent as ever and we urge the resumption of good-faith talks as quickly as possible.” The administration walked away from talks with Hamas last week, saying that Hamas was not negotiating in good faith.

“There still remains a viable pathway to end this war, bring home Israeli hostages, and achieve a diplomatic resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the senators asserted.

They emphasized that the living hostages in Gaza “have suffered too long, as have their families” and that “it is imperative that those still living be brought home as soon as possible, before more perish as the war drags on.” They also noted the need to return the bodies of deceased hostages.

The Democrats also voiced “our strong opposition to the permanent forced displacement of the Palestinian people” from Gaza, as has been floated by some Israeli and American leaders, calling such an outcome “antithetical to international humanitarian law,” to the security of Israelis and Palestinians, to lasting peace and to the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

They urged the administration to clearly reject such a plan.

“Beyond a negotiated ceasefire, a permanent end to this war will also require an end to Hamas rule in Gaza and ensuring that Hamas can no longer pose a serious military threat to Israel,” the letter continues. “We reaffirm our strong support for continued U.S.-led diplomacy with Israel, Palestinian leaders, and other partners in the Middle East in pursuit of the long-term goal of a negotiated two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in lasting peace, security, dignity, and mutual recognition.”

The only Senate Democrats who did not sign the letter were Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) — who has generally abstained from letters by other Democrats critical of Israel — as well as Sens. Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also did not sign.

It follows a letter earlier this week from 21 progressive Senate Democrats that more strongly condemned the GHF, describing it as a “private group supported by U.S. security contractors and connected to deadly violence against starving people seeking food in Gaza” that “blur[s] the lines between delivery of aid and security operations.” 

That letter called on the administration to “immediately cease all U.S. funding for GHF and resume support for the existing UN-led aid coordination mechanisms with enhanced oversight to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches civilians in need.”

The progressive lawmakers said that the GHF system is insufficient to replace the United Nations aid network and that it is facilitating efforts to displace Palestinians and depopulate Gaza, as well as highlighted incidents in which aid recipients were allegedly attacked at distribution sites.

The lawmakers said the administration had dodged legal and vetting requirements in its provision of aid to the GHF. They also argued that the American military contractors employed to guard the GHF sites are at risk from both Hamas and anti-Hamas militia forces in Gaza.

Several Senate Democrats told Jewish Insider on Monday that calls to “globalize the intifada” are unacceptable and must be condemned, amid concerns from Jewish leaders and organizations over presumptive New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s defense of the slogan.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has thus far not endorsed Mamdani, told JI he plans to meet with Mamdani in a few weeks, when asked about Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan.

“Sen. Schumer condemns the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’ and believes it should not be used because it has such dangerous implications. As Senator Schumer said after the death of Karen Diamond, the attack in Boulder continues to serve as a grave reminder of the deadly consequences of the rise in antisemitism,” a spokesperson for Schumer told JI.

“I don’t know what [Mamdani’s] position is on it, but I certainly think that the call to spread the intifada is the kind of incitement that can lead to extremist violence,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told JI.

Blumenthal added that he is “an advocate of increasing the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which protects against terrorist hate crimes to synagogues, mosques, churches and similar community institutions, and so I’m deeply concerned about incitement and hate speech that can lead to hate crimes.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) said calls to globalize the intifada must be condemned.

“At a time when antisemitism is rising at alarming rates in the U.S., leaders of both parties have an obligation to stand up, speak clearly, and unequivocally condemn hatred and bigotry in every form,” Rosen said in a statement to JI. “The intifadas were periods marked by unspeakable violence and terror against innocent Israelis, and it should not be a difficult decision for anyone to condemn the antisemitic call to globalize these violent attacks. Our words matter — and in moments like this, silence is not an option.”

“I’m not a member of the Jewish community or a NYC voter. Personally, I would never use or defend this deeply troubling phrase,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said in a statement to JI. 

Some other Senate Democrats declined to comment or said they hadn’t been following Mamdani’s remarks.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who thus far has declined to endorse Mamdani, said in response to a listener call on WNYC last week that constituents she has spoken to are “alarmed” by Mamdani’s past comments.

“They are alarmed by past public statements. They are alarmed by past positions, particularly references to global jihad,” Gillibrand said. “This is a very serious issue because people that glorify the slaughter of Jews create fear in our communities. The global intifada is a statement that means ‘destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.’”

She emphasized that Mamdani needs to understand and accept that “globalize the intifada” is viewed by the Jewish community as, inherently, a call for violence against Jews.

“It doesn’t matter what meaning you have in your brain,” Gillibrand said, when pressed on Mamdani’s claims that he does not view the statement as a call for violence. “It is not how the word is received. When you use a word like ‘intifada’ to many Jewish Americans and Jewish New Yorkers, that means you are permissive for violence against Jews.”

“It is a harmful, hurtful, inappropriate word for anyone who wants to represent a city as diverse as New York City with 8 million people, and I would be very specific in these words, and I would say, ‘You may not use them again if you expect to represent everyone ever again because they are received as hateful and divisive and harmful, and that’s it,’” she continued. 

She said that Mamdani, if elected, will “need to assure all New Yorkers that he will protect all Jews and protect houses of worship and protect funding for not-for-profits that meet the needs of these communities.”

She said she had spoken to Mamdani about Jewish community security issues last week, and said that he “agreed to work with me on this and to protect all residents. …  I will work with him when he gets elected, if he gets elected, to make sure everyone is protected.”

Speaking on CNN on Monday, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) called the intifada slogan “deeply offensive” and said that “every elected official, without exception, should condemn it.”

Torres said that condemning the language was not the same as criminalizing it, responding to Mamdani’s own comments saying he did not believe he should “police” speech: “No one‘s advocating for imprisonment. I mean, every elected official has an obligation to condemn hatred, whether it‘s antisemitism or Islamophobia,” the New York congressman said.

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. 

Asserting that President Donald Trump “owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement” in the Middle East, top Senate Democrats on Wednesday cautioned against potential U.S. strikes on Iran and argued that the president would need congressional authorization to conduct such an operation.

The signatories to the statement include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrats on several key Senate committees and subcommittees. The statement suggests that a direct U.S. military intervention in Iran would see little support among Senate Democrats.

Trump has indicated that he is considering carrying out strikes inside Iran but has yet to make a final decision.

“​​Intensifying military actions between Israel and Iran represent a dangerous escalation that risks igniting a broader regional war,” the statement reads. “As President Trump reportedly considers expanding U.S. engagement in the war, we are deeply concerned about a lack of preparation, strategy, and clearly defined objectives, and the enormous risk to Americans and civilians in the region.”

The lawmakers said they are “alarmed by the Trump administration’s failure to provide answers to fundamental questions” and demanded that the president seek authorization from Congress “if he is considering taking the country to war.” 

“Congress has not provided authorization for military action against Iran – we will not rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk,” the Democrats said. “Our foremost duty is to safeguard American citizens wherever they reside and to protect our troops serving on the front lines. The United States cannot sleepwalk into a third war in as many decades. Congress has a critical role to play in this moment.” 

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to bar military action against Iran, which could come up for a vote as soon as next week.

“[Trump] owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region. We need a clear, detailed plan outlining the goals, risks, cost, and timeline for any proposed mission, as well as how he will ensure the safe evacuation of Americans in harm’s way all across the region,” they continued. “We demand immediate, detailed answers on these and other urgent matters to determine the way forward.

At the same time, the statement describes Iran as a threat to the U.S. and its allies that “must not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon.” 

“The United States stands firm in our support for the continued defense of Israel, our partner and ally,” they said. “Our commitment to Israel remains ironclad and we urge the administration to defend Israel against the barrage of Iranian airstrikes, including through the provision of additional air defense capabilities.”

Israel’s strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets are prompting fractured responses from Senate Democrats, with a few offering full support for Israel and others forcefully condemning the strikes, while some have sought to carve out a path somewhere in the middle.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the most vocal pro-Israel Democrats in the Senate, offered her first comments on the strike Friday morning, saying that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and is “closer than ever” to developing one, as reflected in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran had violated its nonproliferation commitments.

“The Iranian regime and its proxies have been very public about their commitment to the destruction of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. We should take them at their word,” Rosen said. “Israel acted in self-defense against an attack from Iran, and the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.”

She also emphasized the need to protect U.S. troops in the region.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), long a proponent of strikes on Iran, was the first Senate Democrat to offer support for the operation.

On the other side of the spectrum, progressives have been loudly denouncing the strikes. 

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the strikes are “an escalation that is deeply concerning and will inevitably invite counterattacks.”

She added that they endanger nuclear talks and U.S. servicemembers.

“I agree with President Trump’s instinct to distance the U.S. from Israel’s actions, but Iran and its proxies are unlikely to differentiate the U.S. from Israel. This is not the time to tie our hands by reducing our diplomatic presence and resourcing as the State Department and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] plan to do,” Shaheen said. “This is a dangerous moment for the region and world. The Trump Administration must quickly move to de-escalate the situation.”

Other progressive Senate Democrats have tried to accuse Israel of undermining President Trump’s wishes, even though Trump himself has publicly expressed support for the attacks in statements and media interviews into Friday morning.

“This strike by Iran is clearly a stick in the eye for the American president because in addition to striking nuclear facilities and at least one of their top research scientists, reportedly Israel also killed the chief negotiator who was negotiating with the United States of America and so it’s pretty transparent that this was an effort to submarine, to undermine our diplomacy,” Sen. Chis Murphy (D-CT) said on Friday morning on “Morning Joe.” “Now, it looks as if diplomacy has no chance.”

A handful of other Democrats have sought some path between those two poles, acknowledging Israel’s right to defend itself while pushing for deescalation and averting a concerted regional war.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emphasized the need to “avoid steps that will cause further escalation across the region,” while also stating, “Iran has threatened the safety of Israel and the region and Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself and its citizens.”

He said that his “foremost concern” is protecting U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that the details, justification and consequences of the operation are unknown, while emphasizing that the U.S. had made clear that Israel acted alone and the administration continues to pursue peace.

“I have long believed that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and that Iran and its proxies pose a serious threat to American interests. I am deeply concerned by the IAEA Board of Governors’ determination earlier today that Iran has failed to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran’s defiant subsequent declaration of a new underground enrichment facility,” Coons said. “Even so, tonight’s actions have the potential to lead to dangerous escalation and a full-scale regional war. I am following developments closely tonight and am urging restraint.”

“Everyone’s goal must now be the prevention of a full-blown regional war,” Coons continued. “The Trump administration and our regional partners must work together to reduce the risks of escalation and work towards a path forward that provides safety and stability for the entire region.”

As of Friday morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the top Senate Democrat, was the only one of the top four congressional leaders who had yet to speak out about the attacks.

Schumer attended the Friday morning funeral of former Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) where he delivered a eulogy, and was expected to receive a briefing on the strikes afterward, according to a source familiar with his plans. Schumer was expected to issue a statement after the briefing.

Some Senate Democrats are warming to the Trump administration’s decision to reimpose a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation for the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist group in Yemen — a move that the Biden administration refused to make throughout its term after previously delisting the group as terrorists in 2021 — while others remain skeptical.

A growing number of Democrats last year came to support the elevated terrorist designation for the group as Houthi attacks on Israel, U.S. forces and shipping vessels in the Red Sea escalated. The Trump administration issued an executive order in January that sought to reimpose the designation and formally took the step this week. The Biden administration applied a different terrorist label but the FTO designation would have granted additional authorities. 

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), a longtime supporter of redesignating the group, offered his full endorsement of the move.

“I support that,” Fetterman told JI. “And if his [Trump’s] next Truth Social post is about wasting them, I’d support that too. I think it’s time to really cut the s**t and take them out if they’re going to mess with our ships and have an impact on our economy like that, absolutely. They are terrorists, undeniably. I fully support destroying that organization, what’s left of it.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that “the previous debate about whether they should or shouldn’t be so designated really had to do with the ability to deliver humanitarian aid in the middle of what was then a massive crisis in Yemen.”

“They certainly have done plenty of things that deserve the designation,” Coons continued. “That doesn’t trouble me.”

Coons had opposed the Trump administration’s decision in early January 2021 to initially designate the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said she thinks the U.S. should have sanctions on the Houthis but didn’t directly address the FTO designation.

Others, such as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), remain skeptical.

Kaine said that he found the timing of the move to be “kind of interesting, because the Houthis have stopped firing on U.S. shipping in the Red Sea, which they said they would do if there was a cease-fire, which has been great.”

“We’ve got to extend the cease-fire so that continues, because we have been so freakishly lucky. We were batting 1.000 while knocking down all the drones and the missiles [in the Red Sea],” Kaine told JI. “They are a terrorist organization, but they’ve stopped firing on U.S. shipping. We want them to continue not to, so I felt like the timing was a little bizarre.”

Kaine, who serves on the Foreign Relations and Senate Armed Services committees, said he was concerned that the reauthorization could prompt the Houthis to reengage on that front, even if the cease-fire and hostage-release deal between Israel and Hamas remains intact.

“If they started to behave badly again we could always reimpose the designation, and maybe they’d start firing again even with the cease-fire,” Kaine said. “But we’re in a moment where they dramatically scaled back what they were doing. I’m not sure that’s the time to punish somebody when they’ve started for some reason to do the right thing.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told JI that the Houthis are a terrorist organization, and were already labeled as such under a different designation.

“The question is how we treat them as a terrorist organization without making them stronger,” Murphy said. “The question is whether this particular designation makes it so impossible for us to provide famine relief inside Yemen that it actually grows the Houthis’ power.”

He said that the designation “doesn’t help us if the consequences result in a group getting stronger,” and that he wants to ensure the delivery of humanitarian support that can “blunt some of the reasons why people sign up to fight with the Houthis.”

Republicans, meanwhile, celebrated the move.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a post on X on Wednesday, “I’m glad to see the Administration sanction Houthi leaders for their terrorist activity and weapons trafficking. Now, we need to cut Chinese support for the Houthis. China purposefully undercuts U.S. sanctions and serves as a lifeline for Iran and its terror groups. This needs to end.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the decision was “long overdue” and that he was “glad he [Trump] did it.”

“In the name of avoiding escalation, every time Democrats try to do that, you get more of it,” Graham said. “Here’s what I think: if they keep shooting at our ships, wipe them out. They use the same logic — don’t give them tanks, don’t give them planes — in Ukraine. You just get more escalations,” Graham said of the criticism from the other side of the aisle. 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said she was “completely” in support of the Houthi’s FTO status being reinstated and was not concerned about such a decision escalating the situation in the Red Sea. 

“My goodness, when you look at what the Houthis have already done, in firing missiles nonstop at our commercial traffic in the Red Sea and at destroyers. They are definitely a terrorist organization. From my perspective, they’re an Iranian proxy,” Collins told JI. “I’m glad that they’ve been reclassified.”

Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tina Smith (D-MN) have joined more than two dozen Senate Democrats publicly warning Israeli leaders of the implications of efforts to unilaterally annex portions of the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the government could start annexing territory as early as July 1.

In individual letters sent last month and made public over the weekend, both senators — Klobuchar addressed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Smith wrote to Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz — posited that annexation would undermine efforts to attain a two-state solution.

Twenty-eight senators have so far spoken out against the annexation proposal.

Last month, 19 Democratic senators sent a letter to Netanyahu and Gantz urging the Israeli leaders not to move forward with the effort. That letter, which was updated several times before being sent, cautioned the new Israeli government that “unilateral annexation puts both Israel’s security and democracy at risk” and “would have a clear impact on Israel’s future and our vital bilateral and bipartisan relationship.” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Bob Casey (D-PA) sent individual communiques to Netanyahu and Gantz, similarly opposing the move, and Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) addressed the matter in individual letters to Pompeo. 

In addition, Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) issued statements against annexation, and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) indicated to Jewish Currents that instead of signing or authoring a letter on annexation, he would “communicate directly with [Israeli] Ambassador [Ron] Dermer and Israeli officials to express his concerns.” 

On Monday, eight Senate candidates in battleground states are expected to join the list expressing their strong opposition to such a move. In statements provided to J Street and shared with Jewish Insider, the candidates — Cal Cunningham (North Carolina), Sara Gideon (Maine), Teresa Greenfield (Iowa), Al Gross (Alaska), Jaime Harrison (South Carolina), MJ Hegar (Texas), John Hickenlooper (Colorado), Amy McGrath (Kentucky) and Jon Ossoff (Georgia) — emphasized that annexation would put the future of a two-state solution at risk. 

Read their statements in full here.

Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warned that unilateral annexation “puts the future [of peace] at risk and undermines our national security interest and decades of bipartisan policy.” Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden also came out against annexation, saying it “will choke off any hope for peace.”

“From the presidential nominee to the speaker of the House and from the Senate to the senatorial campaign trail, Democratic leaders have now made absolutely clear that they do not and cannot support unilateral annexation in the West Bank,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami told JI. “For annexation to move forward in the face of this overwhelming opposition would be incredibly harmful to the future of Israelis and Palestinians and to the US-Israel relationship.”