US House Democrats Split on Bid to Cut Israel Aid

House Democrats nearly split evenly on Wednesday in a vote on an amendment to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, highlighting how the issue is reshaping divisions within the party. The amendment, led by Rep. Thomas Massie, was widely expected to fail as a political gesture. But it also acted as a litmus test for Democrats facing increasing pressure from an activist wing over Israel policy.

The amendment was defeated by 104 votes to 314, with 10 members voting present. In total, 103 Democrats supported the measure, while 98 voted against it. Massie, a Republican, was the only Republican to vote in favour of the amendment.

A defeated amendment, but a clear party split

The vote was on a fiscal year 2027 funding bill covering the State Department and national security. The measure would have prevented funds in the bill from being used for Israel and would have reduced the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme by $3.3 billion, an amount intended to match funds designated for Israel.

Democratic leaders were divided. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar both opposed the amendment, while House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark voted for it. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi also voted in favour.

The 10 Democrats who voted “present” were Reps. Ami Bera of California, Shontel Brown of Ohio, Janelle Bynum of Oregon, Sarah Elfreth of Maryland, Jared Huffman of California, Betty McCollum of Minnesota, Kelly Morrison of Minnesota, Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, Linda Sánchez of California and Mike Thompson of California.

Jeffries and Clark disagree on whether the measure helps

Jeffries said he planned to vote against the bill on Tuesday, arguing in a “Dear Colleague” letter that the amendment was too broad because it would “prohibit or limit” funding tied to longstanding initiatives. He said it would affect areas including humanitarian assistance, refugee resettlement, peace-building and operations linked to the U.S. Embassy.

In his view, more direct steps were needed to force change regarding the Israeli government. He accused Republican leaders of using the amendment for partisan purposes.

Clark said in her Wednesday remarks that the amendment was also overly broad, and she characterised it as an attempt by Republicans to score political points. However, she said the current approach was not sustainable. Clark argued that the United States should not provide a “blank check” for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests and values, and that the Netanyahu government had not met those standards. She said she would vote for the amendment to change course, while not endorsing the entirety of the Republican proposal or the reasons behind its timing.

Pelosi backs the amendment’s message despite reservations

Pelosi said she remained committed to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and to support for a two-state solution. She also said the amendment created an “unfortunate choice” for the House.

Pelosi argued that, for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians, U.S. policy must change to achieve what she described as a just and lasting peace. She said the United States must promote security and stability, and that Americans were demanding an end to what she described as a perpetual cycle of war. She said the Netanyahu government could not continue on its current path. While she called the amendment ill-conceived, Pelosi said she voted yes to send what she viewed as the right signal.

Join the discussion?

16 July 2026