THE UNITED STATES OF ISRAEL: Sen. Sanders on AIPAC’s Stranglehold on AMERICA

The United States of America Israel?

” Sen. Sanders says AIPAC is buying silence in Congress as Gaza burns. Explore his explosive claims, the billions at stake, and why this could reshape U.S. foreign policy—and democracy itself.

On the Senate floor this week in Washington, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont delivered a blistering rebuke of his colleagues and indictment of America’s response to the Israel–Gaza war. With passion and outrage, Sanders described how “starving children to death as a weapon of war” is being used in Gaza – a tactic he unequivocally called “a war crime, committed openly and in broad daylight”. He went further, citing statements from Israeli officials to argue that “for many in Netanyahu’s extremist government, this has been the plan all along: it’s called ethnic cleansing”. These are extraordinary words to aim at a longtime U.S. ally. Yet Sanders, himself Jewish and a lifelong supporter of human rights, insists that what is unfolding in Gaza is so egregious that speaking out is a moral imperative. Over 52,000 Palestinians have been killed during Israel’s offensive – the vast majority civilians – and Sanders argues the U.S. bears direct responsibility. A number he believes his much higher. Research published in the Lancet medical journal estimates that the death toll in Gaza during the first nine months of the Israel-Hamas war was about 40% higher than numbers recorded by the Palestinian territory’s health ministry.

“What makes this tragedy so much worse for us in America,” he said, “is that it is our government… absolutely complicit in creating and sustaining this humanitarian disaster”. The United States has sent billions in weaponry to Israel’s war – $18 billion last year alone, with another $12 billion just approved – effectively bankrolling a campaign that Sanders and many human rights groups label as indiscriminate and unlawful.

Why, then, has Washington not risen in outrage or at least debate over an ally’s conduct that Sanders brands a war crime? Why are calls for a ceasefire or even conditioned aid so scarce in the halls of Congress? Sanders offered a scathing answer: money and fear. In a Republic founded on free debate, he suggested, one lobbying group’s money has purchased a chilling silence. In Sanders’ words, “we have a corrupt campaign finance system that allows AIPAC to set the agenda here in Washington”. AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – and its affiliated super PAC have poured unprecedented cash into U.S. elections, and Sanders argued that every member of Congress knows it. “In the last election cycle, AIPAC’s PAC and Super PAC spent nearly $127 million combined,” he noted, referencing Federal Election Commission records. The clear implication: lawmakers who defy AIPAC’s hard-line positions on Israel risk facing a torrent of attack ads and primary challengers funded by those millions. As Sanders put it, “if you are a member of Congress and you vote against Netanyahu’s war in Gaza, AIPAC is there to punish you with millions of dollars in advertisements to see that you’re defeated”. In today’s Washington, that threat is enough to muzzle dissent. “One might think that in a democracy there would be a vigorous debate on an issue of such consequence,” Sanders said. “But because of our corrupt campaign finance system, people are literally afraid to stand up”.

The result, Sanders warns, is a de-facto taboo in Congress against criticizing Israel – even as humanitarian catastrophe unfolds. It’s as if U.S. foreign policy is no longer made by Americans weighing American interests, but by politicians terrified of crossing a powerful lobby. This provocative notion – that America’s Israel policy is written in Jerusalem or at AIPAC’s headquarters rather than by the American people – has fueled the incendiary phrase now making rounds: “The United States of Israel.” Sanders stopped short of using those exact words, but his message was unmistakable. In his view, Washington’s unconditional backing of Israel, even as children in Gaza waste away with no food or water, is not a reflection of true American values or public opinion – it’s the work of a political machine that has “set the agenda” and strangled democracy on this issue. It’s a charge at once incendiary and deeply serious, especially with a Washington even more closely aligned with Israel’s far-right government. And it raises the question: if Sanders is right, what does it mean for American democracy and for the people of Gaza?

AIPAC’s Money Machine and “Bought” Silence

Sanders’ broadside centers on AIPAC, a lobbying group that has long been renowned – or infamous – for its influence on Capitol Hill. Often dubbed “America’s pro-Israel lobby,” AIPAC’s singular mission is to ensure unwavering U.S. support for the Israeli government’s policies. To do that, it has built a formidable political money machine. For decades, AIPAC avoided donating directly to candidates, instead operating through a network of allied donors. But in 2021 it dropped the pretense of separation and created its own PAC and Super PAC, unleashing a flood of money into elections. The impact was immediate and massive. In the 2023–2024 cycle, AIPAC’s PAC and its super PAC (the “United Democracy Project”) spent nearly $126.9 million. Here is all the money AIPAC spent to influence 2024 federal elections – by far the most of any PAC in the country. That included over $55 million funneled directly to campaigns of AIPAC’s favored politicians, and more than $61 million in outside attack ads against those deemed insufficiently pro-Israel. This is Big Money on steroids, aimed at a very specific goal: making support for Israel politically non-negotiable.

To Sanders, these numbers aren’t abstract – they translate to colleagues muzzled and bills left off the agenda. He noted on the Senate floor that everyone in Congress knows AIPAC is watching how they vote. “If you vote against Netanyahu’s war… suddenly you will have all kinds of ads coming into your district to defeat you,” he warned. Lawmakers have seen it happen. In Democratic primaries last year, AIPAC and its allies targeted several progressive incumbents who criticized Israel’s hardline tactics, determined to make examples of them. The lobby’s super PAC spent a staggering $14.6 million to unseat Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York and another $8.6 million against Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri – two members of the progressive “Squad” who had called for a Gaza ceasefire. The blitz worked: AIPAC “successfully picked off” both Bowman and Bush in their primaries, despite their grassroots popularity. In total, over $23 million was pumped into defeating just those two members of Congress – a fact that sends an unmistakable message on Capitol Hill. As The Guardian observed, this extraordinary spending underscores the “depth of the pro-Israel lobby’s concern” that even a small chorus of dissent in Congress could threaten the status quo.

Indeed, the fear Sanders describes is palpable. “Many of my colleagues will privately express their horror at Netanyahu’s war crimes, but will do or say very little publicly about it,” he lamented on the floor. In other words, members of Congress – including those sickened by scenes of bombed hospitals and starving children – keep quiet, calculating that speaking up for Palestinian lives could be a career-ending move. This amounts to a chilling effect on our democracy: an issue of life-and-death importance is rendered untouchable because a lobby’s checkbook looms in the background. Critics of AIPAC have long accused it of wielding a “stranglehold” over U.S. Mideast policy, choking off open debate. Now, in Sanders, we have a sitting U.S. senator essentially confirming that diagnosis from the inside. He is saying out loud what many have whispered for years – that policy by purse strings has replaced honest discussion when it comes to Israel.

It’s worth noting that AIPAC operates in a bipartisan fashion. Its spending isn’t directed only against left-wing critics; it will just as readily bankroll a pro-Israel Democrat as a Republican. In 2022, for instance, AIPAC’s super PAC spent $6 million to help defeat former Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards and elect a more Israel-aligned Democrat in Maryland. And the group courted both parties’ leaders: Democratic stalwarts like Senator Chuck Schumer have benefited from AIPAC-tied donations (nearly $100k in Schumer’s case), while Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson counted AIPAC as his single largest donor in 2022. AIPAC doesn’t much care about party labels – only about protecting Israel’s prerogatives. As former AIPAC insider M.J. Rosenberg bluntly put it, “the only difference between other lobbies that buy support and AIPAC is that AIPAC is working for a foreign government”. That charge, essentially of acting as an agent of a foreign power, is explosive – and AIPAC vehemently denies it. But the evidence of their influence is hard to ignore. When former Rep. Brian Baird recalled his time in Congress, he admitted that on key votes “the question on the House floor, troublingly, is often not ‘What is the right thing to do for the United States?’ but ‘How is AIPAC going to score this?’”.

Sanders’ speech has thrust this dark reality into the spotlight. If lawmakers are “afraid to stand up” because of AIPAC’s millions, then can we really say our policy is the result of principled deliberation? Or is it bought-and-paid-for orthodoxy? The ramifications extend beyond Israel-Palestine; at stake is the basic integrity of American democracy.

The United States of Israel: A Long History of Outsized Influence

To understand how AIPAC achieved this clout, one must look at its history and tactics. This is not a new story; it’s the culmination of decades of lobbying muscle. AIPAC was founded back in 1954, in direct response to an incident that foreshadowed today’s crisis. The year prior, Israeli troops had massacred over 60 Palestinian villagers in Qibya, drawing international condemnation. Desperate to repair Israel’s image and secure U.S. support, pro-Israel activists in Washington formed what would become AIPAC. In essence, AIPAC’s genesis was about damage control – ensuring that even when Israel committed abhorrent acts, the American political establishment would stay firmly in Israel’s corner. Over the following decades, AIPAC perfected the art of influence. By the 1960s, it was helping broker regular U.S. arms sales and aid to Israel. In the 1980s, it gained a reputation (and fearsome aura) as Capitol Hill’s most effective special interest group, able to marshal Congress almost at will.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations learned to treat AIPAC as almost an adjunct of U.S. foreign policy. Sometimes, AIPAC’s sway was so great it raised uncomfortable questions of dual loyalty. In 2005, a Pentagon analyst pleaded guilty to spying for Israel and passing secrets to AIPAC officials – a scandal that showed the blurry lines between lobbying and espionage. And in their famous 2006 paper “The Israel Lobby,” scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that AIPAC, “a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress”, preventing open debate even when U.S. interests were at stake. At the time, that claim was highly controversial and was attacked by Washington insiders. But here we are, in 2025, with Senator Sanders essentially validating Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis on the Senate floor. The “stranglehold” they described in 2006 appears very much intact today, as evidenced by the thunderous silence in Congress that Sanders decried.

AIPAC’s defenders say the organization is simply “effective” at advocating a policy that most of Congress would support regardless. Indeed, for years there was a broad bipartisan consensus backing Israel uncritically, in part due to shared democratic values and strategic alliance. But that consensus has frayed as Israel’s far-right government pursues ever more extreme policies – and as images of Palestinian suffering reach American screens. In truth, AIPAC’s power has also come from operating in the shadows: many Americans have little idea how U.S. policy on Israel is influenced. That’s why Sanders speaking out is so significant. It drags the machinery into the light. For a politician of his stature to accuse a lobby of muzzling Congress is almost unheard of. It suggests that AIPAC’s once-untouchable status is beginning to crack. Even within the pro-Israel camp, there are signs of scrambling: when AIPAC’s brand became somewhat toxic among progressives (to the point that most Democratic presidential candidates in 2020 skipped its conference, a spin-off called Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) was created to do AIPAC’s work under a different banner. But Sanders’ target isn’t just one organization’s name – it’s the system that lets any lobby hold such sway. He is effectively shouting that the emperor has no clothes, that Congress’s moral posturing on democracy and human rights is hollow when one lobby can silence condemnation of apparent war crimes.

Backlash: Critics Cry Foul and Close Ranks

Sanders’ accusations have, unsurprisingly, infuriated those who see support for Israel as sacrosanct. Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio – a freshman who has positioned himself as a vehement Israel defender – took to the Senate floor to rebuke Sanders. Moreno, who ironically shares a first name with the Vermont senator, did not mince words. He characterized Sanders’ impassioned remarks as nothing but “the propaganda of Hamas” and “nonsense” that didn’t belong in the U.S. Senate. In a heated rebuttal, Moreno accused Sanders of blaming the victim. He recounted in grisly detail the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023 – when militants massacred 1,200 Israelis in their homes and at a music festival – and argued that Israel’s war in Gaza is a justified response to unprovoked barbarism. “Let me just be clear,” Moreno thundered, “this war was started by Hamas, and it could end today by Hamas, if they released every last hostage!”. In his view, Israel is our “greatest ally” and is doing what any nation would do to defend its people. By criticizing Israel, Moreno implied, Sanders was effectively siding with terrorists. Declaring he “cannot stay silent after listening to that kind of nonsense… It’s a disgrace”. He doubled down, blasting it as “outrageous that some members of the United States Senate parrot Hamas propaganda” and insisting “Israel is fighting the war that we would otherwise fight”. The message from Israel’s staunch allies is clear: Sanders’ critique is beyond the pale, and any talk of Israeli “war crimes” or halting arms transfers is, to them, tantamount to betraying a friend in need.

It’s not just Moreno. Vice President J.D. Vance has likewise also slammed any effort to restrain Israel. Vance argues that President Biden had been too weak in aiding Israel – he opposed including humanitarian aid for Gaza in an Israel funding bill, claiming “when we send aid into Gaza, a lot of it goes into the wrong hands” (i.e. Hamas). To Vance and many Republicans, calls for ceasefires or conditioning aid are naïve at best, or dangerous appeasement at worst. In their framing, Israel is an outpost of democracy facing off against genocidal terrorists, and American politicians should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel, full stop. That leaves no room for Sanders’ moral nuances about Palestinian civilians.

“If we are going to support Israel, as I think that we should, we have to articulate a reason why it’s in our best interest,” said Vance in a speech at the Quincy Institute. “A big part of the reason why Americans care about Israel is because we are still the largest Christian-majority country in the world, which means that a majority of citizens of this country think that their Savior, and I count myself a Christian, was born and died and resurrected in that narrow little strip of territory on the Mediterranean. The idea that there is ever going to be an American foreign policy that doesn’t care a lot about that slice of the world is preposterous.”

AIPAC itself has also swung back into action. The lobby rarely engages in public debates – its work is usually behind the scenes – but Sanders’ speech represented such a direct threat that AIPAC responded publicly. In a statement, AIPAC “commended the U.S. Senate for overwhelmingly rejecting” Sanders’ recent legislative efforts to block arms sales to Israel. (Just one day after Sanders’ Gaza speech, the Senate voted down his resolutions to halt an $8.8 billion weapons transfer, by lopsided margins.) AIPAC praised the “majority of Senate Democrats and Republicans” for rebuking what it called Sanders’ “dangerous efforts… to weaken Israel and undermine the U.S.–Israel relationship.” In other words, the lobby wants to make Sanders an outlier, painting his stance as radical and out of touch with American public opinion. Mark Mellman, president of the allied group DMFI, echoed that line, denouncing Sanders’ push to limit arms as a “betrayal of our ally” and assuring that the “majority of our party stands firmly with the Israeli people” despite a “few vocal anti-Israel voices”. The closing of ranks is evident.

Yet, even in their rebuttals, one can sense AIPAC and its allies’ underlying anxiety. Why bother issuing statements and tweets against one senator’s speech if Sanders were truly a lone crank? The reason is that Sanders is giving voice to a significant (and growing) segment of the American public – and even of Congress – that is uncomfortable with the blank-check support for Netanyahu’s government. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in early 2025 found that 53% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Israel, a significant increase from 42% in 2022. It also showed negative views of Israel are more pronounced among Democrats (69%) than Republicans (37%). Those are not fringe views. They reflect a generational and ideological divide, where progressives and younger Americans are horrified by images of entire city blocks in Gaza reduced to rubble and by reports of thousands of children killed or starving. The humanitarian toll has become impossible to ignore. Even within Congress, while still a minority, dissent is louder than it used to be: 19 Senate Democrats (nearly 40% of the caucus) voted with Sanders in a symbolic bid to block weapons to Israel last fall – an effort unthinkable just a few years ago. And over in the House, voices like Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Rep. Cori Bush (before her defeat) have openly called Israeli actions a “genocide” and demanded ceasefires. The dam is cracking. AIPAC’s frantic spending and tough talk are, in a sense, reactions to this new reality. They are fighting a rearguard battle to preserve a consensus that is eroding under the weight of war’s atrocities.

Democracy at a Crossroads

The clash set off by Sanders’ speech is about more than Israel and Gaza. It strikes at the heart of how U.S. foreign policy is made, and who gets to influence it. Are we okay with the idea that a wealthy lobbying group – one aligned with a foreign government’s interests – can dictate what American lawmakers are allowed to say about a war using American bombs and dollars? Sanders clearly thinks this is a betrayal of our democratic ideals. In his view, American policy should reflect American values and open debate, not the will of a lobby that uses “millions of dollars” as a cudgel. The uncomfortable truth is that this kind of influence is not unique to AIPAC; moneyed interests skew policy on everything from gun control (think NRA) to healthcare (Big Pharma). But foreign policy has often been insulated from such scrutiny. If anything, Sanders’ revolt could inspire a broader reckoning with how special interests shape America’s role in the world.

One possible consequence is renewed momentum for campaign finance reform. Sanders connected the dots explicitly: the problem is a “corrupt campaign finance system” in which super PACs (like AIPAC’s) can spend limitless sums, often funded by billionaires, to sway elections. He suggested that until that system is changed – for instance, by banning those massive outside expenditures or enacting robust public financing of elections – AIPAC’s leverage will persist. It’s no coincidence that Sanders has long advocated overturning the Citizens United decision and getting big money out of politics. Now he has a visceral case study to point to: peace in the Middle East, and countless lives, may hinge on removing the dollar signs from our democracy. Whether campaign finance reform can advance is another question – it faces stiff resistance – but Sanders is laying groundwork by tying it to an issue people care about deeply (war and peace).

Another potential outcome is greater oversight of how U.S. aid is used by Israel. While Congress hasn’t imposed conditions on the billions to Israel, Sanders and a handful of allies are pushing on other levers. Just this week, he and five Senate colleagues asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate whether Israel’s blockade of Gaza violates U.S. laws – specifically the Leahy Laws and Foreign Assistance Act, which bar aid to human rights abusers or countries impeding humanitarian relief. This is a quietly radical move: it implies that Israel’s actions might trigger U.S. legal consequences, a notion AIPAC has worked hard to keep off the table. If the GAO finds that U.S.-supplied weapons were used to commit gross violations (for example, bombing civilian infrastructure indiscriminately), it could fuel calls to suspend or condition aid, as U.S. law mandates. In essence, Sanders is attempting to enforce existing U.S. law in the face of political reluctance – a savvy approach that doesn’t rely on converting the whole Senate, just on getting the facts on record. It’s exactly the kind of accountability AIPAC fears, since it cracks the door open to reexamining the blank check.

A New Gag Rule?—H.R. 867 and the Criminalization of Dissent. Just days ago, House leadership introduced H.R. 867, the “IGO Anti-Boycott Act,” cosponsored by 5 democrats, including Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, and 19 other republicans, Rep. Elise Stefanik, and others. The bill would criminalize participation in, or even advocacy for, boycotts of Israel encouraged by international organizations. Potential penalties: civil fines, criminal fines up to $1 million, and prison sentences of up to 20 years. Civil-liberties groups from the ACLU to CAIR blasted H.R. 867 as “unconstitutional McCarthyism,” and after a rare bipartisan push-back, House leadership quietly shelved the vote with “MAGA” Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Thomas Massie joining majority Democrats in opposing the bill due to concerns about its potential infringement on First Amendment rights, particularly the right to free speech and the right to boycott as a form of protest —a rare defeat for the lobby but proof, Sanders argues, of how brazen the clamp-down on dissent has become.

Beyond government, Sanders’ allegations may stir the media and public to ask harder questions. The phrase “the United States of Israel” is provocative and sure to draw ire, but it starkly captures the fear that U.S. foreign policy has been subordinated to another nation’s interests. That fear has existed on the fringes, often dismissed as conspiracy theory or antisemitism. What’s changed is that a prominent U.S. senator has effectively legitimized the concern by detailing the mechanisms (campaign donations, attack ads, lobbying clout) behind the scenes. Don’t be surprised if investigative journalists – ProPublica style – start digging deeper into those mechanisms. We might see exposés of the “shadow diplomacy” where lobbyists write congressional letters and resolutions, or of how AIPAC donors coordinate with campaigns for influence. In fact, some of this is already public: recall that in 2014, a New Yorker investigation called AIPAC’s hold on Congress “institutionalized”, and revealed anecdotes like lobbyists telling freshmen lawmakers that their “first term would be their last” if they crossed AIPAC. Sanders is reviving these stories for a new generation and framing them not as just politics-as-usual, but as a threat to justice and peace.

The real question is not whether one Senator can shift policy, but whether a critical mass in both Senate and House can override AIPAC’s will and influence. In the short term, the power dynamics in D.C. are still heavily tilted. Nineteen Senate Democrats backed his bid to halt an $8.8 billion arms tranche last fall, while nearly 60 House members have since co-signed cease-fire resolutions. That bloc—small but growing—signals that pressure is no longer isolated to Sanders; it is becoming a congressional rebellion. Each additional voice calling for a ceasefire, each protest in an American city, adds pressure.

History shows that entrenched lobbies (like the NRA) can see their influence wane suddenly when public opinion reaches a tipping point. AIPAC’s hardball tactics could even backfire: pouring dark money to defeat popular progressives might galvanize their supporters and spark a debate about foreign money in U.S. politics (though AIPAC is American, many point out it’s effectively advancing a foreign government’s aims). If enough Americans come to see AIPAC’s influence as an impediment to peace – or a distortion of our democracy – the political calculus for candidates could flip. We might, for example, see future presidential candidates openly challenge AIPAC’s stance, calculating that not kowtowing could win votes among an increasingly war-weary public. At the very least, Sanders’ speech ensures that the question of AIPAC’s influence is out in the open. No longer is it a taboo whispered about in activist circles; it’s on the Senate record. That in itself is a crack in the facade of unanimity. And cracks tend to grow.

In his searing conclusion on the Senate floor, Bernie Sanders offered a moral prognosis: “History will not forgive our complicity in this nightmare.” If the United States continues to finance and enable what he and many others view as the destruction of the Palestinian people, how will we answer for it in the years to come? Will we say, our hands were tied by a lobby’s donations? That excuse is as unacceptable as it sounds. The very idea of “The United States of Israel” is meant to jar us – to make Americans recognize the absurdity of subordinating our values to any outside influence, no matter how powerful. America was founded on the principle of self-governance: our policies should be determined by the will of the American people and our enlightened self-interest, not by fear of retribution from special interests.

Today, children in Gaza are starving and bombs are leveling neighborhoods with U.S.-made munitions. The world watches in astonishment as the U.S. Congress offers almost no debate, no check, no balance – only a blank endorsement. That disconnect between public horror and official silence is what Sanders is desperately trying to bridge. By accusing AIPAC of having a “stranglehold,” he is effectively shouting “Wake up!” to his colleagues and the country. We can no longer afford business-as-usual, because too many lives hang in the balance – and because our democracy’s credibility does too. As Sanders said, the time is long overdue to end our support for Netanyahu’s war and demand an immediate ceasefire. That is his clarion call: to reclaim American foreign policy as a reflection of American ideals, not AIPAC’s agenda.

Is Sanders right about AIPAC? The lobby’s defenders will retort that U.S. support for Israel is a principled choice, not a purchased one, and that Sanders is marginal. But as the humanitarian crisis worsens and critical voices multiply, this much is certain: the debate he has triggered is not going away. The allegations of undue influence will ring louder. Already, watchdogs and a handful of brave lawmakers are probing where our money is going and at what moral cost.

On May 6, A group of U.S. senators, including Chris Van Hollen, Sanders, and others, wants Congress’ watchdog agency to investigate whether controls on humanitarian aid deliveries by Israel and other foreign governments violate U.S. law, according to a letter seen by Reuters. We may soon see investigations, hearings, or new reforms with Sanders’ warnings as their guidepost. In the end, the path forward will test whether American leaders have the courage to act in accordance with our values, even if it means standing up to a powerful lobby. Will Congress continue to be, in Sanders’ view, an obedient client of “the United States of Israel”, or will it reassert the United States of America’s independent voice guided by justice and humanitarian conscience? The answer will shape not just the future of Israelis and Palestinians, but the very soul of American democracy.