These Are the Candidates AIPAC Bet Against. And Lost
From Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate victory to progressive House gains, candidates challenging U.S. support for Israel survived AIPAC-linked spending. The defeats exposed limits to a network that still reaches across Congress.
Choose Clash Report as a preferred source and see our reporting first in Top Stories.
AIPAC’s political network spent more than $30 million trying to stop Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary. He won anyway, then defeated Republican Mike Rogers to become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate.
He was the most expensive of several failed bets. In New York, Illinois, Colorado and Pennsylvania, candidates who challenged unconditional U.S. support for Israel or rejected AIPAC money overcame spending aimed at keeping them out of Congress.
Their victories put more critics of military assistance to Israel in Washington and exposed the limits of a strategy that had helped remove prominent progressives in previous elections.
AIPAC remains a major electoral force, with a spending network reaching hundreds of congressional contests.
However, in several races where it committed substantial money to defeating a critic, its financial advantage failed to deliver the result it wanted.
El-Sayed Defeats the Network Twice
Michigan was the clearest test. El-Sayed, a physician and former public-health official, narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary despite a large outside-spending advantage for his opponent.
United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, spent more than $30 million attacking El-Sayed or supporting Stevens, The Intercept reported.
It was the group’s largest primary investment.
El-Sayed made the intervention part of his campaign. He opposed unconditional military assistance to Israel, described its war in Gaza as genocide, and called for a comprehensive arms embargo covering defensive systems as well as offensive weapons.
He also demanded enforcement of existing human-rights conditions on U.S. military assistance and opposed American support for Israeli settlement expansion.
UDP continued spending against him after the primary. Before the general election, The Intercept documented just over $500,000 in additional expenditures targeting him as he faced Rogers.
After winning the Senate seat, El-Sayed said AIPAC had spent $42 million against him and thanked the group for giving him the opportunity to defeat it twice.
The House Candidates Who Broke Through
Darializa Avila Chevalier, New York’s 13th District
Avila Chevalier defeated longtime incumbent Adriano Espaillat in the Democratic primary before winning the general election, bringing a pro-Palestinian organizer into a seat held by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair.
A democratic socialist with a background in Columbia University’s Students for Justice in Palestine and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, she called for ending U.S. military aid to Israel, imposing a comprehensive arms embargo and recognizing Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
The spending against her extended beyond committees explicitly identified with Israel.
Bold America received $2.8 million from UDP, almost a quarter of its fundraising, while spending $2.9 million against Avila Chevalier, The Intercept reported.
UDP’s contribution did not account for all of Bold America’s money.
It nevertheless placed AIPAC’s super PAC among the funders of a substantial effort to protect Espaillat from a challenger demanding a break with Washington’s Israel policy.
Daniel Biss, Illinois’s 9th District
Biss, Evanston’s mayor, defeated state Sen. Laura Fine and Kat Abughazaleh in a crowded Democratic primary, then won the general election.
AIPAC-aligned groups spent millions backing Fine and opposing Biss.
He responded by making their involvement a campaign issue and, after his victory, declared that the district was not for sale.
Biss represented a different challenge from candidates seeking a complete halt to military assistance.
Jewish, with an Israeli mother, he supported Israel’s right to exist and a two-state solution while criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, settlements and unconditional aid.
He also faced criticism over his contacts with AIPAC and demands for a clearer position on military assistance.
His victory showed that opposition to the group extended beyond the candidates with the most sweeping proposals for changing U.S.-Israel relations.
Randy Villegas, California’s 22nd District
Villegas also appeared in an early-November Who Funds My Rep tally of candidates who withstood pro-Israel opposition spending, with approximately $500,000 listed against him.
His electoral status remained less clear in that tally, which recorded his outcome as “Advanced/won.”
It did not distinguish advancement from a final general-election victory, leaving his result unresolved on that measure.
Bob Harvie, Pennsylvania’s 1st District
Harvie’s defeat of Republican incumbent Brian Fitzpatrick carried the story beyond Democratic primaries and safely Democratic seats.
The Bucks County commissioner won a competitive general-election contest against an AIPAC-backed Republican.
Who Funds My Rep figures put spending against Harvie at approximately $384,000.
More moderate than the candidates demanding a comprehensive arms embargo, Harvie reportedly pledged at a town hall not to accept AIPAC money and emphasized equal concern for Israeli and Palestinian children.
His victory added a swing-district defeat to the network’s setbacks, although the result alone does not establish how much Israeli policy influenced voters.
Melat Kiros, Colorado’s 1st District
Kiros, an attorney and Gen Z democratic socialist, defeated 15-term incumbent Diana DeGette in the primary before winning the general election.
She called for a full arms embargo on Israel, described its war in Gaza as genocide, and rejected corporate PAC and AIPAC money.
Some of the opposition came through a chain of committees. EDW Action Fund received about a quarter of its funding from UDP and supplied more than 80% of the funding for Pro-Choice Majority Action, which spent against Kiros, The Intercept reported.
Pro-Choice Majority Action rejected the suggestion that Israel policy dictated its endorsements.
Its spokesperson said the group backed candidates with different views on Israel and sought to elect more Democratic women.
Brad Lander, New York’s 10th District
Lander decisively defeated incumbent Dan Goldman in the Democratic primary and subsequently won the general election.
The former New York City comptroller, who is Jewish and describes himself as a liberal Zionist, criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza, opposed unconditional aid and attacked Goldman’s ties to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.
Backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Lander joined Avila Chevalier among the New York challengers who displaced established Democrats.
Who Funds My Rep figures listed approximately $189,000 in opposition spending against him.
The sum was modest beside Michigan’s intervention, but the political outcome was another defeat for an AIPAC-supported incumbent.
An Expensive Set of Losses, a Wider Network of Influence
The setbacks extended beyond those candidates.
In Illinois’s 7th District, UDP backed Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who lost the Democratic primary to La Shawn Ford.
In California’s 14th District special runoff, Aisha Wahab defeated Melissa Hernandez despite substantial support for Hernandez from UDP and Bold America.
That result preceded their separate November contest for a full term.
New Jersey’s 11th District exposed a different risk. UDP spent more than $2 million attacking Tom Malinowski, but the Democratic nomination went to Analilia Mejia, who had accused Israel of genocide.
The targeted candidate lost, yet a stronger critic of Israel emerged as the winner.
These defeats came alongside important AIPAC successes. Wesley Bell beat Cori Bush in Missouri’s Democratic primary rematch.
In Kentucky, Trump-backed Ed Gallrein unseated Thomas Massie, a Republican opponent of foreign aid, with support from AIPAC-aligned groups.
Who Funds My Rep put the overall win rate for candidates backed by pro-Israel PACs at roughly nine in 10 called races.
Many were incumbents or running in favorable districts, limiting what that record reveals about the spending’s ability to change competitive outcomes.
The network’s reach remained broad. Before the general election, The Intercept counted AIPAC or UDP spending on 333 of the 473 seats being contested, reporting $53.3 million from AIPAC and $66.7 million from UDP.
Of UDP’s total, $13.1 million went to other committees, more than triple the $3.5 million routed through outside groups in the previous cycle.
Some were newly formed committees with names suggesting local priorities or broader Democratic causes.
Their disclosure schedules sometimes meant voters learned who financed them only after the primary.
The structure allowed AIPAC-linked money to remain active even where candidates treated the organization’s support as a political liability.
Transfers establish financial connections, although they do not demonstrate that UDP directed every decision made by the recipient committees.
In October, AIPAC announced it would stop formal endorsements, direct PAC contributions, and earmarking donations for campaigns.
Its super PAC remained active, and the organization said it would expand organized giving by individual members.
“Our mission and strategy remain the same,” spokeswoman Deryn Sousa told JNS.
Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, offered a different assessment, telling The Intercept that AIPAC’s brand had become “politically radioactive.”
The next test will be in Congress. Candidates who campaigned on restricting aid will face decisions on arms transfers, military funding and oversight, where their different positions will matter.
El-Sayed wants a comprehensive embargo. Other winners favor conditions on assistance or a broader reassessment of the relationship.
Their victories expand the range of positions represented in Congress but do not ensure agreement on legislation.
AIPAC enters that debate with substantial resources and allies across both parties.
It also faces a larger group of lawmakers whose elections demonstrated that openly challenging it need not end a political career.
Ahmet Koçak
Ahmet Koçak is a news editor at Clash Report based in Istanbul. He previously served as Deputy Managing Editor at Türkiye Today, helping launch the digital news platform in 2023, and spent three years as Senior Editor at Daily Sabah. His work focuses on breaking news, geopolitics, international affairs, and digital journalism.
Choose Clash Report as a preferred source and see our reporting first in Top Stories.
