The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated political organizations spent $84.1 million attempting to influence the 2026 midterm elections. According to an analysis by Responsible Statecraft, approximately $55.3 million, nearly two-thirds of that spending, went into races where AIPAC’s preferred candidates lost.
AIPAC does not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires certain organizations acting under foreign direction or control to disclose those relationships. AIPAC maintains that it is an American organization funded by Americans, and its activities are conducted under domestic lobbying and campaign-finance laws.
The 2026 midterms revealed just how much AIPAC was prepared to spend. Its super PAC, United Democracy Project (UDP), poured approximately $31.5 million into efforts to prevent Abdul El-Sayed from winning Michigan’s Senate seat. The spending began during the Democratic primary and continued into the general election, when groups associated with AIPAC supported Republican Mike Rogers. El-Sayed defeated both opponents. In his victory speech, he directly addressed AIPAC, declaring, “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to beat you twice.”
The organization spent another $6.3 million attempting to defeat Daniel Biss in Illinois’s 9th Congressional District. Biss won his primary and ultimately secured approximately 75% of the general election vote. In California, pro-Israel political groups directed more than $6 million toward Melissa Hernandez, who lost to Aisha Wahab. In Maine, AIPAC-linked organizations spent more than $4.8 million supporting Susan Collins, who was defeated by Democrat Troy Jackson. These were not insignificant expenditures. Millions of dollars were concentrated in individual congressional races because the organization considered the candidates’ positions on Israel important enough to justify substantial financial intervention.
AIPAC also supported numerous winning candidates. The organization reported more than 234 successful candidates it supported during the election cycle. In 26 Senate races where affiliated groups spent more than $100,000, 21 of their preferred candidates won. Its influence therefore remains substantial, even after the expensive defeats. The more important development is that candidates increasingly appear willing to reject its support publicly. James Talarico, who won the Texas Senate election, openly refused AIPAC funding. He explained that his opposition was connected to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. His victory demonstrated that refusing the organization’s support need not prevent a candidate from winning a major statewide election.
The financial results also represent a substantial deterioration from AIPAC’s previous electoral performance. Responsible Statecraft calculated that approximately 34% of the organization’s 2026 spending went into races producing its preferred outcome. Comparable figures were 69% in 2022 and 87% in 2024. These percentages measure the allocation of spending across successful and unsuccessful races, not the percentage of candidates who won. Nevertheless, they indicate that the organization’s largest expenditures were increasingly concentrated in unsuccessful campaigns. AIPAC spent heavily attempting to defeat candidates critical of Israel, yet voters in several prominent races rejected those efforts.
AIPAC announced in October that it would discontinue direct candidate endorsements and contributions after the election cycle, while its affiliated political organizations would continue operating. The organization has long maintained that its members are American citizens exercising their constitutional rights to participate in politics. Its super PAC operates under federal campaign-finance rules permitting unlimited independent expenditures, provided those expenditures are not coordinated with candidates. Such arrangements are legal under the current system, but legality does not eliminate legitimate questions about transparency, accountability, and the concentration of political influence.
The political establishment still cannot grasp that the people are fed up with career politicians who answer to everyone except the voters who put them in office. They do not want another Washington insider, and they certainly do not want one whose campaign is being bankrolled by a powerful lobbying organization devoted to the interests of a foreign nation. AIPAC poured millions into these races, apparently believing that enough money could buy the outcome. What they failed to understand is that the money itself became part of the problem. Americans are watching their standard of living decline, their national debt spiral out of control, and their government borrow endlessly to finance wars overseas. Then along comes another establishment candidate with millions in outside funding, telling the public why the interests of another country must remain a priority. How much more obvious can it get? This is precisely the sort of resentment that helped defeat several AIPAC-backed candidates. The people are losing confidence in the political establishment, and throwing more money at candidates who represent that establishment is not going to restore it. Washington has become so accustomed to buying political influence that it has forgotten the voters still have the final say.
The United States has been involved in a costly war with Iran since February, and public opposition to that conflict contributed to the Republican defeat in November. President Trump himself acknowledged that dissatisfaction with the war, higher gasoline prices, and growing opposition to Israel were factors in the election results. Vice President JD Vance similarly identified the war as a major source of Republican losses. Yet AIPAC had supported the military campaign and spent heavily against candidates who called for restrictions on American assistance to Israel. The organization was therefore attempting to influence elections at the very moment when the administration’s Middle Eastern policies had become a major source of public dissatisfaction.
Ultimately, the issue is larger than any single lobbying organization or foreign country. The United States faces enormous debt obligations, rising military expenditures, and growing public dissatisfaction with foreign interventions. Americans have a legitimate interest in ensuring that decisions involving war, taxation, and international commitments are made through accountable institutions rather than being insulated from scrutiny by concentrated political spending. The 2026 midterms demonstrated that even tens of millions of dollars cannot guarantee the outcome of an election. Whether that produces lasting changes in Washington’s foreign-policy debate will depend upon what the newly elected Congress actually does.