Progressive Democrats just watched pro-Israel super PACs spend jaw-dropping sums to wipe out two top liberals in Congress. And leaders fear they have no way to stop it from happening again in 2026.
Those groups, chiefly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC, spent a combined $25 million on ads to defeat Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) this summer in what became the two most expensive House primaries ever. As a result, two more mainstream Democrats, George Latimer in New York and Wesley Bell in Missouri, are advancing in safe blue districts rather than two stalwart progressive voices.
After both Bowman and Bush crumbled under that avalanche of spending, prompted by their criticism of Israel in the country’s war with Hamas, progressive Democrats have awoken to a bleak new reality that could haunt them for years to come: They have no organized way to counter that kind of money. And they fear AIPAC and allied groups will be more empowered to take on even bigger targets next cycle and beyond because they know their strategy works.
“I think they smell success,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said of AIPAC in an interview with POLITICO. “The point is not just them going after Jamaal and Cori, which is terrible. It is the intimidating presence they have over every member of Congress. … It bothers me that there hasn’t been more outrage.”
In the days after Bush’s defeat last week, senior liberals in Congress, including Sanders, have begun to reckon with the size of the problem. Until then, progressives were not sure if AIPAC’s success against Bowman, who had plenty of his own political flaws unrelated to the Middle East, could be replicated. Then Bush’s loss rattled progressives even more.
What Sanders and others have grimly surmised is that they have no way to match AIPAC’s power, with no big-money fundraising machine and no powerful nationwide door-knocking operation. And while progressives boast large numbers and significant power in Congress, they fear that those pro-Israel super PACs will continue to target high-profile lawmakers one by one, as well as quash new liberal candidates in open seats who the PACs also see as overly critical of Israel. That could make it harder to grow their ranks and potentially silence those already elected, particularly on support for Palestine, a galvanizing issue for younger liberal voters especially.
“The movement is going to have to do some deep soul searching,” said Nina Turner, a prominent progressive who lost her own House primary three years ago to an AIPAC-backed challenger. “The progressive movement has to show up in a deeper way. It did not.”
Turner, along with other progressive Democrats, say the left has no choice but to start organizing their own counterweight specifically focused on combating the pro-Israel money, adding: “So the movement itself is going to have to adjust very quickly.”
United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, firmly pushed back on the idea that their spending is at odds with the left.
“We have been proud to support progressive champions who are pro-Israel like Latimer and Bell,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for the group. “These are candidates that will support the progressive agenda in Congress.”
The reckoning hasn’t been universal. Some progressive operatives dismissed the losses as minor setbacks to a movement that has been on the rise since 2016, and privately argued that Bowman and Bush were weak politically and therefore more likely to draw challengers. They argue that some liberal incumbents need to do better at deepening relationships in their districts and raising their own funds — as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) have done — to ward off serious opponents.
But others worried that many on the left are not clear-eyed about the full scope of the problem. Some believe the way the war in Gaza has galvanized pro-Israel donors is a dire threat to the future of the movement.
“There’s reason for them to be panicked,” said Mark Mellman, the president of Democratic Majority for Israel, which joined AIPAC in opposing Bowman and Bush and also played in open-seat races. “The Squad has been diminished. That’s a fact, and we prevented more people who would have joined it from getting elected.”
Beyond Bowman and Bush
The first truly powerful pro-Israel groups came on the scene in earnest in 2021 with a blockbuster special election in northeast Ohio.
The front-runner was Turner, a former co-chair of Sanders’ presidential campaign who was known for her colorful language. She led in polls and fundraising for much of the race. But Mellman’s group swooped in with a $1 million infusion of cash to boost her opponent, now-Rep. Shontel Brown, over the finish line.
“No question that the Brown-Turner race was a turning point,” Mellman said.
With a blueprint set, AIPAC joined Democratic Majority for Israel in earnest in the 2022 midterms. Both focused on primary races, where their money would go even further. They had the biggest success playing in open seats and electing members like now-Reps. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) and Don Davis (D-N.C.).
This year, they turned their sights to incumbents. And the war in Gaza turbocharged their donor base, allowing them to drop historic amounts of money into congressional races. Dorton, the spokesperson for AIPAC’s super PAC, called the Oct. 7 attacks “a turning point for pro-Israel donors and activists in America.”
It’s not just the mega-successful takedowns against Bowman and Bush: The pro-Israel groups quickly realized they can choke off potential progressive additions by spending against them in safe-seat primaries. Those races don’t always get national attention but thwart attempts to grow the liberal caucus. Pro-Israel donors boosted Sarah Elfreth in an open Maryland House district, and also spent in an open Arizona seat where the race is headed for a recount.
“It shapes who gets elected as Democrats in Congress. It’s bigger than any one race, it’s about — what does the Democratic caucus as a whole look like?” said a progressive campaign operative, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “The Democratic party as a whole needs to have a larger conversation about, ‘Are we gonna call this out?’”
‘AIPAC is gonna go after the wounded bear cub’
Even progressive Democrats admit that both Bowman and Bush had serious political liabilities. Bowman’s was especially obvious: He pleaded guilty to setting off a false fire alarm in the Capitol complex last year. Bush, meanwhile, is under federal investigation after hiring her now-husband to provide her security and paying him out of a campaign account.
Other high-profile progressives, including what’s known as the Squad, have been careful to raise enough cash and build enough relationships back home to stave off challengers. AIPAC decided not to spend, for instance, against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in her primary on Tuesday after they failed to land a strong challenger against her.
This cycle, Omar is facing the same challenger but is expected to easily win her race after shoring up her own political operation. After a near-miss in 2022, Omar strengthened ties in her district, hired a strong campaign team and raised serious cash — a whopping $6.8 million as of late July.
Another rising progressive, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), strategically avoided a well-funded challenge, in part, by working with Jewish communities in her district. She bowed out of an event with a Muslim group after backlash over antisemitic comments made by other speakers. But Omar, Tlaib and others are only safe because the pro-Israel groups couldn’t land challengers they felt were worth backing.
“They’ll pick, and they’ll choose,” Sanders said, summarizing AIPAC’s strategy. And he warned it would have a chilling effect on Democrats willing to talk about sensitive issues — particularly against Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“How many people do you think are prepared to get involved in that?” Sanders said. “Every politician in the world has liabilities and $10 million can accentuate those liabilities.”
One Democratic leadership aide, granted anonymity to speak frankly, summed it up like this: “AIPAC is gonna go after the wounded bear cub.”
What’s next?
No progressive expects they can compete with the flood of AIPAC cash dollar for dollar. Some are playing the long game — angling for campaign finance reform and trying to label AIPAC as a vehicle for Republicans to meddle in Democratic primaries.
“The goal is not to say: ‘How can we scale up to $20 million so then we can have this disgusting, destructive effect on our democracy through these elections,’” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for the progressive PAC Justice Democrats. “At a certain point someone needs to be an adult in the room and say: ‘This is bad for our democracy.’”
Some, like Sanders, have tried to get their party to completely ban super PACs in Democratic primaries. But a solution like that is years, if not decades, away from coming to fruition. And the pro-Israel groups are already gearing up for 2026. Other progressives have tried to get more organized and fight back with groups that already exist, like the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ own PAC.
But there’s a big — and awkward — constraint. The CPC is one of the largest member groups on the Hill, with nearly 100 lawmakers. But “progressive” can be a wide spectrum. The group includes members like Brown, the Ohio candidate who defeated Turner with help from pro-Israel donors. And it might just welcome the two Democrats who beat Bowman and Bush this fall: Latimer and Bell, respectively.
“We have a criteria. And if he meets the criteria, I don’t see why not,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) told POLITICO after Latimer beat Bowman earlier this summer. “Obviously, anyone who wants to be a progressive in Congress is welcome in the caucus.”
Brakkton Booker and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.