In the lead-up to key U.S. midterm primary elections, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has become a focal point of political contention, particularly within Democratic races in states such as Michigan and New York. Candidates on both sides have leveraged the pro-Israel lobbying group’s influence as a campaign issue, reflecting shifting attitudes toward Aipac’s role in American politics.

In Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, progressive Abdul El-Sayed confronted his opponent, four-term Congresswoman Haley Stevens, over her ties to Aipac, accusing her of benefiting from unprecedented financial support from the organization. El-Sayed claimed that Aipac’s backing was instrumental in Stevens’s campaign, arguing it indicated her reliability on pro-Israel policy matters. Stevens rejected this characterization, stating that her allegiance lies with her constituents in Michigan rather than any interest group. The primary vote took place shortly after a televised debate where the issue was prominently discussed.

Aipac, long regarded as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States, has traditionally been seen as a key player in securing electoral victories for its endorsed candidates. However, its burgeoning political spending—reported at over $47 million this election cycle—and association with a rightward shift in Israeli politics have led to increased scrutiny and criticism. The organization’s affiliated Super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), commanded $80.3 million as of June 30, aiming to influence races by opposing candidates perceived as insufficiently supportive of Israel.

Criticism comes from across the political spectrum. On the left, some progressive figures accuse Aipac of promoting a hardline Israeli agenda and serving as an impediment to reform in U.S. foreign policy, especially amid ongoing conflicts in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon that have resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties. New York City’s Democratic primary between incumbent Dan Goldman and challenger Brad Lander highlighted this tension, with Lander attributing his victory partly to his opposition to Aipac’s influence and calling for a halt to U.S. military aid to Israel.

Conservative critics have also voiced concern. Former Trump counterterrorism head Joe Kent suggested that U.S. military actions against Iran were driven by pressure from Israel and its American lobby. Meanwhile, former Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene openly stated that she resisted what she described as Aipac’s dominance in Washington, a stance reflective of growing right-wing skepticism toward the organization’s reach.

At the same time, some Jewish community leaders and observers warn that the backlash against Aipac can sometimes veer into antisemitic territory, linking the organization unfairly to broader conspiratorial notions of disproportionate Jewish influence. Aipac representatives deny allegations that the group serves as a proxy for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or any foreign government. Spokesperson Dorian Sousa emphasized that Aipac is an American organization committed to strengthening U.S.-Israel relations across partisan lines, citing nearly seven million members nationwide.

Nevertheless, Aipac’s involvement in American elections faces increasing resistance amid wider concerns about the role of moneyed interest groups. Instances such as the New Jersey primary, where the UDP spent millions opposing Tom Malinowski—who had expressed mild criticism of Israeli policies—demonstrate the complexity of the current political landscape. Despite Malinowski’s loss, some Aipac-backed candidates also failed to secure election, with progressives opposing the organization’s agenda making notable gains.

Analysts view these developments as part of a broader reassessment of political spending and influence. Columbia University professor Basil Smilkc, reflecting on the New York primary, described the contest as a referendum on big money’s role in politics, encompassing not only pro-Israel dollars but also funding from sectors like Wall Street, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence.

As Aipac enters another pivotal election cycle, its capacity to shape congressional races and its standing among voters continue to be tested amid evolving attitudes toward both U.S. Middle East policy and the influence of special interest groups in American democracy.