On November 10, the US House of Representatives blocked an effort to impeach Secretary of War Peter Hegseth, after 11 Democratic lawmakers missed a crucial vote that could have allowed the proceedings to advance.

The Republican-controlled chamber voted 211–204 to refer House Resolution 1655, introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie, to the House Judiciary Committee, effectively stalling the impeachment effort for the remainder of the current Congress.

Massie's 34-page resolution contained eight articles of impeachment, charging Hegseth with high crimes and misdemeanors over his handling of the US war against Iran, military aggressions against Yemen and Venezuela, and other violations of US law, including the protection of civilians.

Hegseth is a staunch supporter of the Israeli regime and his successful impeachment would have been a major blow to the regime’s standing within the Pentagon and Trump’s administration.

All 203 Democrats who participated in the vote opposed referring the resolution to the committee, joined by Massie, the only Republican to oppose the motion, while 210 Republicans and one independent supported it.

The 11 Democratic absences proved consequential, as just seven additional votes against referral would have produced a 211–211 tie and defeated the motion, allowing the impeachment resolution to advance rather than be stalled in committee.

The absences have also drawn scrutiny because 10 of the 11 lawmakers had received financial contributions through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) political action committee (PAC), according to a review of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The financial connection raises questions about the relationship between pro-Israel political financing and congressional decisions involving US military policy, particularly when lawmakers' attendance can determine whether senior Pentagon officials face scrutiny and potential impeachment.

How much AIPAC-linked money did 11 absent democrats receive?

FEC records compiled by SignalData show that 10 of the 11 Democrats who missed the November 10 vote received approximately $2.36 million from AIPAC between January 2022 and October 14, 2026, covering three election cycles.

Representative Haley Stevens of Michigan received approximately $1.17 million, making her the largest recipient, followed by Representative Laura Gillen of New York with $467,000, Representative Marilyn Strickland of Washington with $291,000 and Representative Steven Horsford of Nevada with $186,000.

Representative Brittany Pettersen of Colorado received $72,000, Representative Julia Brownley of California $63,000, Representative Lou Correa of California $54,000, Representative Frederica Wilson of Florida $33,000, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California $15,000 and Representative Jonathan Jackson of Illinois $13,000.

The exception was Representative Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, for whom SignalData recorded no contributions through AIPAC PAC during the period, although the separate Track AIPAC database listed $57,000 in contributions from a broader range of pro-Israel political committees.

Stevens also benefited from approximately $14.37 million in independent spending by AIPAC-affiliated super PAC United Democracy Project (UDP), which separately financed advertising and other efforts supporting her campaign rather than transferring the money to her campaign account.

How have 11 absent Democrats supported Israel before?

The voting records of the 11 lawmakers show repeated support for measures backing Israel, including congressional resolutions expressing political support and legislation providing military assistance.

On October 25, 2023, the House approved H.Res. 771, formally titled “Standing with Israel as it defends itself against Hamas,” by 412 votes to 10.

Nine of the 11 lawmakers then serving in Congress — Brownley, Horsford, Jackson, Pelosi, Pettersen, Stansbury, Stevens, Strickland and Wilson — voted in favor, while Correa did not vote and Gillen had not yet entered Congress.

The resolution expressed support for Israel and its genocide in Gaza, and backed further US assistance, including emergency resupply.

On April 20, 2024, the House passed H.R. 8034, the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, by 366 votes to 58, approving billions of dollars in additional military and security assistance for Israel.

Nine of the 11 lawmakers then serving — Brownley, Correa, Horsford, Pelosi, Pettersen, Stansbury, Stevens, Strickland and Wilson — voted for the bill, while Jackson voted against it; Gillen had not yet taken office.

A further example came on July 18, 2025, when the House rejected an amendment introduced by then Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene that sought to remove funding for Israel's Cooperative Programs, including the Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow missile-defense systems.

All 11 Democrats voted against Greene's amendment, joining 207 other Democrats and 215 Republicans in opposing the proposed funding cut.

During their careers, these lawmakers have repeatedly supported House resolutions backing Israel, approved billions of dollars in additional military assistance and opposed amendments seeking to cut US funding for the Israeli regime.

How does AIPAC use campaign spending to influence Congress?

AIPAC has developed a major political financing network in Washington, combining lobbying activities with campaign contributions and large-scale spending through affiliated political committees.

AIPAC established its PAC in December 2021 and its affiliated super PAC (UDP) in January 2022, giving the organization additional means to support candidates who favor closer US-Israeli ties and oppose those seeking changes to Washington's policies toward Israel.

While AIPAC PAC can make direct contributions subject to federal limits, UDP can raise and spend unlimited amounts independently to support or oppose candidates, including through television advertisements and other election campaigns.

Federal Election Commission records show that UDP received approximately $112.8 million and spent $85 million during the 2025–2026 election cycle through October 14, 2026, including more than $53.6 million in reported independent expenditures.

This financial structure gives AIPAC and its affiliated network considerable capacity to reward political allies with campaign support and make electoral challenges more expensive for candidates who oppose its priorities, placing great pressure on lawmakers well beyond individual votes in Congress.

AIPAC announced in October 2026 that it would end direct candidate endorsements and contributions after the midterm elections, but UDP would continue operating, leaving its large-scale independent spending mechanism intact.

How far does AIPAC's political influence extend across Congress?

The 11 Democrats examined here represent only a small part of AIPAC's reach in Washington, with campaign-finance records showing that its political network extends across both major parties and into the newly elected Congress.

According to SignalData's review of Federal Election Commission filings, 415 of 533 sitting members of Congress had received money through AIPAC PAC since January 2022, including 166 Democrats, 247 Republicans and two independents, with the total reaching $108.69 million.

The network's reach was also evident in the November 3, 2026 midterm elections, when AIPAC announced that approximately 234 candidates it had supported from both parties had won their races.

The financial involvement went beyond direct campaign contributions: UDP reported spending $54.32 million on advertising and other political outreach in 2026 races, including $23.36 million supporting candidates and $30.97 million opposing others.

A separate analysis by Who Funds My Rep, which tracks AIPAC and other pro-Israel political committees, found that candidates backed by those groups won 368 of 410 called congressional races in the 2026 elections.

The figures also show why AIPAC's influence cannot be assessed solely through the contributions received by individual lawmakers.

Its political network combines direct donations, donor-earmarked contributions and independent spending on election campaigns, giving it several channels through which to support candidates and oppose their rivals.