Democrats have broken Republican control of the Senate and are moving towards a House majority. But beneath the national electoral upheaval lies another development: the growing willingness of American voters to elect candidates openly challenging Washington’s longstanding support for Israel.
WASHINGTON, 4 November 2026 — The American midterm elections have delivered a sweeping setback to President Donald Trump, with Democrats capturing control of the Senate and appearing set to take the House of Representatives. Yet beyond the Republican defeats in some of America’s most conservative states, another political development deserves attention: the election of a new generation of congressional representatives who have made Palestinian rights and opposition to American military assistance to Israel central features of their campaigns.
Among them is Adam Hamawy, a former US Army combat surgeon who treated casualties in Gaza; Brad Lander, a Jewish progressive who has openly challenged Israeli government policy; and five newly elected candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America.
Their victories do not establish that American voters have collectively rejected Israel. Nor do they suggest that Congress is about to abandon a strategic relationship developed over decades. They do, however, provide further evidence that positions once regarded as politically dangerous within the Democratic Party are increasingly finding electoral support.
A Republican defeat reaching into conservative America
The scale of Tuesday’s Democratic advances surprised even some election observers who had anticipated a strong result for the opposition.
Republicans entered the elections holding 53 Senate seats against 47 belonging to Democrats and independents aligned with them. Democrats needed a net gain of four seats to secure control.
By early Wednesday, the Associated Press had called Democratic control of the Senate following a series of victories in Republican-held states.
In Texas, Democrat James Talarico defeated Republican Ken Paxton, ending decades of Republican dominance in the state’s Senate elections. In Ohio, former Senator Sherrod Brown returned to Washington by defeating Republican Jon Husted.
The Democrats also gained Senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas and Iowa. In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins conceded defeat to Democrat Troy Jackson.
The significance extends beyond the change in parliamentary arithmetic. Texas, Ohio and South Carolina supported Trump by substantial margins in the 2024 presidential election. Their willingness to elect Democratic senators two years later suggests that at least some voters who previously supported the president were prepared to vote against Republican candidates.
The House results also showed substantial Democratic gains, although several contests remained unresolved during the early hours of Wednesday.
Economic dissatisfaction appears to have been a principal factor.
According to Reuters’ analysis of election-night polling, voters were particularly concerned about living costs, the economy and the direction of the country. Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, which contributed to higher fuel prices, had also become politically contentious.
The results must therefore be understood primarily as a national election shaped by domestic and international grievances, rather than as a referendum on Palestine.
Nevertheless, within that broader electoral movement, the success of candidates challenging American policy towards Israel represents an important development of its own.
From the operating theatre in Gaza to Congress
Perhaps the most striking individual story belongs to Adam Hamawy, elected to represent New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District.
Hamawy served as a US Army combat surgeon in Iraq and helped save the life of Tammy Duckworth, who later became a Democratic senator, after her helicopter was shot down in 2004.
In 2024 and 2025, he undertook medical missions to Gaza, treating civilians injured during the war.
Those experiences became central to his political campaign.
Hamawy argued that American taxpayers should not finance military operations that violate international humanitarian law. He called for an end to US military assistance to Israel, an arms embargo and stronger protections for Palestinian rights.
His campaign also emphasised healthcare, housing, education and economic inequality, presenting military spending and domestic deprivation as competing national priorities.
His election is significant because he did not conceal or moderate his views on Israel to secure the Democratic nomination.
He subsequently defeated Republican Gregg Mele in a heavily Democratic district.
There are important qualifications. His principal electoral challenge was winning the Democratic primary, rather than overcoming a substantial Republican majority in November. Moreover, his positions have attracted criticism from defenders of the US–Israel relationship.
Hamawy has also explicitly condemned antisemitism, arguing that the security of Muslim and Jewish Americans is interconnected.
His election illustrates an increasingly visible political phenomenon: criticism of Israeli government policy is no longer necessarily an obstacle to securing Democratic congressional office.
New York’s progressive movement reaches Washington
In New York, three prominent progressive candidates supported by Mayor Zohran Mamdani secured congressional seats.
Brad Lander won in the 10th Congressional District, having defeated incumbent Democrat Dan Goldman in a primary in which disagreement over Israel featured prominently.
Lander’s victory is particularly revealing because he is Jewish and has sought to distinguish opposition to Israeli government policies from hostility towards Jewish people.
His criticism of the occupation and his involvement with Palestinian communities in the West Bank demonstrate that the growing debate over Israel cannot simply be characterised as a conflict between Jewish and Muslim Americans.
In the 7th District, Claire Valdez won after campaigning for a suspension of American military funding and arms transfers to Israel, alongside policies addressing economic inequality.
Darializa Avila Chevalier won the 13th District after defeating longstanding Democratic Congressman Adriano Espaillat in the primary.
Her campaign presented its opposition to military expenditure alongside demands for childcare, housing and social programmes under the slogan Babies, Not Bombs.
These victories were achieved in constituencies where Democratic candidates traditionally enjoy overwhelming advantages. Consequently, the more revealing results were the earlier primaries, when progressive challengers defeated established members of their own party.
Those contests exposed divisions within the Democratic electorate over economic policy, political representation and America’s relationship with Israel.
Five new democratic socialists enter Congress
The Democratic Socialists of America also achieved a significant organisational advance.
According to NPR and Associated Press election calls, five DSA-backed candidates won House seats: Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, Donavan McKinney in Michigan and Melat Kiros in Colorado.
The movement previously had two sitting congressional members: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib.
The new arrivals would therefore substantially expand its representation.
All five have criticised Israel’s conduct in Gaza and supported ending American military assistance, according to reporting by The Forward.
Their political platforms are broader than Palestine. They also emphasise public healthcare, affordable housing, workers’ rights and opposition to aggressive immigration enforcement.
Nevertheless, their position on Israel distinguishes them from much of the Democratic Party’s traditional leadership.
For decades, politicians in both major American parties generally treated support for Israel as an essential component of US foreign policy. Candidates calling for a complete suspension of military assistance were often marginalised within mainstream political debate.
The new congressional group challenges that consensus.
However, its numerical strength should not be exaggerated. Even seven democratic socialists would constitute only a small fraction of the 435-member House of Representatives.
The battle over pro-Israel lobbying
The elections have also drawn attention to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC, and its affiliated political organisations.
AIPAC has spent substantial sums supporting candidates favourable to the US–Israel alliance and opposing politicians who advocate restrictions on American military assistance.
The movement’s influence became particularly controversial during the Democratic primaries.
In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed defeated establishment-backed Representative Haley Stevens to secure the Democratic nomination for a highly competitive Senate seat.
El-Sayed opposed unconditional military assistance to Israel and attracted significant support from progressive activists.
Pro-Israel organisations spent heavily during the contest, including through AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project.
His primary victory demonstrated that substantial outside expenditure does not guarantee electoral success.
Yet the broader picture is mixed.
In Missouri, former Congresswoman Cori Bush failed in her attempt to regain her seat from Wesley Bell, an incumbent supported by pro-Israel interests.
And in New York, Ritchie Torres, one of Israel’s most outspoken Democratic defenders, comfortably survived a primary challenge.
These counterexamples are important. They show that pro-Israel political organisations remain influential, while support for Palestinian rights does not automatically determine a candidate’s electoral fortunes.
The emerging change is not the disappearance of the pro-Israel lobby, but a more competitive political environment in which its preferred candidates can face increasingly credible challenges.
An extraordinary announcement from Trump
On Election Day itself, Trump introduced another complication.
He announced that the United States would stop providing approximately $4 billion in annual assistance to Israel after 2026, while continuing to sell weapons to the country.
According to Reuters, Trump specifically referred to criticism from politicians such as El-Sayed when explaining the announcement.
That acknowledgment is politically revealing.
It suggests that even within Republican circles, unconditional financial assistance to Israel is becoming more difficult to defend before some sections of the electorate.
However, Trump’s statement should not be confused with an implemented policy.
The existing American military assistance agreement with Israel runs until September 2028, and changes to funding would involve congressional decisions.
Nor would ending direct assistance necessarily end weapons sales or wider military cooperation.
The announcement nevertheless highlights the extent to which Israel has become a more contentious issue in American domestic politics.
Can the new Congress change American policy?
Democratic control of Congress would strengthen its capacity to investigate the administration, examine military expenditure and scrutinise relations with foreign governments.
A Democratic Senate could also block presidential appointments and exercise greater control over legislative proceedings.
But there are substantial obstacles to transforming American policy towards Israel.
The Democratic Party remains divided. Many of its senior politicians continue to regard Israel as an important strategic ally, even while criticising particular Israeli government decisions.
Trump would retain the presidential veto, and most ordinary legislation in the Senate would still face the possibility of a filibuster.
A small group of pro-Palestinian representatives could influence debate, introduce legislation and demand recorded votes. It could not independently impose an arms embargo or determine American foreign policy.
For meaningful change, these representatives would need broader support within Congress and, ultimately, the electorate.
A changing political argument
The 2026 midterms will principally be remembered for the scale of Republican losses and the restrictions a Democratic Congress could place on Trump’s remaining presidency.
But elections can have consequences beyond the immediate distribution of political power.
The arrival of new representatives openly advocating Palestinian rights suggests that the boundaries of acceptable debate within American politics are changing.
That shift is not universal. It does not erase the United States’ strategic relationship with Israel, nor does it demonstrate that a majority of Americans support ending military assistance.
What it does demonstrate is that candidates no longer necessarily have to defend the traditional bipartisan position on Israel to secure congressional office.
Whether this development becomes a lasting realignment will depend less on election-night celebrations than on what the new representatives achieve in Washington.
The next test will come when Congress is asked not merely to discuss Palestinian rights, but to vote on the weapons, money and diplomatic decisions through which American policy is exercised.
For the new generation entering Congress, winning an election was only the beginning. Changing Washington’s policy towards Israel will be a far more demanding undertaking.