July 17, 2026

JCRC applauds U.S. Representatives Angie Craig, Tom Emmer, Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach and Pete Stauber of Minnesota; Julie Fedorchak of North Dakota; and Dusty Johnson of South Dakota for standing with Israel, American national-security interests, and common sense by voting against Rep. Thomas Massie’s reckless amendment to H.R. 8595.

The House rejected the amendment by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 314–104, with 10 members voting present.

The Massie amendment was extreme by design. It would have eliminated Israel’s entire $3.3 billion Foreign Military Financing allocation in the FY2027 State Department appropriations bill. It also would have barred any funds provided under the act from being obligated or spent ‘for Israel.’

This was not a carefully constructed debate about weapons, conditions on assistance or the policies of Israel’s current government. It was an indiscriminate funding prohibition directed at a longstanding American partner and major non-NATO ally at a time when Israel continues to face grave threats from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

The amendment’s sweeping language also went beyond military financing. It placed Israel-specific humanitarian, scholarship and development programs in jeopardy and created serious risks for joint Israeli-Palestinian peacebuilding and American diplomatic activities. For example, the Massie amendment could have eliminated $37.5 million for the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, along with funding for U.S.-Israel Development Cooperation and the Israeli Arab Scholarship Program.

Any amendment so poorly drafted that it jeopardizes peacebuilding while purporting to advance peace should be rejected.

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries reached the same conclusion even while calling for changes in American policy toward the current Israeli government. He correctly described the amendment as overly broad and warned that it would prohibit or limit humanitarian assistance, refugee resettlement, peace building, and U.S. Embassy operations, while restricting America’s ability to confront Hamas and Hezbollah. His position demonstrates that one can vigorously debate Israeli policy without abandoning Israel’s security or sacrificing humanitarian and peacebuilding initiatives.

Rep. Ilhan Omar was the only House member from Minnesota, North Dakota or South Dakota to vote for this amendment.

Rep. Omar’s remarks following the vote are consistent with the Member’s previous demagoguery. She praised supporters of the amendment as having ‘decided to lead with their morals’ and invoked constituents who had been ‘asking us to do the right thing.’

We reject this self-righteous framing. Voting to eliminate an ally’s entire military-financing allocation while placing humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding efforts in jeopardy does not confer a monopoly on morality. Nor should members who responsibly rejected this blunt and carelessly written amendment have their principles questioned.

Supporting Israel’s security, addressing Palestinian humanitarian needs, demanding accountability, and investing in Israeli-Palestinian peace building are not competing moral obligations. Responsible American leadership requires pursuing all of them.

The seven House members from our region who voted no understood that distinction. We are grateful for their leadership.