The DNC’s spring meeting in New Orleans exposed a sharp split: leaders approved a general rebuke of dark money, rejected an AIPAC-specific resolution, and punted two Israel-related measures to a new Middle East working group, laying bare a strategic and ideological rift inside the party.

At the DNC’s spring meeting in New Orleans, members passed a blanket condemnation of dark money but voted down a resolution that explicitly named the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The AIPAC-specific measure will not move forward to the full body, while two other resolutions on Palestinian statehood and conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel were sent to a working group instead. That mix of action and deferral has left progressives frustrated and party leadership relieved.

Committee members approved a sweeping statement against dark money that mentioned no specific organization, then rejected the AIPAC-targeted text. The rejected resolution cited the millions of dollars AIPAC spent in recent Illinois Democratic primaries and warned about outside spending shaping who can run and how representatives respond. To critics, singling out AIPAC felt less like a campaign-finance argument and more like a targeted political move.

“We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation.”

That was DNC Chair Ken Martin’s framing, and it did not sit well with those who want a tougher stance on pro-Israel spending. Allison Minnerly, who sponsored the AIPAC-specific resolution and sits on the DNC’s Middle East working group, said the generic approach missed the point. Her view is that the group being named will not hesitate to target progressives in primaries, and that deserves a named response.

“Members like to say that we don’t want to single out AIPAC, but AIPAC will entirely single out them and all of our different progressive leaders when it comes to primary elections.”

The AIPAC resolution included language that warned “the use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents.” That phrasing made the intent clear, but opponents argued the one-group focus undercut its legitimacy.

“There are a lot of super PACs, a lot of right-wing organizations out there. There are a lot of left-wing ones out there that take advantage of the super PAC status as well. We need to address that. None of those were mentioned. I think respectfully, if it’s about our campaign finance system, let’s take it on. But when you mention only one group, it comes across like you’re not actually interested in the campaign finance issue and transparency issue. It’s about something else.”

Andrew Lachman made that point bluntly, calling the narrow targeting “troubling” and warning that it fed perceptions the resolution was about politics rather than policy. He also suggested elements within the party were playing to certain activist blocs and future candidates. Those comments highlight how divided the committee feels about both tactics and priorities.

AIPAC’s response framed the committee’s decision as an endorsement of its role and of members’ right to participate fully in Democratic politics. The group’s spokesperson said the vote affirmed that supporters would continue engaging in internal party battles, and they plan to do just that. The reaction underscored how the procedural choice handed an effective win to pro-Israel forces within the party.

“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the Democratic process, and we plan to do just that.”

Progressives did not accept the outcome quietly. Rep. Ro Khanna argued the committee “should have voted for the AIPAC resolution given the pernicious influence they had in Illinois” and used social video to press the point. He has been explicit that any party leader should reject AIPAC money, signaling a willingness to make this a litmus test for future contenders.

“anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.”

Other figures on the left, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have publicly opposed U.S. military aid to Israel, including defensive systems like Iron Dome, a stance far from the party mainstream. Those positions make clear the internal debate has shifted and that leadership faces pressure from activists who demand a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine.

The two deferred measures were routed to the Middle East working group Ken Martin created after last August’s meeting, the same body that failed to move earlier anti-war proposals. Minnerly said she was “not surprised that members of the resolutions committee are eager for an update” and warned the task force has not shown consistent progress. Her remarks convey the skepticism many progressives feel about whether the working group will produce real change.

“Since that meeting, there has not been consistent progress or even forward motion, and the characterizations of the task force were accurate.”

“We recommend this going back to the task force, but then we can put some expectations that we hear back,”

Ron Harris framed the deferral as a procedural step with follow-up expectations, but activists worry working groups become polite parking lots for thorny fights. Brian Romick saw the committee’s rulings differently and praised the rejection of measures he called divisive, arguing they would harm party unity and hand victories to Republicans.

“We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.”

Some Democrats privately link the party’s 2024 setbacks to its rocky stance on Israel, making the question of how to respond politically urgent. Whether the working group will act in a way that satisfies progressives, placates moderates, or simply shelves the issue until a later fight remains unclear.