But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check

Christian Maxwell

Republican · U.S. House, Illinois District 1
?
How this mark works

We track key votes on sending U.S. weapons and money to the government of Israel. A check means every tracked vote they cast came down against sending more, on the side of peace and de-escalation. A question mark means a mixed record: they sided with sending up to half of the time. An X means they voted to send more weapons and money in over half of their tracked votes, even as the way those weapons and dollars were being used became more and more obvious. At exactly half, money this election cycle from a lobbying group we track, or an endorsement from a group that backs sending weapons, makes it an X. Only votes actually cast are counted. Where a candidate has no recorded votes on these bills, the mark comes instead from a reviewed reading of their public record (money from the lobbying groups we track, endorsements, and their own words since January 26, 2024). There an X also covers fully backing the conduct of the war by the government of Israel without significant reservations, and a question mark also covers speaking about Israel without saying clearly where they stand on U.S. weapons and funding. A dash means No Position Found: we found nothing in their own words about Israel, Gaza or the war.

See a dash? Ask the candidate where they stand, then send us their answer and we'll review it and update the mark. Or volunteer to help review candidates.

Two reviewers, reading the public record as a whole, agree: Answering an August 2026 voter-guide question, she says "Bolstering Israel, leveraging their intel and keeping a healthy relationship benefits the United States", without saying where she stands on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. Reviewed by hand on 2026-10-09. This candidate has no recorded tracked floor votes.

Maxwell's survey answer on the U.S.-Israel relationship: "Bolstering Israel, leveraging their intel and keeping a healthy relationship benefits the United States." On foreign policy generally she selected that the U.S. "has become too involved in others' policies." No position located on aid packages.

✉  Email the campaignWebsite ↗X ↗Facebook ↗

The email has replies@butwhatcanyoudo.org in cc, so we can post their answer on their page in their own words; remove it if you prefer. Keep the subject line as it is, add your name, and send.

Deep Dive

Maxwell is the Republican candidate for Illinois's 1st District.

Her two survey answers pull in different directions and the card carries both. Asked whether the U.S.-Israel relationship is important, she answered in her own words: "Yes it is important. The middle east overall stability is constantly on the brink of collapse. Bolstering Israel, leveraging their intel and keeping a healthy relationship benefits the United States." On the survey's multiple-choice foreign-policy question she selected the most restrained option offered: the United States "has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger."

Neither answer addresses U.S. military aid packages, weapons transfers or conditions, and the research found no statement from her on those or on U.S. aid to Palestinians.

In January 2026 campaign communications she rejected the framing of the debate itself, saying that arguing strictly in terms of "pro-Palestine v pro-Israel" forces people into the hands of extremists by creating divisions that prevent reasonable solutions. That source is a Facebook post on a third party's page which we could not read, so it is reported rather than quoted.

The money

Checked the five lobbying groups we track; no direct 2026 support found

2026 support from the five lobbying groups we track
Nothing recorded (as of 2026-07-23) from the five lobbying groups we track; earlier cycles and earmarked donations not yet tracked.
Support-only OpenFEC data. Opposition independent expenditures are excluded.

In their words

“Yes it is important. The middle east overall stability is constantly on the brink of collapse. Bolstering Israel, leveraging their intel and keeping a healthy relationship benefits the United States.”
Source ↗, 2026-08-12

Research log

The notes behind this card: what we looked at, what we found, and where each item came from.

U.S. military aid and weapons to Israel

  • [Position, published 2026-08-12] Her iVoterGuide candidate survey, opened and confirmed word for word: "Yes it is important. The middle east overall stability is constantly on the brink of collapse. Bolstering Israel, leveraging their intel and keeping a healthy relationship benefits the United States." A statement about the relationship, not about what the U.S. sends.
  • [Position, published 2026-08-12] On the survey's foreign-policy multiple choice, the options were: the U.S. "should intervene whenever freedom is threatened"; it "should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny"; or it "has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger." Her recorded answer is the third. Confirmed verbatim including the question's own option list, so a reader can see it is a menu selection rather than her own formulation.
  • **Questionnaire test satisfied:** she answered substantively across the form, including on Islamic terrorism as a national-security threat, so these answers are evidence rather than a non-response artifact.
  • No statement located on aid packages, transfers or conditions. She has no federal voting record.

U.S. aid to Palestinians

  • No statement or documented position found by the research.

Characterization of the conflict

  • [Position, 2026-01-25, unverified source] Campaign communications rejecting the "pro-Palestine v pro-Israel" binary, saying it forces people "into the hands of the extremists because we create unnecessary divisions that restrain us from finding reasonable solutions." Source: a Facebook post on a ward page, a third party's page, not readable. Reported, not quoted.
  • [Position, published 2026-08-12] Same survey: "Islamic terrorism is a threat to the United States' national security." Confirmed verbatim.

Related rhetoric and lobbying

  • Nothing located.

Safety and antisemitism (context)

  • Nothing located beyond the Islamic-terrorism item above.

Consulted

Also in this race

  1. ? Jonathan Jackson (Democrat)

All Illinois candidates.

But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. Every claim on this page goes through at least two verification steps. Open Find Your Candidates for votes, funding and contact details.