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

Randall Arrington

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: In an August 2026 voter-guide survey he calls the Israel relationship important because "Israel is the only Democratic government in the Middle East region" and picks the view that the U.S. "has become too involved in others' policies", which points both ways. Reviewed by hand on 2026-10-09. This candidate has no recorded tracked floor votes.

Asked in a candidate survey whether the relationship with Israel matters, Arrington answered "Yes because Israel is the only Democratic government in the Middle East region", while choosing a restraint option on foreign intervention. Neither answer reaches U.S. weapons or money for the government of Israel.

✉ Copy a message to send them

We don’t have a campaign email on file yet. Copy this message and send it through their website or a public social account.

If you send this from your own email, cc replies@butwhatcanyoudo.org so we can post their answer.

Your record on weapons and funding for the government of Israel [ref: la1-arrington]

Dear Randall Arrington,

I plan to vote in the November elections, but before I vote for you, I want to be sure I understand your plan going forward when it comes to weapons and funding for the government of Israel, because your record is mixed.

Will you commit, if elected, to voting against further transfers of weapons and funding to the government of Israel, or to supporting enforceable conditions on that support?

Your record points in different directions, so I'm asking for clarity: where do you stand now, and what will you do?

I may share your answer publicly so other voters can see it.

Respectfully,
[Your name]

Deep Dive

Arrington is a Republican candidate in Louisiana's 1st District, a retired Navy aviator and former Homeland Security interdiction pilot.

His own words on the subject are in a candidate survey he filled in at length, across abortion, the economy, China, military recruitment and more. Asked whether the United States' relationship with Israel is important and why, he answered: "Yes because Israel is the only Democratic government in the Middle East region." That endorses the relationship. It says nothing about what the United States should send, in weapons or in money, and this card does not turn it into that.

The same form gives the answer more shape. Offered four descriptions of American foreign policy, he chose the third: that the United States "has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger". Read together, the two answers say the relationship matters and that intervention abroad generally should be rarer. Where he lands when those two pull against each other, on weapons or on money, is the open question.

You are better placed to get that answer than we are. Ask him directly, or at a candidate forum, and send us the reply: it goes on this page in his own words.

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 2026-09-27) from the five lobbying groups we track; earlier cycles and earmarked donations not yet tracked.

Support-only OpenFEC data. Opposition independent expenditures are excluded.

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

Nothing located. No statement, campaign material or recorded action addressing weapons transfers or military funding was found under his name.
[Position, read 2026-08-20] His candidate survey answer to the foreign policy range question is option C: "The United States has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger." Opened and confirmed word for word. This is a general position on intervention, not a position on transfers, and it is not written up as one.

⚠ The questionnaire test is satisfied: he answered across the form, including "Strongly Agree" on the question about the Chinese Communist Party and free-text answers on military recruitment, so these are his answers rather than a blank he left. The page carries no publication date and is banded to the day it was read.

U.S. aid to Palestinians

Nothing located.

Characterization of the conflict

[Position, read 2026-08-20] Same survey, asked whether the United States' relationship with Israel is important and why: "Yes because Israel is the only Democratic government in the Middle East region." Opened and confirmed word for word. No characterization of the conflict itself, of the war in Gaza, or of Palestinian statehood was located.

Related rhetoric and lobbying

[Consulted, 2026-04-30] A voter guide is reported to have said he appears to take no campaign funds from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Its address, https://antigravitymagazine.com/feature/voter-education-guide-saturday-may-16-2026/, returns 403 on one attempt and opens on the other; what it carries is an outside observation about his fundraising rather than a statement of his, so it stays on this page. An absence of contributions is not a position and is not written up as one.

Safety and antisemitism (context)

Nothing located.

Race and status context

Qualified on Louisiana's certified list for the all-candidate November election in the 1st District, with a December runoff between the top two if nobody clears half the vote. Four candidates are on the ballot. Per Ballotpedia. He previously sought the same seat.
⚠ **Wrong-person carrier, recorded so it is never used.** One address supplied for this candidate is https://arrington.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1099. It opens, and it belongs to Representative Jodey Arrington of Texas: the page title reads "Chairman Arrington Statement on Terror Attacks Against Israel | U.S. Representative Jodey Arrington", the name Jodey appears four times, and Randall appears nowhere. It is a statement by a different member of Congress about the October 2023 attacks. Nothing from it is attributed to this candidate, on the card or here.
A local candidate round-up was consulted for biography only.
He has held no federal office, so there are no recorded votes on this card.

Also in this race

✗ Steve Scalise (Republican)
✓ Lauren Jewett (Democrat)
– E. "Liddy" Glass (Independent)

All Louisiana candidates.