But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check
Priscilla Gonzalez
Democrat · U.S. House, Louisiana District 3
?Mixed
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.
Two reviewers, reading the public record as a whole, agree: Answering an August 2026 voter-guide question, she calls Israel "an important ally in the Middle East" and says the United States "benefits from military cooperation and technical progress", 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.
Gonzalez is a Democratic candidate in Louisiana's 3rd District.
Her own words on the subject come from a candidate survey she filled in across the whole form, from abortion and the economy to military recruitment. Asked whether the United States' relationship with Israel is important and why, she wrote: "Yes, the United States' connection with Israel is significant due to common strategic, political, and economic objectives. Israel is an important ally in the Middle East, offering stability and intelligence in a turbulent region. The United States benefits from military cooperation and technical progress. Furthermore, both countries share democratic values, resulting in a good diplomatic relationship."
That endorses the relationship, including its military side. It does not say what the United States should send, in weapons or in money, and it names no policy she would change. This card does not turn it into a transfers position. On the general shape of American foreign policy the same form has her choosing the option that the United States should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny, rather than either intervening whenever freedom is threatened or staying out altogether.
Nothing located has her addressing U.S. aid to Palestinians. A set of campaign posts is reported to have criticized the incumbent over a vote on antisemitism legislation, but the addresses given for them belong to other people's pages and do not open, so nothing from them is used.
If you want to know where she stands on U.S. weapons and U.S. money, you are better placed to get an answer than we are. Ask her directly and send us the reply: it goes on this page in her own words.
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, read 2026-08-20] Her candidate survey answer to "Is the United States' relationship with Israel important, and if so why?", opened and confirmed word for word: "Yes, the United States' connection with Israel is significant due to common strategic, political, and economic objectives. Israel is an important ally in the Middle East, offering stability and intelligence in a turbulent region. The United States benefits from military cooperation and technical progress. Furthermore, both countries share democratic values, resulting in a good diplomatic relationship." She names no transfer, no figure and no policy she would change, so no direction on U.S. transfers is claimed from it. The page carries no publication date and is banded to the day it was read.
⚠ The questionnaire test is satisfied: she used the range of the form, including free-text answers on military recruitment and a "Neutral" on the question about the Chinese Communist Party, so these are her answers rather than a blank.
[Position, read 2026-08-20] Same survey, on the foreign policy range question, she chose: "B) The United States should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny." Confirmed word for word.
U.S. aid to Palestinians
Nothing located.
Characterization of the conflict
[Position, read 2026-08-20] The survey answer quoted above is the whole of it. No characterization of the war in Gaza, of Palestinian statehood, or of the conflict's nature was located.
Related rhetoric and lobbying
Nothing located.
Safety and antisemitism (context)
[Position, 2024-05, unread carriers] Campaign posts are reported to have cited hate crime statistics and criticized the incumbent for voting against H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, including the words "his watch has expired". The addresses offered are https://www.facebook.com/julia.s.greenfield/posts/antisemitism-is-rising-across-the-country-and-around-the-worldsilence-isnt-an-op/10238070034982482/ and https://www.facebook.com/wbaltv11/posts/a-new-report-highlights-the-increase-of-deaths-from-antisemitic-attacks-around-t/1368433928663531/. Neither is hers: the first is a private individual's page and the second a television station's, and Facebook returns 400 to our requests for both. Written out here rather than linked; no wording is quoted anywhere and nothing is claimed from them. The incumbent's own vote is a matter of record on his card.
Where else the absence was checked
[Consulted, read 2026-08-20] Her Ballotpedia profile. Opened. It records that she has not completed the 2026 candidate survey, and carries a 2024 survey she completed for a state legislative race. That 2024 survey was read in full: tax reform, economic diversification, coastal erosion, environment and education, with nothing in scope.
[Consulted, read 2026-08-20] Her campaign site and its issues page. Both opened and read; no mention of Israel, Gaza, Palestinians, foreign aid or foreign policy. This is the own-site check the standing rule requires before a card rests on absence for a dimension.
⚠ **Name collision, recorded so it is never used.** Several addresses supplied under this name belong to other people: a documentarian and a labour organizer, at Film Workers for Palestine, Aspen Film, The Commoner and Truthout. The first of those is squarely on this project's subject matter and belongs to a different Priscilla Gonzalez. Nothing from any of them is used, here or on the card.
Race and status context
Qualified on Louisiana's certified list for the all-candidate November election in the 3rd District, with a December runoff between the top two if nobody clears half the vote. Six candidates are on the ballot. Per Ballotpedia.
She has held no federal office, so there are no recorded votes on this card.
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.