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

Dan McKay

Democrat · U.S. House, Louisiana District 5
?
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 a 2026 candidate-survey answer he says "Our policy of close ties to Israel should be changed" to "eliminate fighting their wars for them", without saying where he 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.

McKay wrote in a candidate survey that "Our policy of close ties to Israel should be changed to eliminate fighting their wars for them". He names no weapons transfer and no aid figure, and nothing else located reaches U.S. transfers.

✉  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.

Deep Dive

McKay is a Democratic candidate in Louisiana's 5th District, an attorney and Army veteran.

His position is one sentence, and it is his own. Asked in a candidate survey what areas of public policy he is personally passionate about, he wrote at length about surveillance and privacy, about American alliances, about immigration enforcement, and then closed the answer: "Our policy of close ties to Israel should be changed to eliminate fighting their wars for them." It sits in the same paragraph as a defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which he says is being weakened, so the sentence is not a general retreat from alliances. It is specific to one of them.

What it does not do is name a transfer, a bill, a figure or a programme. He says the policy should change and says which direction, and this card does not read a weapons embargo or an aid cut into a sentence that specifies neither. Nothing located has him addressing U.S. aid to Palestinians, or characterizing the conflict.

If you want to know what he would actually stop or start sending, you are better placed to ask than we are. Ask McKay directly 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

  • [Position, 2026] His Ballotpedia candidate survey, which the page records he completed in 2026. Opened and confirmed word for word, read under its own question. Asked what areas of public policy he is personally passionate about, his answer ends: "Our policy of close ties to Israel should be changed to eliminate fighting their wars for them."

⚠ Context, because the sentence sits inside a longer answer and the surrounding words matter to its meaning. The same answer says: "I support our international alliances including NATO which continues to be weakened and failing due to efforts to ally with authoritarian governments instead." So the sentence is a criticism of one relationship rather than of alliances generally, and the card says so. ⚠ He names no transfer, bill, figure or programme. The direction is stated and the mechanism is not, and nothing on the card supplies one.

  • The survey is dated to the year on the page, which carries no day-precise date for the submission. No quote entry is created for that reason.

U.S. aid to Palestinians

  • Nothing located.

Characterization of the conflict

  • Nothing located. The survey answer above addresses American policy rather than the conflict itself.

Related rhetoric and lobbying

  • Nothing located. No statement about lobbying organizations or campaign funding was found under his name.

Safety and antisemitism (context)

  • Nothing located.

Where else the absence was checked

  • [Consulted, read 2026-08-20] The same Ballotpedia profile was read in full, including his answers on rural population loss, blight, water systems, data centres and taxation. The Israel sentence is the only in-scope content on it.
  • No campaign website was located for him, and none is recorded in our records. The own-site check the standing rule requires could not be run, which is recorded rather than passed over.
  • One further address was offered, https://www.civoren.com/candidate/dan-mckay. It carries no position of his.

Race and status context

  • Qualified on Louisiana's certified list for the all-candidate November election in the 5th District, with a December runoff between the top two if nobody clears half the vote. Nine candidates are on the ballot in this district, the largest field in the state.
  • He has held no federal office, so there are no recorded votes on this card.

Also in this race

  1. – Austin Magee (Republican)
  2. – Gabe Firment (Republican)
  3. ✗ Michael Echols (Republican)
  4. – Misti Cordell (Republican)
  5. – Oscar "Omar" Dantzler (Republican)
  6. ? Stewart Cathey Jr. (Republican)
  7. – Antonio Wilson (Democrat)
  8. – Patricia "Pat" Moore (Democrat)

All Louisiana 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.