But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check
Jamie Raskin
Raskin voted against every Israel aid bill and for the 2026 amendment cutting that aid, writing that a Present vote "could be seen by millions of people as a refusal to take a position on furnishing more weapons for Netanyahu’s war in Gaza", while calling it "plainly a political trick".
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.
You asked Jamie Raskin where they stand.
Deep Dive
Raskin represents Maryland’s 8th District and is the sitting member, among the House’s most prominent Jewish Democrats.
His recorded votes appear as badges on this card: he voted No on each of the four bills sending military aid, No on the amendment that would have cut joint missile-defense funding, and Yes on the 2026 amendment cutting $3.3 billion in security assistance. His explanations are unusually complete. His April 2024 statement opposing the supplemental describes a lifetime of support: "I am a strong champion" of Israel’s defensive systems "and of Israel’s qualitative military edge over Iran and other hostile regional powers" (the systems named on the research page) while refusing unrestricted offensive funding over the Netanyahu government’s conduct.
The 2026 cutting vote is the card’s hardest call, and his July 2026 statement walks through it in three steps. He believed the amendment itself was "plainly a political trick designed to divide the Democrats". He voted for it anyway, because voting No "was indigestible" given what he called Gaza’s "cauldron of civilian atrocities"; he cites a Gaithersburg constituent who lost dozens of family members, and the ten World Central Kitchen colleagues of chef José Andrés. And he rejected the middle course, because a Present vote "could be seen by millions of people as a refusal to take a position on furnishing more weapons for Netanyahu’s war in Gaza".
The Forward reports him joining lawmakers backing a bill to restrict arms transfers, while his local Jewish Community Relations Council criticized his vote against the aid bill and community coverage describes Maryland Jews grappling with his votes, both sides of his community’s reaction, carried as theirs.
The record
Supported sending weapons or funding in 1 of 6 tracked votes · Cosponsors the Block the Bombs Act
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.
Voted to send weapons or funding in some, but no more than half, of their recorded tracked votes. (Supported sending weapons or funding in 1 of 6 tracked votes.)
The money
Checked the five lobbying groups we track; no direct 2026 support found
In their words
A New Policy PAC (2026 endorsement)
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
- His recorded votes appear as badges on this card; his own statements explain both the No votes and the 2026 Yes.
- [Position, 2024-04-21] The supplemental statement, verified: the strong-champion passage naming the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and other defensive systems, and the qualitative-military-edge language (defensive-systems names stay off the front; the Iran reference stays inside his verbatim words).
- [Position, 2026-07] The Massie-amendment statement, verified at length: the No-was-indigestible reasoning, the constituent losses (the Gaithersburg family; the World Central Kitchen colleagues), the Present-vote reasoning quoted on the card, and the political-trick characterization. The same passage calls the Iran war a "catastrophic folly"; Iran material stays off the front.
- [Position, 2026] The Forward on his backing of arms-restriction legislation, verified by headline and body naming him.
U.S. aid to Palestinians
- His civilian-atrocities reasoning above is his operative frame; letters he joined on humanitarian access appear across the research record and are dates checked per item.
Characterization of the conflict
- The Massie statement’s language above (murder of more than 1,200 Israelis; hostages including constituents’ loved ones; the war "properly justified at inception" before becoming a "cauldron of civilian atrocities") is his fullest characterization and is quoted here from the verified page.
Related rhetoric and lobbying
- No tracked funding badge appears because no committee support is recorded for him.
- [Community reaction] The JCRC criticism and Washington Jewish Week’s grappling coverage; the community’s voices, carried as theirs.
Safety and antisemitism (context)
- His statements on antisemitic terror and community safety appear on his account and in the record; dates checked, nothing quoted beyond the verified material.
Race and status context
- Sitting member, nominated. His Republican challenger’s card carries its own record.
Also in this race
- ?Mixed Cheryl Riley (Republican)
- –No Position Found Nancy Wallace (Green)
All Maryland candidates.
See everyone on the Maryland ballot →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.