But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check
Kevin Craig
Libertarian · U.S. House, Missouri District 7
✓OpposesFrom their own words
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.
No recorded votes on the bills we track. In their own words on August 12, 2026.
Craig would end U.S. aid entirely, writing that Congress should "eliminate all government-to-government foreign aid, including aid to the State of Israel." He told a public radio interviewer "I believe Israel is committing a kind of genocide against the Palestinians."
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.
Craig is the Libertarian candidate for Missouri's 7th District, and has run repeatedly since 2008.
His aid position is unconditional and not specific to Israel. His campaign issues page says Congress should "eliminate all government-to-government foreign aid, including aid to the State of Israel."
Asked about the war by KSMU in July 2024, he said: "I believe Israel is committing a kind of genocide against the Palestinians. I certainly don't support Hamas. They're a terrorist organization, ugly. But what's going on in Palestine, as far as I hear, is the destruction of not just Hamas, but also of a lot of Palestinians, perhaps 100,000 or more buried under the rubble."
His published reasoning is worth reading rather than summarising, because it runs on two distinct tracks and a voter is entitled to know which is which. One is about conduct and law: his site's current writing cites the International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion, United Nations figures on movement restrictions and displacement in the West Bank, and states that the conclusion "does not require believing Hamas is righteous, denying the atrocities of October 7," which it calls war crimes.
The other is theological and anti-statist. He argues that no nation-state holds a right to exist, and the 2008 essay applies that symmetrically and explicitly: "Israel as a 'nation' has no right to exist. Neither do the Palestinian Arabs. Neither does America." He defines the claim itself as "the 'right' to impose one's will on a minority by force and threats of violence," and writes that "two states are worse than none." The essay's statement that the federal government has no justification "to use government coercion to protect the Jews" is immediately followed by an identically worded sentence about "the Arab Palestinians." The same 2008 material disputes theological claims about Jewish entitlement to land, refers to "a group of people calling themselves 'Israel' or 'Jews'," and notes that he expected to be accused of prejudice for making the argument. The research section sets that record out.
He has no federal voting record.
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.
In their words
“I believe Israel is committing a kind of genocide against the Palestinians. I certainly don't support Hamas. They're a terrorist organization, ugly.”
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 2026-08-12] His campaign issues page on Israel, opened and confirmed word for word, under the heading "Congressional Issues 2010": Congress should "eliminate all government-to-government foreign aid, including aid to the State of Israel." **Dating this page is genuinely ambiguous:** the header says 2010, but the body has been updated and cites a United Nations commission conclusion of September 2025, the ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion, and displacement figures through July 2026. It is therefore read at the date of reading, as a live page, and the older-dated material is labelled separately below.
[Position, reported] His issue guides advocate "constructive disengagement" from the Middle East, de-emphasising military alliances with Israel and eliminating all foreign military assistance and overseas troop deployments. Consistent with the confirmed plank above.
**Note on what kind of position this is.** It is a blanket opposition to all government-to-government foreign aid, in which Israel appears as an instance. It is not a position about Israel specifically, and reading it as one would misstate him in the other direction.
He has no federal voting record.
U.S. aid to Palestinians
No distinct position located. His blanket opposition to government-to-government aid would cover it.
Characterization of the conflict
[Position, 2024-07-31] KSMU candidate interview, opened and confirmed word for word, answering a question on the war in Gaza: "I believe Israel is committing a kind of genocide against the Palestinians. I certainly don't support Hamas. They're a terrorist organization, ugly. But what's going on in Palestine, as far as I hear, is the destruction of not just Hamas, but also of a lot of Palestinians, perhaps 100,000 or more buried under the rubble. The infrastructure, their civilization; their society is being destroyed." The research rendered the last sentence as beginning "Their infrastructure"; the transcript reads "The infrastructure."
[Position, read 2026-08-12] The current text of his site states, verbatim: "What is firmly established: Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups deliberately attacked civilians, murdered people, took hostages, and committed war crimes on October 7. Understanding Palestinian grievances does not excuse those acts." It cites the ICJ's July 2024 finding that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful, UN OCHA counts of 925 movement barriers affecting 3.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank as of late 2025, and more than 3,200 Palestinians displaced by mid-2026. It argues the phrase "oppressor state" is "defensible, provided it is stated precisely," reasoning by analogy to Britain in 1776, and states that Israeli civilians "have a genuine need for protection from Hamas and other armed groups."
Related rhetoric and lobbying
[Prior, 2008-05-05] In an essay "Who Owns the Holy Land?", carried on a campaign blog whose only address the research supplies is an http rather than https url and so cannot be linked here, he wrote, as reported, that "the pro-Israel lobby is an indisputably powerful force among 'neo-conservatives' who led us into" the Iraq war, which he says was fought largely in defence of Israel. Prior band by fifteen years; the blog source was not opened.
Safety and antisemitism (context)
This heading carries the record in full, per our standing rule of 2026-08-12 that nothing is suppressed and that behaviour is described rather than labelled.
[Prior, 2008-01-12] A commentary titled "Israel and Palestine" (his site), **opened and confirmed word for word**: "Israel as a 'nation' has no right to exist. Neither do the Palestinian Arabs. Neither does America. The 'right' to 'exist as a nation' is the 'right' to impose one's will on a minority by force and threats of violence." And: "Two states are worse than none." And, in a parallel pair of sentences: "The United States federal government has no Constitutional, moral, Biblical, political, ethical, or pragmatic justification to use government coercion to protect the Jews. The United States federal government has no Constitutional, moral, Biblical, political, ethical, or pragmatic justification to use government coercion to protect the Arab Palestinians." Prior band.
**Reading it in place changes what can accurately be said about it**, which is why it was opened rather than adjudicated away. The right-to-exist argument is applied to Israel, to a Palestinian state and to the United States itself, and the sentence about protecting Jews is one half of a matched pair whose other half is about Palestinians. The argument is anti-statist and symmetrical on its face. That is a description of what the page says, not a verdict about it.
[Read 2026-08-12] The Israel issues page opened includes, verbatim: "learn what the Bible says about Israel's right to real estate in the Middle East. Millions of Americans believe that a group of people calling themselves 'Israel' or 'Jews' have a divine right to possess certain land in the Middle East." And, on the right-to-exist argument: "Assyria had a right to exist; Babylon had a right to exist; Israel had a right to exist. None had a divine right to preserve itself by every available means."
[Prior, 2008-05-05, reported] On the same site he noted that in disputing theological arguments about Jewish entitlement to the Holy Land he ran "the risk of being labeled 'anti-semitic'", and said his views rested on Christian pacifism and biblical interpretation.
**What the record shows and does not show.** The right-to-exist argument is applied symmetrically, to a Palestinian state as well as an Israeli one and to ancient states as well as modern, and its stated basis is an objection to nation-states using force. The 2008 material also disputes a theological claim about a people's entitlement to territory and uses the phrasing quoted above. Readers can weigh both; this record describes what he published and does not attach a label to it.
Identity
The site is `kevincraig.us`, headed "CRAIG for CONGRESS, Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives," which matches this record's district and office. Also Ballotpedia and an iVoterGuide profile. Identity was checked before this class of material was written up, per the standing rule.
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.