But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check
Deborah K. Ross
Ross voted to cut off the aid in July 2026, saying "our country's precedent of unconditional support has, in many ways, undermined progress" toward both a secure Israel and Palestinian self-determination, and that "the status quo cannot persist."
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 Deborah K. Ross where they stand.
Deep Dive
Ross represents North Carolina's 2nd District and is running for re-election. Her position has changed, and the change is documented.
In June 2025 she said: "I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself and believe the United States should remain committed to ensuring Israel's security." In the same statement she set a limit on American participation, saying direct U.S. military involvement "should not be initiated without explicit authorization by Congress."
By July 2026 she voted to cut off the funding, and her stated reasoning had inverted on the question of conditions: "I believe in Israel's long-term future as a secure and democratic state. I also believe the Palestinian people have an equal right to self-determination and a state of their own. Our country's precedent of unconditional support has, in many ways, undermined progress toward those goals." She voted yes despite misgivings about the vehicle: "While the amendment was poorly written and overly broad, I voted yes because it sends a message that the status quo cannot persist. I will continue to support a strong U.S.-Israel alliance and a comprehensive two-state solution to ensure a lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians."
Separately, she said in September 2025 that she would not take AIPAC money in 2026.
The record
Supported sending weapons or funding in 2 of 6 tracked votes
• Vote record imported from official House Clerk roll calls for H.R. 6126, H.R. 8034, and H.R. 8369. Other position fields remain under investigation.
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 2 of 6 tracked votes.)
The money
$17K in lifetime support from the five lobbying groups we track
In their 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, 2026-07-16] She voted for the amendment cutting the funding; WFAE reports that she and Rep. Foushee "voted to cut off funding," opened and confirmed. WFAE notes she issued no release; her words came "in response to a WFAE question." Her quoted reasoning, opened and confirmed word for word from both WFAE pieces: "I believe in Israel's long-term future as a secure and democratic state. I also believe the Palestinian people have an equal right to self-determination and a state of their own. Our country's precedent of unconditional support has, in many ways, undermined progress toward those goals," and "the status quo cannot persist." **Also verified, and the research omitted it:** "While the amendment was poorly written and overly broad, I voted yes because it sends a message that the status quo cannot persist. I will continue to support a strong U.S.-Israel alliance and a comprehensive two-state solution to ensure a lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians." Both the 2026-07-16 piece and the 2026-07-20 follow-up carry the full passage.
- [After October 7, 2023-11-02] Her release, opened and confirmed word for word: the package "conditions aid to our long-standing ally and fails to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance to innocent people in Gaza, displaced Ukrainians, and millions globally." And: "Conditioning aid to Israel marks an abrupt departure from the norm." Her words: "America's bond with Israel is unbreakable... this partisan package only delays aid to our allies and sends a dangerous message to our enemies, that political point-scoring is more important to Republicans in Congress than fulfilling America's international commitments." From the weeks right after October 7; on the research page, and it is the earlier end of the change the card describes.
- [Position, 2025-06-18] Statement on events in the Middle East, opened and confirmed word for word: "I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself and believe the United States should remain committed to ensuring Israel's security. The Iranian regime threatens the stability of the entire region and must never be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon. However, direct American military involvement in this conflict would have far reaching consequences and should not be initiated without explicit authorization by Congress." The war-powers limit in the final sentence is part of the same statement and is quoted in the deep dive, because reporting only the first sentence would make the statement one-sided.
- Her recorded votes appear as badges on this card and track the change described above.
U.S. aid to Palestinians
- [Position, 2026-07-16] Her stated reasoning names Palestinian self-determination and statehood as goals the unconditional-support precedent has undermined.
- [After October 7, 2023-11-02] Faulted the Republican package for failing to fund humanitarian assistance for people in Gaza (confirmed verbatim).
Characterization of the conflict
- [Position, 2026-07-16] Frames both a secure democratic Israel and Palestinian self-determination as goals (above).
Related rhetoric and lobbying
- [Position, 2025-09-18] IndyWeek reported she will not take AIPAC money in 2026. A campaign-funding decision, recorded as its own item and never phrased as an answer about U.S. weapons or funding. Not opened.
- [2025-09-22] The New Arab on Democratic shifts; third-party framing.
Safety and antisemitism (context)
- Nothing distinct located.
Also in this race
- ?Mixed Gene Douglass (Republican)
- –Research Underway Matthew Laszacs (Libertarian)
All North Carolina candidates.
See everyone on the North Carolina 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.