But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check
Jasmine Thomas
Thomas's campaign says it will not take money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or from corporate political action committees. That is about who funds her campaign, not about U.S. weapons or money for the government of Israel; nothing on her site addresses either.
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 Jasmine Thomas where they stand.
Deep Dive
Thomas is a Chickasaw citizen, a nurse, a community advocate and an active-duty military spouse, and one of two Democrats in a primary runoff for the U.S. Senate. She has never held federal office, so none of the congressional votes this site tracks are hers.
The reason she appears on this subject at all is a single answer in her campaign's list of frequently asked questions. Asked who is funding the campaign, the answer names the American Israel Public Affairs Committee among the money she will not take: "You. Everyday Oklahomans. Not lobbyists, not billionaires, not super PACs. And definitely not AIPAC, I'm not here to sell my voice to the highest bidder." The next question asks whether that means no corporate political action committee money, and the answer is "Correct. None. Zero. Zilch. If it comes with strings attached, I don't want it." So the named refusal is one instance of a general rule about money with conditions on it, and she has repeated the claim elsewhere, calling herself the only progressive in the race free of corporate and committee money.
That is a fundraising pledge, and this site does not let a fundraising pledge stand in for a position on what the United States sends. On the same page, the answer to what she stands for lists people-centered governance, education, healthcare access, military family support, Native sovereignty, autism care and government transparency, with no foreign policy at all. Nothing anywhere on the site says what she would do about U.S. weapons transfers or U.S. funding for the government of Israel.
If you want that answer, you are better placed to get it than we are: ask Thomas directly and send us the reply. It goes on this page in her own words.
The record
• Her campaign site's FAQ answers the question 'Who is funding your campaign?' by naming AIPAC among the money she will not take. It is a statement about who funds her campaign, not about U.S. weapons or U.S. funding policy toward Israel, and no other page of the site addresses either. The page carries no publication date and was read on this date; the site is her live campaign site for the 25 August 2026 runoff, so it is current-position in time.
• The immediately following FAQ question, 'So, no corporate PAC money?', is answered with a blanket refusal of money that carries conditions. This is the general rule of which the AIPAC sentence is one named instance.
• The same FAQ's 'What do you stand for?' answer lists her priorities - people-centred governance, education, healthcare access, military family support, Native sovereignty, autism care and government transparency - and includes no foreign policy at all. Nothing anywhere on the site says what she would do about U.S. weapons transfers or U.S. funding to the government of Israel.
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: On her campaign site she says her funding is from everyday Oklahomans, not lobbyists, billionaires or super PACs, and "definitely not AIPAC", 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.
The money
Checked the five lobbying groups we track; no direct 2026 support found
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
- Nothing located that can be opened and read. Her campaign site was read in full and no page on it addresses U.S. weapons transfers or U.S. funding for the government of Israel.
- [Unconfirmed and disputed, 2026-07-10] A fresh search of the open record attributed to her a passage reading, in part, that there is "always money to expand the Pentagon and bankroll Israel's assault on Gaza". The page it cites for that passage is the official account of a member of Congress from Pennsylvania, and the address itself carries that member's name. Those are not her words on the evidence offered, nothing from the passage is used anywhere on this card, and the misattribution is recorded here so it is not repeated. The same round attributed an April 2026 passage about budget priorities to her and cited two further pages, one belonging to a member of Congress from Texas and one to a news page about a television commentator. Same treatment.
U.S. aid to Palestinians
- Nothing located.
Characterization of the conflict
- [Unconfirmed, 2025-11-12] A fresh search reported a post on her campaign's own social media page reading "I believe Palestine should be free and I will always speak out about injustice, no matter where it happens". The address is her campaign's page and the page's own web address contains wording consistent with the post. It returns an error to us and could not be read, so nothing from it is quoted and it is not on the card. This is the one item from our later search that would change the shape of this card if it can be opened.
- [Position, 2025-06-20] A video interview, N'Kiyla Jasmine Thomas (Oklahoma Senate) on Iran War, Autism Cuts and Tucker vs. Cruz Clash, in which she discusses the war with Iran and its effect on serving military families. The page opens and the title names her; the spoken content is not transcribed here and nothing is quoted from it.
Related rhetoric and lobbying
- [Position, read 2026-08-03] Her campaign's frequently asked questions, verified word for word. To "Who is funding your campaign?": "You. Everyday Oklahomans. Not lobbyists, not billionaires, not super PACs. And definitely not AIPAC, I'm not here to sell my voice to the highest bidder. I believe public service should be about serving people, not padding bank accounts." To the next question, "So, no corporate PAC money?": "Correct. None. Zero. Zilch. If it comes with strings attached, I don't want it." This is a statement about her own campaign fundraising. It is not a position on U.S. weapons or U.S. money, and the card says so in as many words.
- [Position, 2026-07-28] A state policy outlet reports the same claim from a post of hers: she called herself the "only Democratic Progressive that's Corporate and AIPAC free". Read and confirmed against that page, which is not friendly to her and is used only for the fact that she said it.
- [Position, read 2026-08-03] The same campaign page's answer to "What do you stand for?" lists people-centered governance, education, healthcare access, military family support, Native sovereignty, autism care and government transparency. No foreign policy appears in it.
- Source note: this record cites an archived copy of her site at https://web.archive.org/web/20260802055448/https://www.jasmineforok.com/ . We tried it twice and could not open it; the archive returned a service error. The live site does open, it carries both answers word for word, and it is what is linked here.
- No endorsement located. This record's endorsement check is marked resolved empty against the state candidate filing list, which is not an endorsement source, so this dimension is better described as unchecked than as checked and empty.
Safety and antisemitism (context)
- Nothing located.
Race and status context
- One of two Democrats in a primary runoff for the U.S. Senate, per the race page and the official primary results. She led the first round.
- The campaign pages carry no publication date, so they are dated to the day they were read. This is her live campaign site, which is why the material is treated as a current position rather than as undated.
- She did not serve in Congress during any of the tracked votes.
Also in this race
- ✗Supports Kevin Hern (Republican)
- ✓Opposes Curtis Stinnett (Independent)
- ?Mixed Ron Meinhardt (Independent)
- –No Position Found Sevier White (Libertarian)
All Oklahoma candidates.
See everyone on the Oklahoma 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.