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

Mark Teixeira

Republican · U.S. House, Texas District 21
?
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: Answering a 2026 voter-guide question on the U.S.-Israel relationship, he says he believes in President Trump's "mission to work with our allies to establish lasting peace in the region", 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.

Asked whether the U.S. relationship with Israel is important, Teixeira answered "Yes. I believe in President Trump’s mission to work with our allies to establish lasting peace in the region." No position located on U.S. weapons or funding.

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.

Deep Dive

Teixeira is a former Major League Baseball player and the Republican nominee in Texas’s 21st District. He launched his campaign in August 2025 and won the primary on March 3, 2026.

His answer is on a candidate questionnaire for this race, and it is short. Asked "Is the United States’ relationship with Israel important, and if so why?", he wrote: "Yes. I believe in President Trump’s mission to work with our allies to establish lasting peace in the region." On the same form he agreed strongly with the statement "Islamic terrorism is a threat to the United States’ national security."

That affirms the alliance and frames the region through counter-terrorism. It says nothing about money or weapons, and an initial search says so in as many words: he "has not made any public statements or taken actions specifically regarding U.S. military aid transfers or weapons shipments to Israel".

On the foreign-policy question on the same form he chose option C, that the United States "has become too involved in others’ policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger". His campaign site sets out an "America First Foreign Policy & National Security" platform about ending forever wars. Those are blanket positions that would take in Israel without being aimed at it, so this card does not convert them into an Israel position. They are, though, the reason his affirmation of the alliance should not be read as a commitment to underwrite it.

His other located remarks are about Iran. On Newsmax in April 2026 he said: "Seven different presidents have had the opportunity to stop Iran’s aggression, stop their sponsoring of terror all over this world, and President Trump is finally doing that." Iran positions, not positions on what America sends to this conflict.

The money

Checked the five lobbying groups we track; no direct support found in any cycle they have filed

Lifetime support from the five lobbying groups we track
Nothing recorded (as of 2026-10-03) from the five lobbying groups we track, in any cycle they have filed.
Support-only OpenFEC data. Opposition independent expenditures are excluded.
AIPAC Unlisted Endorsement
AIPAC's donation site has a page raising money for this candidate, but AIPAC has not listed or announced an endorsement. Shown for information; it does not decide the mark.

In their words

“Yes. I believe in President Trump's mission to work with our allies to establish lasting peace in the region.”
Source ↗, 2026-08-11
Endorsements

AIPAC Unlisted 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

  • 2026 [Current position; VERIFIED]: On the iVoterGuide questionnaire for this race, asked "Is the United States' relationship with Israel important, and if so why?", his answer reads in full: "Yes. I believe in President Trump's mission to work with our allies to establish lasting peace in the region." He separately answered "Strongly Agree" to "Islamic terrorism is a threat to the United States' national security."

⚠ **A READING FAILURE OF OURS, CORRECTED 2026-08-11.** This card previously said the answer could not be read and rendered it attributively without quotation marks. That was our extraction, not the page. iVoterGuide closes each question and each answer in its own block element, and collapsing the HTML to a single line destroyed the pairing. Converting block-closing tags to newlines first restores it. The same failure affected another card, where the answer was a one-word "Neutral"; both are now quoted.

  • 2026 [Current position; VERIFIED; blanket, not aimed at Israel]: On the same form, asked which view of American foreign policy most resembles his, he chose "C) The United States has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger." Another candidate chose the same option. A blanket non-interventionist choice, which per the blanket-position rule is given as what it is and never rendered as an Israel position.
  • Undated [Current position; blanket]: His campaign issues page sets out an "America First Foreign Policy & National Security" platform focused on ending "forever wars".
  • **An initial search’s own verdict, and it stands:** he "has not made any public statements or taken actions specifically regarding U.S. military aid transfers or weapons shipments to Israel". Affirming the relationship is not a position on funding it, and the card keeps those separate.

U.S. aid to Palestinians

  • Nothing located, in either direction.

Characterization of the conflict

  • An initial search’s own verdict: he has not publicly characterised the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, peace negotiations or statehood models, and frames regional security through countering "Islamic terrorism" and state sponsorship of terrorism. The questionnaire answer is consistent with that: it names an ally and a peace process, not a party to a dispute.
  • 2026-03-05 [Current position; out of scope]: On Newsmax he described Iran as "a regime... that has been a sponsor of terrorism all over this world, who has been a thorn in the side of the United States for over 40 years" and said "something had to be done with that regime".

Rhetoric and lobbying

  • 2026-04-03 [Current position; out of scope]: In a Newsmax video interview he praised Trump's Middle East strategy: "Seven different presidents have had the opportunity to stop Iran's aggression, stop their sponsoring of terror all over this world, and President Trump is finally doing that." About Iran.
  • Undated [Current position]: He has pledged to refuse contributions from named domestic industry lobbies including pharmaceutical, insurance and technology interests. An initial search records no statement or pledge about pro-Israel lobbying groups. A money-refusal pledge is never a weapons or funding position in any case.

Safety and antisemitism

  • An initial search’s own verdict: no public statements or actions addressing antisemitism or safety for Jewish communities and religious institutions.

Sources consulted and read

What came back empty or unusable

  • No position located on U.S. military aid or weapons to Israel, which an initial search states explicitly.
  • No position located on U.S. aid to Palestinians.
  • Nothing on this record is now unreadable. Both questionnaire answers were recovered on re-extraction.

Also in this race

  1. ✓ Kristin Hook (Democrat)

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.