U.S. Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-5th District, was the only member of Connecticut’s congressional delegation to vote Wednesday for an amendment that would have cut off more aid to Israel as public opinion shifts on the issue and Democratic voters have grown critical of the country’s war in Gaza.
The four other Connecticut representatives, John Larson, D-1st District, Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District and Jim Himes, D-4th District, joined nearly half of the Democratic caucus and all but one Republican in defeating the amendment to a government spending bill that would have eliminated an additional $3.3 billion in assistance for Israel.
While it was a symbolic vote, the split vote among Democrats and the frenzy around it showed how lawmakers are reckoning with voters’ wariness of a longtime U.S. ally over its handling of the war and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Almost half of the Democratic caucus voted for the amendment sponsored by U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, the only Republican to back it. Wednesday’s vote also divided the top Democratic leaders in the House.
Echoing Democrats’ general sentiment of the amendment, Hayes criticized the way the measure was structured, describing it as “poorly written” and a “gotcha amendment.” Democrats who voted against the amendment also called it “overly broad,” arguing it was pushed by Republican leadership to divide the Democratic Party.
But the congresswoman said she had been hearing concerns from her constituents for months on the issue and hopes it creates a larger discussion on how to handle aid to the region.
“I absolutely support Israel’s right to exist, but I’m horrified with what’s happening to these kids in Gaza,” Hayes said in an interview outside of the House chamber after Wednesday’s vote series. “And while I hate the amendment, we need to open the door for some discussion on what aid looks like.”
Hayes took issue with the amendment for not addressing humanitarian aid, security assistance and cultural the embassy programs. She said she disagreed with the amendment being “just a blanket no-aid.”
“I wish we had put forth an amendment that was more precise and talked about supporting humanitarian aid and then put the scrutiny on defense aid that needed to be there but not take it completely away,” she continued. “We just have to have a different conversation, and it doesn’t mean that I think aid should be off the table, because that’s not where I am.”
It was a challenging vote for Democrats, with Hayes suggesting as much. And it comes in the middle of a primary season when the issue has at times played a defining role in Democratic races, like in Colorado and New York.
“I think people right up to the vote was called were still on the fence,” she said. “I was still kind of fleshing it out for myself, so I really didn’t have a chance to talk with other people where they were feeling on it.”
Larson, who faces a competitive four-way primary on Aug. 11, argued that Massie’s amendment would have exacerbated issues like blocked aid to Palestinian refugees and put “a two-state solution further out of reach.” He also highlighted his support for the West Bank Violence Prevention Act of 2025, “which would sanction those who commit violence in the West Bank.”
“I will continue to oppose anyone who undermines peace, including actions by the Netanyahu government that threaten a viable two-state solution. The Trump administration must enforce existing restrictions on weapons transfers while ensuring that food, medicine, shelter, and other humanitarian aid reach civilians,” Larson said in a statement. “The United States must protect civilians, uphold international law and pursue a lasting peace in which Israelis and Palestinians can live with safety, dignity and self-determination.”
The divide in the party went all the way up to the leadership ranks. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., opposed it, while House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and another member of leadership, U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., voted for it. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also supported the measure to cut off aid.
When announcing his opposition to the House Democratic caucus, Jeffries cited DeLauro and another Democratic ranking member of a committee, saying his views are consistent with theirs. Jeffries called the amendment broad, citing concerns about limiting the use of humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement funds and embassy operations.
But Jeffries said they wouldn’t whip the vote in favor of a certain position.
“Republican leaders are desperately trying to weaponize an amendment they do not support for nakedly partisan reasons,” Jeffries wrote in his “Dear Colleague” letter to Democrats on Tuesday. “However, given the strongly held views throughout the Caucus in this important area of foreign policy, we are not whipping this vote.”
“Based on the extensive conversations we have had as a Caucus, there are good faith reasons that will result in Members voting in a variety of different ways with respect to the amendment. Moving forward, it is my strongly held view that for the good of Israel and the Palestinian people, American policy in the Middle East must change.”
DeLauro similarly described a measure with “vague wording” that she argues would give more discretion to the Trump administration over congressionally funded programs.
Like the entire Connecticut congressional delegation, DeLauro supports Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. She has also worked on humanitarian issues in Gaza and called for more aid for Palestinians.
She has also been critical of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. As the U.S. seeks to broker a peace agreement amid an ongoing war with Iran, DeLauro criticized Israel’s strikes on places like Beirut. And her campaign manager recently said she would stop taking donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. (DeLauro has received AIPAC donations in prior election cycles and has also received money from them this year in her effort to secure reelection for a 19th term.)
“I share the concerns of many Americans about U.S. support to Israel’s military operations,” DeLauro said in a statement, citing her own amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would require “reporting on the use of American weapons by Israel that could be in violation of the ceasefire.”
“The United States must use our influence to both increase humanitarian aid and restrain Israeli violations of the existing ceasefire,” the House Appropriations Committee ranking member continued. “This amendment does neither and would remove every last source of leverage Congress has to influence Israel’s government. For these reasons, I voted no.”
Courtney shared a similar sentiment to DeLauro and the others in the delegation who voted no. He noted his support for legislation that “would bar use of U.S. origin offensive weapons to Israel if they violated the 2025 ceasefire.”
“There is no question that the days of blank check military assistance to Netanyahu’s government are long past,” Courtney said in a statement. “If Rep. Massie’s amendment had cut funds for offensive weaponry that is responsible for unacceptable civilian casualties, as opposed to defensive systems that save lives and humanitarian support that is desperately needed, it would have garnered a lot more support.”
Himes’ office declined to comment.
On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate has also wrestled with similar votes.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has forced multiple votes on his disapproval resolution to block U.S. arms sales to Israel. The measure failed each time it was brought up for a vote, but more Democratic senators got on board during the latest vote in April.
Sanders’ disapproval resolution split Connecticut’s two U.S. senators: Chris Murphy supported the measure, while Richard Blumenthal opposed it. Only seven Senate Democrats voted against the resolution in April.
This story was originally published by The Connecticut Mirror July 15, 2026
