Full List of Senators Who Voted To Block Israel Arms Deal
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A majority of Democratic senators voted in support of Senator Bernie Sanders' resolution to block an arms deal to Israel as public opinion shifts amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Newsweek reached out to Sanders' office for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Support for Israel has become a sticking point in the Democratic Party amid growing humanitarian concerns about its military operations in Gaza. Recent polling suggests Democratic voters are becoming more critical of Israel, though many elected Democrats remain supportive of providing more aid.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas led an attack against Israel, killing 1,200 and abducting 251 people. Israel has said 58 hostages remain in Gaza, and that only 21 of them are believed to be alive. Israel has since launched an offensive on Gaza, killing more than 60,000 people, according to The Associated Press, citing Gaza's Health Ministry. Critics have sounded the alarm on Israel's military operation, raising concerns about the number of civilians killed or displaced.
Senator Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally in Washington on April 29, 2025.
Senator Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally in Washington on April 29, 2025.What To Know
Sanders, a Vermont independent who has been critical of Israel, introduced two resolutions the Senate voted on Wednesday. Although both failed to receive majority support, they received record support from Senate Democrats.
One resolution that would block the sale of assault rifles to Israel received support from 27 Democrats, while one to block the sale of more than $675 million in arms sales received support from 24 Democrats.
These Democrats voted for both of Sanders' resolutions.
Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland)
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin)
Lisa Blunt Rochester (Delaware)
Tammy Duckworth (Illinois)
Dick Durbin (Illinois)
Martin Heinrich (New Mexico)
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii)
Tim Kaine (Virginia)
Andy Kim (New Jersey)
Angus King (Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Ben Ray Lujan (New Mexico)
Ed Markey (Massachusetts)
Jeff Merkley (Oregon)
Chris Murphy (Connecticut)
Patty Murray (Washington)
Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Tina Smith (Minnesota)
Chris Van Hollen (Maryland)
Raphael Warnock (Georgia)
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)
Peter Welch (Vermont)
These three senators voted for the amendment to block the sale of rifles to Israel.
Jon Ossoff (Georgia)
Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Ossoff, who is up for reelection next year, wrote in a statement that he does "not believe the United States Senate should acquiesce without objection to the extreme mass deprivation of civilians in Gaza, including the intolerable starvation of children" and that he is concerned the rifles would be "allocated to police forces under the control of Itamar Ben-Gvir."
Still, he said he voted against the other resolution because he believes the U.S. "must continue to support the Israeli people, who face the persistent threat of rocket and missile attack."
The vote comes just days after a new Gallup poll found increasing dissatisfaction toward Israel among Americans and particularly Democrats. Only 32 percent of Americans, and 8 percent of Democrats, supported Israel's actions in Gaza. It surveyed 1,002 adults from July 7-21 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
It also comes amid growing concerns about the potential starvation of civilians in Gaza. The United Nations has said there is "mounting evidence" of starvation, including plummeting food consumption and acute malnutrition. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied that civilians are starving in Gaza.
Several Democrats who have been more pro-Israel voted in support of the resolutions.
Blunt Rochester wrote in a statement that her votes "underscore the importance of finding peace in the region, and a lasting ceasefire in Gaza that puts an end to the civilian casualties is the best way to achieve that."
What People Are Saying
Senator Bernie Sanders, in a statement: "By a vote of 27-17, Senate Democrats voted to stop sending arms shipments to a Netanyahu government which has waged a horrific, immoral and illegal war against the Palestinian people. The tide is turning. Americans don't want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza."
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester, in a statement: "Until Israel significantly shifts its military posture to end the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, I cannot in good conscience support further military aid and arms sales to Israel. It is critical that the Israeli government resume the adequate flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, stop the senseless bombing, and work with the United States and our international partners to secure a lasting ceasefire and end this war."
Senator Rafael Warnock, in a statement: "It is wrong to starve children and other innocent civilians to death. Yet, whether through gross incompetence, woeful indifference, or some combination thereof, that is exactly what is happening right now in Gaza under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. It is a moral atrocity that cannot abide the conscience of those who believe in human dignity, freedom, and human thriving. That is why I will vote to support the Joint Resolution of Disapproval put before the Senate tonight."
What Happens Next
Polling suggests Americans are becoming more critical of Israel, which will likely continue facing international pressure over its actions in Gaza.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
'Trump, Abbott, Texas GOP Heading Towards A LOSS:' Gov. Pritzker On Redistricting Fight
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin will give remarks to reporters Tuesday morning, as the redistricting fight in Texas shines light on Democrats' efforts to expand the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What's the deal with all the redistricting talk? A simple guide.
Advertisement It's a lot to untangle, but we'll attempt to do so. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Let's start with the basics. What is redistricting and what's happening in Texas? Per the US Constitution, every 10 years after the census, states must redraw congressional districts to reflect population changes. These districts must be proportional, contiguous, and under federal law, must not be drawn to dilute the voting power of racial groups, but otherwise how they're drawn is up to each state. (Fun fact: Before 1840 some states including Massachusetts didn't have Congressional districts but had every House candidate run at-large.) What's less settled is whether states can redraw districts mid-decade. Some states allow it. Others don't. Texas, which has the second-largest congressional delegation in the country with 38 representatives, is one of the states that does. With Republicans controlling state government, Trump recently urged Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP more right-leaning seats heading into the midterms. Advertisement Texas already had a special legislative session scheduled for August. Republicans used the opportunity to add redistricting to the agenda with a proposed map that would likely net them five additional seats on top of the 25 they currently hold. In response, Texas Democrats did the only thing they could to block the move: They fled the state to blue states—including some The special session ends in two weeks. For now, Texas is at a standstill. So what's going on in California? Once it became clear Texas Republicans were moving forward, California Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats responded in kind. If Texas draws five new Republican seats, Newsom said, California would aim to draw five new Democratic ones. But doing this in California is far more complicated. The state currently uses an independent redistricting commission. To override it, lawmakers would need to eliminate the commission through a special session, and then place the measure on a statewide ballot. Newsom said he's open to doing both, including holding a special election in November to let voters decide. Is this just a Texas–California battle? Far from it. Fifteen states are now considering mid-decade redistricting—some inspired by the Texas–California showdown, others acting under court orders. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul declared, 'This is war. We're at war,' and promised aggressive action on redistricting. But the state constitution limits what Democrats can do. A redistricting change would require passage in two consecutive legislative sessions, followed by voter approval on the ballot. So it's impossible to do ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Advertisement Ohio, meanwhile, is redrawing its map due to a court order, which could lead to Republican gains. Other states considering changes include Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. There is also a report that Vice President JD Vance may What about New England? Every US House member from New England is a Democrat. The only state where redistricting has surfaced is New Hampshire, where Republicans control the Legislature. They could redraw the line between the state's two House districts to make one more favorable for the GOP. But Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte said in December that the So what does this mean for the midterms? It all hinges on whether Texas acts. If it does, a domino effect could follow. If it doesn't, most other changes will be limited to court-ordered redistricting. Historically, the party out of power makes big gains in the first midterm election of a new president's term. Democrats currently need to flip four seats to regain the House majority in 2026. Under various discussed maps, they could instead need to flip seven—or in Democrats' worst-case scenario—twelve. Republicans flipped nine seats in the last midterms, giving them a margin so slim it doomed their speaker. In 2018, Democrats gained 40 seats. Advertisement Wait… what does Massachusetts have to do with this? In a CNBC interview on Tuesday morning, Trump denied that he initiated the current redistricting push. 'They did it to us, the blue states you were talking about,' Trump said, after the host referenced California's plans. 'Somebody gave a good example. In Massachusetts, I got, I think, 41 percent of the vote, a very blue state, and yet [Democrats] got 100 percent of Congress. One hundred percent. I got 40, 41 percent or something, and yet 100 percent of Congress in Massachusetts? No, it shouldn't be that way.' (For the record: Trump received 36% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2024.) James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
A $715 billion tax cut turns into a $4.5 trillion sales job
Early polling shows the package is not popular, though most taxpayers won't begin to benefit from the tax cuts until they file their returns next spring. Many are in line for extra-large refunds because Republicans made a number of provisions, including an enlarged Child Tax Credit and a more generous deduction for state and local taxes, retroactively available for the current tax year. During congressional consideration, Senate Republicans were adamant that the correct way to tally the cost of their plan was by comparing the changes to what the government was currently doing, not what was carved into law, as budget scorekeepers normally do. So, by that light, extending current tax policies into next year should cost nothing, and not even be seen as a reduction in taxes. The only tax cuts that counted, Republicans said, were new provisions like Trump's proposals to reduce levies on tips, overtime, auto-loans and seniors, along with enhancements of existing breaks, like a $200-per-child increase in the Child Tax Credit. The tactic drastically reduced the sticker price of the plan, no small deal given concern over federal red ink. And it made it much easier for lawmakers to make many of their provisions a permanent part of the tax code. Otherwise, under the Senate's internal rules, they would have had to find a lot more pay-fors to cover the cost of making permanent breaks for business investment, research and interest expenses. But that current policy baseline now not only makes their tax cuts look less consequential, it also shrinks the anticipated benefits to their constituents. Under the conventional baseline that Republicans spurned, people making between $60,000 and $80,000 would see their taxes fall by an average 12 percent in 2027, the official Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis last week. But those people would only get a 4.2 percent cut under a current policy baseline. Nevertheless, days after Trump signed the bill into law, Senate Republicans bragged on X that they had just cut taxes by $4.3 trillion. And lawmakers are now routinely claiming to have passed the largest-ever tax cut, though with a $715 billion price tag, the legislation is not significantly bigger than tax cuts passed during the coronavirus outbreak. The more conventional $4.5 billion estimate moves the legislation up the all-time-biggest-tax-cut list, though there were still larger ones, such as Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and when Harry Truman cut wartime taxes in 1945.
