Nearly $40 million in opposition spending failed to stop Abdul Rahman El-Sayed from winning a seat in the US Senate. Now, the Muslim senator-elect faces a considerably bigger challenge: confronting Washington’s powerful pro-Israel establishment, challenging his own Democratic Party leadership, and turning opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza into legislative action.
El-Sayed enters the 120th Congress with an electoral mandate built partly on his promise to end what he describes as American complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. His victory represents a breakthrough for Palestine solidarity advocates who have spent years demanding that Washington reconsider its military and financial support for Israel.
But winning an election and changing American foreign policy are two very different battles.
As a first-term senator with little institutional influence, El-Sayed will have to navigate a political system in which senior Democrats, pro-Israel lobbying organisations and powerful American defence contractors have long exercised considerable influence over US policy towards Israel.
The central question is whether his victory marks the beginning of a genuine shift in Washington or whether the political establishment will succeed in containing his ambitions.
The $40 Million Campaign That Failed to Stop Him
Writing for The Intercept, journalist Jonah Valdez described El-Sayed as the only incoming member of the 100-seat Senate to have won office on an explicit campaign pledge to end American support for Israeli abuses in Gaza.
His pro-Palestinian positions helped mobilise a broad electoral coalition, despite such positions remaining relatively uncommon among candidates seeking Senate seats.
They also made him a target.
An estimated $40 million was spent on efforts to defeat El-Sayed through a political action committee linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The campaign included attacks accusing him of antisemitism, some of which were characterised by anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
Despite the financial firepower directed against him, El-Sayed secured his Senate seat.
For Yousef Munayyer, a researcher at the Arab Center Washington DC, the significance of that victory extends well beyond one election.
Munayyer compared El-Sayed’s success to Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York, arguing that the election of an outspoken Palestine advocate in a politically competitive state breaks longstanding political taboos.
It also sends a message to other politicians who have avoided criticising Israel out of fear of electoral consequences.
The assumption that strong opposition to Israeli policies is politically disqualifying, Munayyer suggested, is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
Yet electoral success does not automatically translate into influence inside the Senate.
His Biggest Opponents May Be Inside His Own Party
El-Sayed will enter Washington at a time when Democrats face growing pressure from their own supporters to take a stronger position on Palestinian rights.
Beth Miller, political advocacy director at Jewish Voice for Peace, believes his victory presents an opportunity to force that conversation into the centre of Democratic Party politics.
Her organisation, which opposes Zionism and supported El-Sayed’s campaign, has repeatedly criticised Democratic administrations for failing to take meaningful action to protect Palestinian rights.
El-Sayed’s candidacy marked the first time Jewish Voice for Peace had endorsed a Senate campaign.
The organisation also helped develop the Block the Bombs Act, introduced by Democratic Representative Delia Ramirez and supported by 82 lawmakers, to restrict weapons transfers to Israel.
The challenge now is getting the party’s leadership to respond to demands from its own electoral base.
That could prove particularly difficult under Chuck Schumer, who is expected to become Senate majority leader.
Schumer has maintained strong support for Israel and close relationships with pro-Israel lobbying groups, placing him at odds with the growing section of Democratic voters demanding restrictions on American military assistance.
As majority leader, Schumer would also wield considerable influence over committee assignments, potentially limiting El-Sayed’s ability to shape legislation concerning Israel.
Hamid Bendaas, communications director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding’s Policy Project, which backed El-Sayed’s campaign, questioned whether the incoming senator would demonstrate the same willingness as Bernie Sanders to challenge Democratic leadership.
For a newly elected senator seeking influence within his party, such confrontations carry political costs.
Bendaas nevertheless expressed confidence that El-Sayed would support legislation defending Palestinian rights.
The greater uncertainty concerns how aggressively he will pursue that agenda when it competes with other priorities.
Can He Turn Opposition to Israel Into Actual Legislation?
The Senate offers several mechanisms through which El-Sayed could challenge Washington’s military relationship with Israel.
One of the most significant involves joint resolutions of disapproval, which lawmakers can introduce to attempt to block arms sales and security assistance.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders repeatedly used this mechanism during Israel’s war on Gaza, seeking to prevent the transfer of bombs, weapons and other military equipment.
Although his resolutions failed, the most recent attempts attracted substantial Democratic support.
That shift could become increasingly important as Democrats prepare to assume the Senate majority.
El-Sayed could pursue similar measures, including efforts to block a proposed $2.8 billion sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel that President Donald Trump’s administration had intended to advance.
Such weapons transfers have become a major point of contention among critics of American military support for Israel.
Another option involves the Foreign Assistance Act.
El-Sayed could use provisions of the legislation to demand reports from the State Department concerning alleged Israeli violations.
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen previously pursued a similar approach regarding the detention of Palestinian children and the killings of American citizens in the occupied West Bank by Israeli soldiers and settlers.
El-Sayed could also introduce amendments to the Pentagon’s budget, targeting funding allocated to joint American-Israeli military research programmes.
These mechanisms would give him opportunities to challenge US policy even without holding a senior leadership position.
But introducing legislation is only one part of the process.
Securing enough support to pass it, particularly against opposition from influential party leaders and lobbying organisations, would be substantially more difficult.
Munayyer nevertheless believes El-Sayed’s election could change the political calculations surrounding such initiatives.
Politicians previously reluctant to criticise Israel may become more willing to do so if they believe the electoral risks have diminished.
Why the Cost of Living Could Shape His Palestine Agenda
Foreign policy was not the only issue that propelled El-Sayed into the Senate.
His campaign also placed considerable emphasis on lowering living costs, expanding access to healthcare and addressing the economic pressures facing American households.
Those issues remained central to voter concerns during the 2026 elections.
For El-Sayed, the challenge will be maintaining his commitment to Palestinian rights while delivering on domestic economic promises.
Some political analysts have encouraged pro-Palestinian candidates to moderate their positions, arguing that more centrist Democrats performed better in recent elections.
El-Sayed, however, has attempted to challenge the assumption that domestic economic concerns and opposition to American military support for Israel must be treated as separate political issues.
During a September interview with Bloomberg, he argued that money being sent abroad should instead be invested in American schools, healthcare and childcare.
He questioned why American taxpayers should finance a foreign government accused of committing serious abuses when communities across the United States continue to struggle with essential services.
This argument connects opposition to military assistance for Israel with a broader debate over American spending priorities.
It also reflects increasing public scrutiny of the billions of dollars Washington provides to Israel, particularly as economic pressures continue to affect American voters.
Whether El-Sayed can maintain that connection while navigating the Senate’s political realities will be an important test of his campaign promises.
Even Republicans Are Questioning Washington’s Relationship With Israel
The debate over American support for Israel is no longer confined to progressive Democrats.
According to the account published by The Intercept, Trump announced during a Fox News interview on election morning that Washington would end its approximately $4 billion in annual military assistance to Israel.
Trump claimed the decision had been reached in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He presented the move as a way to deprive Democrats of a political issue, specifically mentioning El-Sayed.
As votes continued to be counted, JD Vance, described as vice-president-elect, also addressed the Republican Party’s relationship with voters who had become disillusioned.
In a post on X, Vance argued that Republicans could regain support from those voters by ending the war and changing America’s relationship with Israel.
Munayyer interpreted these developments as evidence of a broader political transformation.
He expects US-Israel relations to become a major issue in future presidential primary campaigns within both parties.
That prospect would represent a departure from an American political environment in which support for Israel has long enjoyed broad bipartisan backing.
However, public statements about changing the relationship do not necessarily establish how far either party would be prepared to go in restricting military assistance or challenging Israeli government policies.
For El-Sayed, the emerging debate may create political opportunities that would have been considerably more difficult to imagine in previous election cycles.
America’s First Muslim Senator Faces Scrutiny From the Left
El-Sayed’s election also carries historical significance.
He becomes the first Muslim elected to the US Senate and one of its most outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights.
The Intercept compared his position to that of James Abourezk, the first Arab-American senator, who served during the 1970s.
Abourezk advocated Palestinian statehood and criticised the influence of pro-Israel lobbying organisations at a time when such positions were particularly uncommon in American national politics.
El-Sayed has adopted similarly direct positions.
During his campaign, he described Israel as a state organised around ethnicity and declared his opposition to establishing countries on the basis of race or religion.
In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes, he questioned whether Israel should be regarded as an American ally and defended the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
He also declined to answer a question about whether Israel had a “right to exist”.
During his victory speech, El-Sayed criticised attempts to portray advocacy for Palestinian rights as an expression of hatred.
Yet these positions have not shielded him from criticism among some pro-Palestinian activists.
His participation in campaign events alongside former Vice-President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama drew objections from sections of the left critical of both politicians’ records concerning Gaza and wider American policy in the Middle East.
Some activists questioned whether associating with prominent Democratic figures risked undermining the independence of his Palestine advocacy.
Others took a more pragmatic view, arguing that building relationships with influential party figures could strengthen his capacity to achieve legislative results.
But even those defending his approach cautioned against placing excessive expectations on one elected official.
The movement for Palestinian rights, they argued, cannot depend on a single senator, regardless of how strongly he identifies with its objectives.
The Defence Industry Is Another Powerful Obstacle
Beyond party leadership and pro-Israel lobbying organisations, El-Sayed faces another deeply entrenched source of political influence: the American military-industrial sector.
Major defence contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have significant financial interests in continued military spending and arms transfers.
These companies engage in political lobbying and provide campaign contributions to protect their commercial interests.
Their influence presents a structural obstacle to efforts aimed at reducing American military assistance to Israel.
Miller argued that defence manufacturers continue to benefit financially from Israel’s war on Gaza and have strong incentives to resist policies that threaten those profits.
In her assessment, no individual senator could realistically confront such an extensive network of political and commercial interests alone.
The broader importance of El-Sayed’s victory, therefore, lies less in the expectation that he can transform American policy single-handedly and more in the political mandate his election represents.
For years, criticism of Israeli policies has been treated as a potential electoral liability in Washington.
El-Sayed’s campaign suggests that position may no longer reflect the attitudes of a growing section of the American electorate.
His victory also exposes a challenge facing Democratic leaders: how to respond to voters demanding a reassessment of Washington’s support for Israel without confronting the powerful institutions that have helped sustain that relationship.
The next stage will determine whether those demands can be translated into restrictions on weapons transfers, greater scrutiny of Israeli military conduct and substantive changes to American foreign policy.
El-Sayed has demonstrated that an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights can overcome significant political and financial opposition to win a Senate seat.
What remains untested is whether that electoral breakthrough can overcome the institutions and interests that have shaped Washington’s relationship with Israel for decades.
