Does AIPAC Use “Dark Money” in Elections? What the Filings Record

Anyone who watched a competitive congressional primary in the last four years has seen the ads and wondered who paid for them. The question people ask about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is whether the answer is on the record. It is, for the money that moves through its two federal committees: OpenSecrets’ 2025 tabulation of Federal Election Commission filings records $37,860,200 in independent expenditures by United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, in the 2024 cycle, itemized by race and by direction, alongside $3,037,900 in direct candidate contributions from AIPAC PAC. What is not on the record is the donor schedule of AIPAC’s own 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, and, in the days when voters are actually casting ballots, the names behind a spending report that has been filed but not yet matched by a scheduled fundraising report.

Key Findings

• OpenSecrets’ 2025 tabulation of Federal Election Commission filings records $37,860,200 in United Democracy Project independent expenditures for the 2024 cycle: $14,067,863 supporting Democrats, $20,786,780 opposing Democrats, $3,043,662 opposing Republicans, and $0 supporting Republicans.
• The Associated Press reported in 2026, citing Federal Election Commission records, that AIPAC’s traditional PAC and super PAC together invested more than $221 million from December 2021 to January 2026.
• Federal Election Commission rules require an independent expenditure to be reported on a 24-hour or 48-hour notice, while the donors who funded it appear only in the committee’s next scheduled report, which can fall after election day.
• The Guardian’s 2026 analysis of congressional ethics filings records at least 78 representatives, 26 Democratic and 52 Republican, on at least 15 American Israel Education Foundation delegations to Israel since 7 October 2023, at more than $4.2 million.
• In the expert-annotated corpus of 4,016 tweets built by Jikeli and colleagues (2022), about 62% of antisemitic tweets containing “Jews” fit the IHRA paragraph on mendacious or stereotypical allegations about Jewish collective power.

Does AIPAC’s election spending disclose its donors?

Both of AIPAC’s federal election committees itemize their money with the Federal Election Commission. OpenSecrets’ 2025 tabulation of those filings records $37,860,200 in independent expenditures by United Democracy Project in the 2024 cycle, broken out by race and direction, and the committee reports its receipts by source. The vehicle in United States campaign finance that files no public donor list is a different one: the 501(c)(4) social welfare organization.

On the direct-contribution side, OpenSecrets records AIPAC PAC, Federal Election Commission committee C00797670, giving $3,037,900 to federal candidates in the 2023 to 2024 cycle, across 347 House candidates and 20 Senate candidates, with the largest single recipient total at $20,000. Direct contributions from a multicandidate committee are capped by statute at $5,000 per candidate per election under 52 U.S.C. 30116, which is why that channel produces many small entries rather than a few large ones.

United Democracy Project, committee C00799031, is an independent-expenditure-only committee, so its spending is uncapped and, by the statutory definition that permits it, uncoordinated with any campaign. OpenSecrets’ itemization of the 2024 cycle records $14,067,863 supporting Democrats, $20,786,780 opposing Democrats, $3,043,662 opposing Republicans and $0 supporting Republicans, with more than $14.6 million spent in a single House race, New York’s 16th District.

The filings record direction and amount. They record neither effect nor coordination, and an independent expenditure is a legally uncoordinated act by definition rather than by measurement.

What do people mean when they call AIPAC dark money?

The phrase carries a narrow meaning in campaign-finance tracking and a broader one in public use. In OpenSecrets’ usage it covers election spending by organizations that are not required to report their donors, together with transfers from such organizations into committees that do report. At least three publications applied the phrase to AIPAC by name between 2023 and 2026.

Americans for Middle East Understanding published a 2023 article titled “AIPAC, Dark Money, and the Assault on Democracy.” Common Dreams described United Democracy Project in a 2024 headline as AIPAC’s “dark money arm.” Politico reported in June 2026 that a New York mayoral candidate called AIPAC “dark money monsters,” and ABC News reported in 2025 that the Democratic National Committee took up, and deferred, a resolution on dark money that named AIPAC.

Read against the narrow definition, the framing points at a real feature of the structure rather than at the two federal committees. AIPAC’s advocacy organization is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. Under Internal Revenue Service disclosure rules, a 501(c)(4) files an annual Form 990, and the schedule listing its contributors is not part of the public copy. Any money moving from that entity into a political committee is itemized by the receiving committee as coming from that entity, and the chain of names stops there.

That is the distinction the rest of this report measures against. Direct candidate contributions and reported independent expenditures sit inside the disclosing system, with donors named at the itemization threshold. A 501(c)(4)’s own contributor list sits outside it. The two are frequently discussed under one label, and separating them is what makes the amounts countable.

How much has AIPAC spent in federal elections?

The Associated Press reported in 2026, citing Federal Election Commission records, that AIPAC’s traditional PAC and super PAC together invested more than $221 million from December 2021 to January 2026. That window spans roughly 49 months and two full election cycles plus part of a third, an average above $4.5 million a month, and the figure is stated by the Associated Press as a floor rather than an exact total.

The cycle-level components come from a different compiler and cover a shorter window. Adding OpenSecrets’ two 2023 to 2024 tabulations gives $40,898,100 for that cycle: $3,037,900 in AIPAC PAC contributions to candidates and $37,860,200 in United Democracy Project independent expenditures.

The two figures are not interchangeable and cannot be added to the Associated Press total, which covers a longer and partly overlapping period. They also measure different acts: a contribution goes to a campaign and is capped, while an independent expenditure buys communications about a race and is not.

The gap between the channels is the striking part of the record. In the 2024 cycle, the uncapped channel carried about 12.5 times the money of the capped one, on OpenSecrets’ figures, which is the arithmetic consequence of a $5,000 statutory ceiling on one side and no ceiling on the other.

Which AIPAC entities file with the FEC, and which do not?

Two committees carrying the AIPAC name file itemized reports with the Federal Election Commission, and two related entities file with the Internal Revenue Service instead. OpenSecrets’ 2025 tabulations cover the two Federal Election Commission filers: AIPAC PAC, committee C00797670, and United Democracy Project, committee C00799031. The advocacy organization and the educational foundation file Form 990 returns, whose public copies carry no contributor schedule.

The separation matters for the question because the four entities are subject to four different disclosure regimes, and a statement about one is not a statement about the others. Committee-level receipts and expenditures are itemized and searchable by committee number. A social welfare organization’s contributor list is not published at all, whatever that organization spends on advocacy that is not an election expenditure.

Track AIPAC, an advocacy tracker, counts 80 current members of Congress, 15% of the total, whose all-time top contributor on OpenSecrets data is AIPAC. That is the tracker’s own count on its own criteria, built from the disclosing side of the ledger rather than the non-disclosing side.

When do super PAC donors become public?

Federal Election Commission rules require an independent-expenditure-only committee to report a spending event on a 24-hour notice when the expenditure is made within 20 days of an election, or a 48-hour notice for aggregations of $10,000 or more outside that window.

The donors who funded it appear on the committee’s next scheduled report, monthly or quarterly depending on the schedule it elected, which can fall after ballots have been cast.

That is the timing gap, and it is a feature of the filing calendar rather than of nondisclosure. The Brennan Center’s money-in-politics roundup of May 2026 described groups active in Illinois primaries whose fundraising reports were not due until after voters had voted, so the spending was on the public record while the funding behind it was not yet.

The asymmetry is structural and applies to every committee on the same schedule, not to one network. A voter checking who is running an advertisement two weeks before a primary can find the amount, the target and the filing committee. A voter checking who paid for it may be reading a report that will not exist until the following month.

Two consequences follow for anyone using these records. First, spending totals for a live race are current within days, so mid-cycle figures are reliable as floors. Second, donor composition for the same period is not, so a claim about who funded a specific advertisement during a campaign cannot be checked against a filing that has not been made. Both facts sit in the same disclosure system, on different clocks.

How large is AIPAC’s spending against total outside spending?

Of the $40,898,100 that AIPAC’s two federal committees reported for the 2023 to 2024 cycle in OpenSecrets’ tabulation, 100% is itemized in Federal Election Commission filings, because both committees are registered filers. The measurable question about scale is therefore concentration rather than concealment, and the filings answer it.

United Democracy Project’s spending was heavily concentrated. More than $14.6 million of its $37,860,200, about 39% of the cycle total, went into one House race, New York’s 16th District, on OpenSecrets’ figures. A single congressional district absorbing roughly two of every five dollars is the shape of targeted independent spending rather than of broad national advertising.

The capped channel runs the other way. AIPAC PAC’s $3,037,900 spread across 367 candidate recipients averages about $8,300 per candidate, against a statutory ceiling of $5,000 per candidate per election, so the typical entry is small and the aggregate is built from volume. The partisan split of that channel was 36.62% to Democrats and 63.02% to Republicans, per OpenSecrets, while the uncapped channel spent $0 supporting Republicans and $20,786,780 opposing Democrats.

Set against the Associated Press figure of more than $221 million from December 2021 to January 2026, the 2024 cycle accounts for something under a fifth of the four-year total on these two compilers’ numbers, which are drawn from the same filings but over different windows. The two series are consistent in kind and cannot be summed.

Do transfers between committees obscure the original source?

Federal Election Commission rules require a political committee to itemize every receipt from a source aggregating above $200 in a cycle, and a receipt from another political committee is itemized as coming from that committee. The chain therefore continues from committee to committee with names attached at each step, and terminates at an entity type that publishes no contributor schedule.

Al Jazeera reported in 2026 that part of the outside spending in a Michigan Senate primary came from a group it described as a dark money group, alongside United Democracy Project’s own reported spending in the same race. That is Al Jazeera’s characterisation of the group.

What the filing structure documents is narrower and more specific. Where a super PAC receives money from another super PAC, both filings exist and the earlier committee’s own donors are itemized in turn, so the transfer adds a step without ending the chain. Where a super PAC receives money from a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, the super PAC names that organization as the source, and the organization’s Form 990 does not carry a public list of who funded it. The traceable record stops at the organization, not at an anonymous entry.

The practical reading for anyone checking a specific advertisement is that three separate things determine whether a donor is identifiable: the entity type at the far end of the chain, the itemization threshold, and the filing calendar described above. Two of the three are fixed by rule and are the same for every filer. The third, entity type, is a choice made when the money is raised.

Does spending correspond with how members vote?

On the recorded votes, Israel security assistance has passed by wide margins in both chambers: the House approved H.R. 5323, the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act, 420 to 9 with 2 present on 23 September 2021, per the recorded vote at congress.gov.

With only 9 members voting no, any subgroup of 100 members voted at least 91% yes, whatever its funding.

The other three recent recorded votes show where the variation actually sat. H.R. 6126 in November 2023, which paired Israel assistance with a rescission of Internal Revenue Service funding as an offset, passed 226 to 196 near party lines. H.R. 8034 in April 2024, essentially the same assistance without the offset, passed 366 to 58, with Republicans 193 to 21 and Democrats 173 to 37. The Senate agreed to H.R. 815, the broader national security supplemental, 79 to 18 on 23 April 2024. The 140-vote difference between the 2023 and 2024 House votes tracked the legislative packaging.

Küçük (2025), in the Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, found that members who sponsor pro-Israel bills receive more campaign contributions and that members facing stronger electoral competition attract more targeted donations. The design is correlational and measures bill sponsorship, not roll-call votes, and it cannot separate contributions following a position from contributions shaping one.

The baseline level of assistance was set outside any election cycle. The 2016 United States and Israel Memorandum of Understanding, signed 14 September 2016, pledged $38 billion over fiscal years 2019 to 2028, and the Congressional Research Service reports in RL33222 that Congress appropriated $8.7 billion in combined Foreign Military Financing and missile defense funding in fiscal 2024. The memorandum’s own text states the levels are “subject to the appropriation and availability of funds.” The relationship between backing and votes is examined at length in the Institute’s report on AIPAC-backed members and Israel aid votes.

What non-cash support is on the public record?

The Guardian’s 2026 analysis of congressional ethics filings records more than $4.2 million in travel to Israel sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, AIPAC’s 501(c)(3) charitable affiliate, since 7 October 2023.

The analysis covers at least 26 Democratic and 52 Republican representatives across at least 15 delegations, an average above $26,600 per member, according to The Guardian.

The underlying documents are official records rather than reporting. Under the 2007 congressional travel rules, a member must obtain pre-travel approval from the House Committee on Ethics and file a post-travel disclosure with the Clerk of the House, published at disclosures-clerk.house.gov. The same rules generally limit a lobbying organization to sponsoring single-day travel, while a 501(c)(3) charitable organization may sponsor longer trips, which is why the foundation rather than the advocacy organization appears on the filings. The Guardian also relays a figure first reported by the Intercept, that the foundation sponsored 129 trips totalling $2.32 million in 2019 alone.

This channel is disclosed at the level of the individual member, the sponsor, the dates and the cost, which is more granular than anything the campaign-finance filings produce about who ultimately funded an advertisement. The foundation states that its missions are educational.

Taken with the committee filings, the public record on this network therefore contains three kinds of entry: capped contributions naming donor and recipient, uncapped expenditures naming amount, race and direction, and sponsored travel naming the member, the trip and the price. The one category the record does not contain is the contributor list of either tax-exempt organization behind it.

How does the funding-influence frame appear in antisemitic content?

Money-and-influence framings are the most common content in labeled antisemitic corpora. In the expert-annotated, IHRA-based corpus of 4,016 English-language tweets built by Jikeli and colleagues (2022, peer-reviewed), about 62% of antisemitic tweets containing “Jews” fit the IHRA paragraph on mendacious or stereotypical allegations about Jewish collective power, against 15% fitting denial of Jewish self-determination.

That corpus also measured prevalence: 11.2% of conversations containing “Jews” between January 2019 and August 2020 were antisemitic, which the authors extrapolate to roughly 1,973,709 tweets, with the caveat that the shares are of samples drawn inside keyword queries rather than of all of Twitter. Weinberg and colleagues (2025, peer-reviewed) coded implicit antisemitic terms in over 1.26 million QAnon subreddit posts and found hidden power the most frequent dimension invoked, at 56% of coded sample sentences, with dual loyalty at 20.7%.

Becker, Ascone and Troschke (2022, peer-reviewed) coded 4,500 comments on leading British, French and German media Facebook pages and found 26.9% of 1,504 UK comments antisemitic, with thread context needed to infer the antisemitic meaning in 38.7% of them. Hadar and colleagues (2026), across six national samples in the United States, Mexico, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland, report that perceived Jewish power, defined as perceived control over valued resources, is associated with antisemitism through two distinct routes, one running through threat to ingroup dominance and one through threat to egalitarian ideals.

These are measurements of trope prevalence in labeled corpora and of survey associations. They describe how financial-control and political-control framings are distributed in content already coded as antisemitic, and they carry no measurement of any particular discussion of a registered lobbying organization or its filings. The Institute has measured the same family of framings in search and in social feeds in its report on what the web answers about Jewish power and in its report on the Rothschild banking claim.

Methodology and limitations

This report draws on four source types, each labeled where used. Primary and official records: Federal Election Commission filing and disclosure rules, Internal Revenue Service disclosure rules for tax-exempt organizations, recorded votes published at congress.gov, the 2016 United States and Israel Memorandum of Understanding text released by the Department of State, the Congressional Research Service report RL33222, and the House Ethics and Clerk of the House travel filings. Campaign-finance aggregation: OpenSecrets’ 2025 tabulations of the two AIPAC-affiliated committees, based on Federal Election Commission data released 6 February 2025. Named press analyses of primary filings: the Associated Press (2026) for the more than $221 million four-year total and The Guardian (2026) for the travel aggregate, each attributed to the outlet with the filings it analysed named. Peer-reviewed research: Küçük (2025) on contributions and bill sponsorship, and Jikeli and colleagues (2022), Becker and colleagues (2022), Weinberg and colleagues (2025) and Hadar and colleagues (2026) on trope prevalence and perceived-power attributions.

Three limits bear on the figures. The Associated Press total and the OpenSecrets cycle tabulations cover different windows drawn from the same filings, so they are reported separately and never summed. The four recorded votes are the closest thing to a series the record allows, because Israel assistance is ordinarily carried inside the annual State, Foreign Operations appropriation, where a package vote is not a vote on one line. Küçük (2025) measures bill sponsorship rather than roll-call votes, and sponsorship is a voluntary individual act with a different base rate from voting on a scheduled question, so its finding does not transfer to votes.

On the discourse measurements, all shares are of samples drawn inside keyword or platform boundaries, and Weinberg and colleagues describe their user-level shares as lower-bound proxies. Where organizations that use the dark money framing are named, they are named for the framing and the date, not for a figure: Americans for Middle East Understanding (2023), Common Dreams (2024), Politico (2026), ABC News (2025), the Brennan Center (May 2026) and Al Jazeera (2026). Their counts are their own on their own definitions.

One quantity commonly attached to this subject has no published basis: no source publishes a rate for how members of Congress backed by the organization vote on unconditioned aid, with a stated denominator, vote set and method. The recorded votes above are the checkable record in its place.

Conclusion

So who paid for the advertisement? For the money that runs through AIPAC PAC and United Democracy Project, the filings answer it: $3,037,900 in itemized candidate contributions and $37,860,200 in itemized independent expenditures in the 2024 cycle, per OpenSecrets’ reading of Federal Election Commission data, with every receipt above $200 named and every dollar of it inside the disclosing system. For the contributor lists of the 501(c)(4) advocacy organization and the 501(c)(3) educational foundation, the answer is that the Internal Revenue Service does not require them to be published, and they are not.

Both facts sit in the same record. The uncapped channel outspent the capped one by about 12.5 times and put roughly two of every five of its dollars into one House district. The travel channel is disclosed member by member, at more than $4.2 million and 78 representatives since October 2023 on The Guardian’s reading of the ethics filings. The votes it is said to buy passed 420 to 9, 366 to 58 and 79 to 18, margins wide enough that any large subgroup of either chamber voted overwhelmingly yes, and the baseline dollar figure was fixed by a 2016 memorandum rather than by any cycle’s spending. Where the trail genuinely goes quiet is narrow and precise: one entity type at the end of a chain, and a filing calendar that reports spending in 24 hours and its funders in the next scheduled month.

Which leaves the harder half of the subject. The framings that dominate labeled antisemitic content are the ones about hidden power and financial control, at 62% of antisemitic “Jews” tweets in the Jikeli corpus and 56% of coded implicit terms in the QAnon corpus. A precise account of a disclosure gap and an ancient story about money in the shadows are not the same object, and they use some of the same words. When a real gap in the public record is described in those words, does the description feed the trope, or does specifying exactly where the record stops starve it? That is a question about how societies talk about money in politics, and it is worth sitting with.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does a super PAC differ from a traditional PAC in what it can accept?

A traditional multicandidate PAC may give a candidate no more than $5,000 per election under 52 U.S.C. 30116, which is why AIPAC PAC’s $3,037,900 in the 2023 to 2024 cycle was spread across 367 candidate recipients on OpenSecrets’ tabulation. An independent-expenditure-only committee such as United Democracy Project may raise and spend without limit, provided the spending is uncoordinated with any campaign, and it reports its receipts to the Federal Election Commission.

Which party received more AIPAC PAC money in the 2023 to 2024 cycle?

Republicans, at 63.02% against 36.62% to Democrats, on OpenSecrets’ 2025 tabulation of Federal Election Commission filings. The uncapped channel ran differently in the same cycle: OpenSecrets records $0 in independent expenditures supporting Republicans and $3,043,662 opposing them.

What is a 501(c)(4), and why does its contributor list stay private?

A 501(c)(4) is a tax-exempt social welfare organization that files an annual Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service. Under Internal Revenue Service disclosure rules, the schedule of contributors is not part of the copy made available to the public, which is why a transfer from such an organization into a political committee names the organization but not the people who funded it.

Who compiles Federal Election Commission filings into cycle totals?

OpenSecrets, a campaign-finance aggregator, tabulates the filings by committee and by recipient; its 2024-cycle figures for the two AIPAC-affiliated committees are based on Federal Election Commission data released 6 February 2025. The Associated Press reported its own four-year total of more than $221 million in 2026 by citing Federal Election Commission records directly.

How much United States security assistance to Israel does the 2016 memorandum set?

The 2016 United States and Israel Memorandum of Understanding pledged $38 billion over fiscal years 2019 to 2028, comprising $33 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $5 billion in missile defense appropriations, and its text states that the levels are subject to appropriation. The Congressional Research Service reports in RL33222 that Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of United States assistance since the Second World War, at $174 billion in current dollars.

Are congressional trips to Israel treated as gifts or as disclosed travel?

They are disclosed travel. Under the 2007 congressional travel rules a member obtains pre-approval from the House Committee on Ethics and files a post-travel disclosure with the Clerk of the House, and those filings are the records The Guardian analysed in 2026. The same rules generally allow a 501(c)(3) organization to sponsor multi-day trips while limiting a lobbying organization to single-day travel.

Does the perceived-power stereotype produce antisemitism wherever it appears?

Not uniformly. Keller and Shan (2026), in three studies in China including an investment-scenario experiment, found that perceived Jewish financial success did not trigger antisemitism there, with Jewish managers rated more profitable and more ethical and treated as models to emulate. Set beside Hadar and colleagues (2026) across six other national samples, the finding bounds the perceived-power route as culturally contingent rather than automatic.

Sources

• Associated Press, 2026. AIPAC faces test of its power in Illinois primary as Democrats debate its role. apnews.com. Press analysis citing Federal Election Commission records.
• Becker, M., Ascone, L., Troschke, H., 2022. Antisemitic Comments on Facebook Pages of Leading British, French, and German Media Outlets. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. DOI 10.1057/s41599-022-01337-8. Peer-reviewed.
• Brennan Center for Justice, 2026. Money in Politics Roundup, May 2026. brennancenter.org. Research organization.
• Americans for Middle East Understanding, 2023. AIPAC, Dark Money, and the Assault on Democracy. ameu.org. Advocacy organization.
• ABC News, 2025. DNC votes on dark money resolution singling out AIPAC, defers action. abcnews.com. Press.
• Common Dreams, 2024. AIPAC’s Dark Money Arm Unleashes Blitz. commondreams.org. Press (advocacy-aligned).
• Federal Election Commission. Reporting and disclosure requirements for political committees and independent-expenditure-only committees, including 24-hour and 48-hour independent expenditure notices and the $200 itemization threshold. fec.gov. Official record.
• Hadar, B., Halevy, N., Cohen, T., Apfelbaum, E., Chan, E., 2026. The Perils of Perceived Power: The Dual-Threat Model of Antisemitism. American Psychologist. DOI 10.1037/amp0001693. Peer-reviewed (abstract-sourced).
• Internal Revenue Service. Public disclosure requirements for tax-exempt organizations, Form 990 and Schedule B. irs.gov. Official record.
• Jikeli, G., Axelrod, D., Fischer, R., Forouzesh, E., Jeong, W., Miehling, D., Soemer, K., 2022. Differences Between Antisemitic and Non-Antisemitic English Language Tweets. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory. DOI 10.1007/s10588-022-09363-2. Peer-reviewed.
• Keller, J., Shan, W., 2026. Emulation versus Envy: Jewish Managerial Stereotypes in China. American Psychologist. DOI 10.1037/amp0001712. Peer-reviewed (abstract-sourced).
• Küçük, Ö. N., 2025. Funding in the Shadow of Conflict: AIPAC’s Financial Influence on US Congress Post-2023 Israel-Hamas War. Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 12(1), 1 to 20. DOI 10.26513/tocd.1574363. Peer-reviewed.
• OpenSecrets, 2025. American Israel Public Affairs Committee PAC, candidate recipients, 2024 cycle. FEC committee C00797670. opensecrets.org. Campaign-finance aggregator tabulating Federal Election Commission filings.
• OpenSecrets, 2025. United Democracy Project, outside spending detail, 2024 cycle. FEC committee C00799031. opensecrets.org. Campaign-finance aggregator tabulating Federal Election Commission filings.
• Politico, 2026. Mamdani called AIPAC “dark money monsters.” politico.com. Press.
• The Guardian, 2026. Aipac affiliate has funded lavish trips to Israel for dozens of Congress members since 7 October. theguardian.com. Press analysis of congressional ethics filings.
• US Congress, 2021 to 2024. Recorded votes: House Roll Call 275 (117th Congress), House Roll Calls 577 and 152 (118th Congress), Senate Record Vote 154 (118th Congress). congress.gov. Official record.
• US Congressional Research Service. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments, RL33222. congress.gov. Official record.
• US Department of State, 2016. Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and Israel on Security Assistance, signed 14 September 2016. state.gov. Official record.
• Weinberg, D., Levy, A., Edwards, G., Kopstein, J., Frey, S., and colleagues, 2025. Hidden in Plain Sight: Antisemitic Content in QAnon Subreddits. PLoS ONE. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0318988. Peer-reviewed.