How has Rep. Jasmine Crockett historically voted on foreign aid bills involving Israel?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Rep. Jasmine Crockett has a mixed voting record on Israel-related foreign aid: public statements and local reporting show she voted “yes” on at least one large supplemental package that included Israel funding and “no” on other bills that were Israel-only or she called partisan [1] [2] [3]. Crockett and her campaign contend there were multiple distinct votes — she says she opposed standalone Israel-only bills and supported a broader supplemental that bundled humanitarian funding for Gaza, Taiwan and Haiti alongside defense aid for Israel [2] [4].
1. What Crockett and her team say — a defensive nuance
Crockett has repeatedly told reporters and crowds that her record is not uniformly pro-Israel-only funding: she says she voted for a supplemental package that included defense aid for Israel but also humanitarian aid for Gaza and support for Taiwan and Haiti, and that she voted against other bills that funded only Israel [2] [4]. Her campaign framed one viral clip as misrepresenting those distinctions and emphasized that Republicans controlled what reached the House floor, meaning Democrats had to accept bundled compromises to secure aid for other places [2].
2. Public statements after a “no” vote on a Republican package
In November 2023 Crockett issued a press release saying she voted “NO” on what she called a “partisan, inadequate, and fiscally irresponsible Israel aid package” advanced by House Republicans under Speaker Johnson, arguing that the bill inappropriately attached spending cuts to emergency aid [3]. That statement is explicit: she positioned that vote as opposition to the Republican approach, not opposition to assistance in principle [3].
3. Local and national press reporting: clarity and correction claims
Local reporting and national outlets covering Crockett’s 2025 Senate bid note that social media clips have mischaracterized her votes; those reports say she “clarified” that one April supplemental she voted for funded multiple items beyond Israel, and that she “voted no” on other Israel-only bills [1] [2] [4]. Those outlets relay her argument that the nuance — multiple bills with different scopes — is being erased in viral posts [1] [2].
4. Outside trackers and advocacy sites portray a mixed picture
Advocacy and tracking sites show conflicting framings: some note she “voted yea” on a $26 billion Israel aid measure in 2024 and describe a pattern they view as supportive of large Israel funding rounds [5] [6]. Other groups sympathetic to restraint or peace activism record that her votes often align with their positions [7]. These differences reflect the varying missions and audiences of the sources: one external tracker labels votes as supportive of Israel aid [5], while Peace Action lists her as voting “with us” over her lifetime [7].
5. How many distinct votes matter — and why advocates fight over them
Supporters of Crockett point to “three votes” narrative: she allegedly voted no on two Israel-only measures and yes on a third, broader supplemental where Democrats negotiated humanitarian carve-outs [8]. Critics highlight her yes votes on major aid packages — including a noted $26 billion 2024 package cited by some monitors — to argue her record funds Israeli military operations [5] [6]. Both narratives rely on separating which bills were standalone Israel funding versus which were omnibus or supplemental bills that included multiple regions and humanitarian aid [2] [8].
6. Limitations in the available reporting
Available sources here do not supply the full roll-call history with bill numbers and exact vote dates for every relevant measure; they summarize outcomes, public statements and advocacy characterizations [3] [2] [5]. Detailed vote-by-vote roll calls or a comprehensive vote table are not present in the provided material; therefore precise counts beyond the cited examples cannot be asserted from these sources alone (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next — transparency, context, and political framing
For voters seeking clarity, the clearest path is to compare House roll-call records for each specific bill (standalone Israel appropriations, omnibus supplements, and the April supplemental referenced by Crockett) against her public statements; reporting here urges that nuance matters because bundling can change the political calculus [2] [8]. Note the political incentives: opponents selectively emphasize yes votes on large packages; allies emphasize no votes on Israel-only bills and the humanitarian language secured by Democrats [2] [5].
Summary judgment for readers: Crockett has both voted against at least one Republican Israel-focused package and voted for at least one broader supplemental that included Israel funding alongside humanitarian and regional aid; outside trackers and partisan commentators interpret those votes very differently depending on their agendas [3] [2] [5].