House Democrats are deeply divided ahead of an expected vote this week on the proposed amendment of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to block U.S. funding for Israel, exposing growing tensions within the party over support for Israel and the war in Gaza.

The amendment, attached to a State Department funding bill, would prohibit U.S. funds from going to Israel without carving out humanitarian assistance.

While the measure is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House or survive the Senate, many Democrats view the vote as a symbolic test of the party's position on Israel.

One House Democrat, speaking anonymously to Axios, said, "Even I'm a lean 'yes' and think it's a crappy amendment," adding, "For me, it's more of a signal that something needs to change, and we can't just provide aid despite how it's being used."

The lawmaker predicted "at least 40" Democrats could support the measure.

A second Democrat described the difficult political calculus, telling Axios, "The Jewish caucus is completely split. Some people are voting 'yes,' some voting 'no,' some voting 'present.' All of it is bad. Every option is bad."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., announced Tuesday that he will oppose the amendment.

In a letter to colleagues obtained by the outlet, Jeffries called it "overly broad," arguing it would also restrict funding for "humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations."

Jeffries also warned the proposal would "restrict our country's ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of both the United States and Israel."

While opposing the amendment, Jeffries criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, writing, "In my view, there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government."

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., told Axios, "We as a team are evaluating where we are on that."

Centrist Democrats praised Jeffries' decision.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., told the outlet, "He was courageous this morning," while Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., added, "That's called putting principle and what's best for America's national security ahead of finger-in-the-wind politics."

Progressive Caucus Chairman Greg Casar, D-Texas, said he expects a "very sizable number of people [to] vote for the Massie amendment if it comes up this week."

Casar argued, "I simply think that a 'yes' vote is what clearly signals that the Netanyahu government's actions are unacceptable."

The anonymous Democrat lawmaker added that "some will vote 'yes' to signal their opposition to unconditional [foreign military financing] and support for stronger oversight of how U.S. security assistance is used."

Although Democrat leaders are not whipping the vote, Jeffries' letter also suggested openness to revisiting future military assistance.

He wrote that "a meaningful change in direction is needed" as Washington and Jerusalem prepare to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding and added, "Any future security arrangement between our two countries should strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values."

President of J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, backed Jeffries' approach, saying his organization "support[s] Leader Jeffries' decision to oppose the amendment while not whipping against it" and recognizes that "members may reasonably conclude that voting 'no,' 'present,' or 'yes' is the best way to reflect those competing concerns."

The debate reflects a broader shift within the Democratic Party coalition.

Since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack and Israel's military campaign in Gaza, progressive activists and many younger Democrat voters have become increasingly critical of Israel's conduct, fueling calls for conditions on U.S. military aid.

While most Democrat elected officials continue to support Israel's security and its alliance with the United States, divisions over the Netanyahu government and the scope of U.S. support have become more pronounced, creating one of the party's most politically sensitive foreign policy debates heading into the 2026 midterm elections.