The U.S. House of Representatives faces an immune system showdown, as a rogue Republican tries to inject anti-Semitic venom into a key appropriations bill. The “National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act” (H.R.8595) will now see a vote on eliminating all military aid to Israel, courtesy of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

“This amendment singles out the State of Israel” in a way “detrimental to our national security,” Quena González, FRC’s senior director of Government Affairs, told members of Congress in a letter. “As our closest ally and the most mature democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a stabilizing force in the region. The United States and Israel share common civilizational values, and Israel also provides information, intelligence, technology, and more to the United States, which helps keep Americans safe.”

“None of the funds made available under this Act shall be obligated or expended for Israel,” Massie’s amendment states. It would also cut the “Foreign Military Financing Program” by $3.3 billion to squeeze out American military support for Israel. The House Rules Committee ruled the amendment in order on Monday, and the “Massie amendment” (he has two, but this is the controversial one) will receive a standalone vote as “Amendment No 8.”

Once known as a libertarian maverick, Rep. Massie has veered into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and impolitic needling of his fellow Republicans. After angering President Trump by helping Democrats to force the release of the Epstein files, Massie faced a serious primary challenger in Ed Gallrein, who was backed by Trump and ultimately prevailed.

However, instead of blaming his primary loss on Kentucky voters, his own poor decision-making, or even President Trump, Massie chose to blame Israel. On the night of his loss, Massie told supporters in a groundless gibe, “I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent to concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.” Fresh off his defeat in his reelection primary, Massie has evidently chosen to use his remaining ammunition not to better his constituents’ lives, nor to advance his libertarian ideology, but to take potshots at Israel.

Ironically, the Massie amendment has not created a headache for Israel so much as for Democratic House leadership. While Massie’s anti-Israel stance is an outlier among Republicans, opposition to Israel is widespread enough in the Democratic Party that its leadership cannot simply ignore it.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) informed his caucus in a Tuesday morning meeting that he would vote against the Massie amendment. That declaration was consistent with Jeffries’s “Dear Colleague” letter he distributed on Monday.

“I will be voting no on Republican Amendment #8 being offered to the National Security, Department of State and Related Programs Appropriations Act,” Jeffries wrote. “As written, it is overly broad in that it prohibits or would limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations. In addition, the so-called Massie amendment 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.”

“However,” Jeffries conceded, “given the strongly held views throughout the Caucus in this important area of foreign policy, we are not whipping this vote.” In other words, while Jeffries would set a personal example of opposing the Massie amendment, he would not spend political capital to coerce his fellow partisans to do the same.

This decision reflects either a calculation by Jeffries (a) that the Massie amendment is a low-priority issue, (b) that forcing Democrats to fall in line in support of Israel is an impossible objective, or (c) perhaps a bit of both.

Jeffries himself implied that the second option lay foremost in his thinking. “Republican leaders are desperately trying to weaponize an amendment they do not support for nakedly partisan reasons,” he accused.

Under normal circumstances, the House Rules Committee does not “weaponize an amendment” simply by ruling it in order. More than a dozen other amendments to the appropriations bill were ruled in order, without any suspicion that they were weaponized.

What makes Massie’s Amendment 8 different is that it invites progressive Democrats to express their unpopular anti-Israel bias on the record. Or, perhaps in political terms, Democrats must now choose between placating their anti-Semitic base or protecting themselves from accusations of anti-Semitism among the public at large. In other words, Jeffries’s contention that the amendment was “weaponized” only makes sense if many Democrats will inevitably vote for it.

House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) put the Democratic argument more bluntly. “The Republicans don’t like Massie, but they let this bill [he meant to say ‘amendment’] go because that could divide us.”

Of course, this argument defines the actions of Republicans through the eyes of their political opponents. The Rules Committee could have approved the Massie amendment for a number of reasons: procedural consistency, partisan charity, or even as a small part of some other deal.

Meanwhile, the pro-Israel minority in the Democratic Party cheered Jeffries’s public stand. “He was courageous this morning,” Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) told his staff. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) characterized Jeffries’s action as “putting principle and what’s best for America’s national security ahead of finger in the wind politics.”

Note that Jeffries won credit for a courageous and principled stand for a vote on which he didn’t even try to whip his own party. Given the current state of the Democratic Party, simply expressing personal opposition to the anti-Israel mob wins credit.

Not that Democrats voting for the Massie amendment have good reasons for doing so. “I’m a ‘lean yes,’ and think it’s a crappy amendment,” one Democrat told Axios anonymously. “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 member predicted “at least 40” Democrats would support the amendment.

Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) made the same point on the record. Including himself, he expected a “very sizable number of people [to] vote for the Massie amendment if it comes up this week,” adding that “a ‘yes’ vote ... is what clearly signals that the Netanyahu government’s actions are unacceptable.”

In other words, some progressives believe voting to end all military aid to Israel is the only way to express disapproval of Israel shooting back at the genocidal terrorists who surround it.

As for the Jewish caucus, even it “is completely split,” according to another anonymous Democrat. “Some people are voting yes, some voting no, some voting present. All of it is bad. Every option is bad.”

Some Republican strategist is probably wishing right now that he had planned the amendment as a “weapon,” so that he could take credit for provoking such a perplexing predicament among Democrats.

That was always unlikely, however. With the stakes so high (especially for Israel), it would be irresponsible to risk such an amendment actually passing. Current predictions suggest the Massie amendment will fail; with Republicans mostly united behind Israel, it will likely take only a handful of Democrats to sink the amendment.

Still, Congress reaches plenty of deals at the last minute, so nothing is ever final until the votes are closed. FRC Action will score against the Massie amendment in its annual scorecard, González notified representatives in his letter.