Rep. Eliot Engel of New York is deeply unpopular, and it is not difficult to see why. After Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Engel’s primary opponent, Jamaal Bowman, Engel remarked that “this is not a dictatorship. This is a democracy. We shouldn’t have one person, from high, even though she’s a colleague of mine, think that she can anoint whoever’s elected.”

Of course, Engel’s own campaign website uses bold print to highlight his endorsements from the likes of Senators Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand. But there are other forces ‘from high’ that have anointed Engel throughout his lengthy, ignoble tenure in Congress. 

The corporate and ideological donors that have supported this agent of neoconservatism and settler-colonialism have now coalesced behind Engel after his ascent to Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On the domestic front, this is reflected in Engel’s support of the 1994 crime bill, deregulation of Wall Street, privatization of schools, and the construction of more prisons. In terms of foreign policy, as well, Engel acts as a gatekeeper to progressive reform.

The primary election on June 23 presents an opportunity to remove a key gatekeeper to a progressive foreign policy. Although this race will be decided by New York’s 16th congressional district, the effects of replacing Engel with a champion of working-class interests in Bowman will be felt globally. 

Chairman or de facto lobbyist?

In 2018, neoconservative and right-wing activist Morton Klein said, “I’m thrilled that my friend, Congressman Eliot Engel… will be chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.” 

Corporate donors have been equally enthusiastic. So far in the 2020 election cycle, Engel has accepted $43,300 in contributions from the defense industry. Two of his top-five donors[1] for this cycle,[2] Lockheed Martin and Raytheon,[3] are consistently among top-five corporate recipients of federal contracts. In 2018, no company received more federal contracts than Lockheed, and Raytheon ranked fourth, despite paying their CEOs $21.5 million and $17.1 million, respectively.

This election cycle will mark the fourth since Engel was elevated to a leadership position within the House Foreign Affairs Committee (he became Ranking Member of the committee in 2013 and Chairman in 2019). During this four-cycle stretch, Engel has taken in a combined $173,300 from the defense industry, nearly 87 percent of the total funding he has accepted from the defense industry since assuming office.[4] In the previous four election cycles, he received a total of $31,550 from this sector.[5]

Despite Democrats’ initiative to impeach Trump on the grounds of corruption, it is difficult to describe Engel’s willingness to accept campaign contributions from the defense industry as anything but corrupt. Engel willfully participates in a malign cycle in which public funds gratify parochial interests. Weapons manufacturers earn most of their revenue from taxpayer-funded DOD contracts, then turn around to fuel the electoral campaigns of the members of Congress who authorized these funds in the first place.

Perpetuating the occupation of Palestine

So far in the 2020 election cycle, no House candidate — Democrat or Republican — has received more contributions from pro-Israel interest groups than Eliot Engel. Since 1989, he has accepted $1,304,184 from these special interest groups.

Alongside Schumer and Gillibrand, Engel also trumpets his endorsement from the group Democratic Majority for Israel. The hybrid PAC was established last year to “defend Israel’s legitimacy”[6] and now ranks as a top-20 political contributor among pro-Israel groups.

It is also an example of Democratic support for neoconservative pro-Israel initiatives. The interest group spent $1.4 million on attack ads savaging the Bernie Sanders campaign, likely because Sanders had a foreign policy platform that was a significant departure from neoconservatism’s inherent militarism. Democratic Majority for Israel endorsed Joe Biden, who has a platform and track record that align closely with the neoconservative tradition.

Following Super Tuesday, the PAC used its resources to back incumbents with regressive foreign policy records such as Henry Cuellar — and Eliot Engel.

Most Democratic voters support reducing aid to Israel due to its flagrant and continuing human rights violations. However, Engel supported the Obama administration’s 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel that included $38 billion in military aid to Israel over ten years. This support is among the pillars of US complicity in the occupation of Palestine. 

Engel took this a step further by sponsoring legislation supporting even more overt forms of settler-colonialism. After UNSC Res 2334 passed unanimously, condemning Israeli settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories, Engel introduced a resolution that condemned the UN’s findings, and 109 Democrats and all but 4 Republicans in the House endorsed his reactionary resolution. Later, in 2019, Engel voted in support of anti-BDS legislation (H.Res. 246).

A history of belligerence

Engel’s ignominious record is not limited to self-dealing with the arms industry and financial dependence upon regressive, pro-occupation dark money groups. His voting record itself is also disastrous. 

Engel has supported endless war in the Middle East. In addition to the votes he cast in favor of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the 2002 Iraq War authorization, Engel also voted against a 2012 amendment that would have withdrawn troops from Afghanistan.

Engel has also sided with Congressional Republicans in escalating tensions toward war with Iran.  Most Americans support the Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Engel opposed the JCPOA. Especially powerful pro-Israel donor groups have cultivated bipartisan support for sanctions since the deal was enacted and, as usual, they found a useful proxy in Engel. Although Engel now says he supports the JCPOA, in 2017 he voted for new sanctions that are an explicit violation of the agreement and undermine it altogether. 

Engel has also supported the coercive Caesar sanctions on Syria. This sanctions package is a stalking horse for regime change, and it is a centerpiece of a regional strategy outlined by the right-wing Republican Study Committee with the aim of holding Syrian civilians hostage in a pointless effort to confront Iran regionally. 

Playing gatekeeper 

Engel’s disregard for non-US populations is mirrored by his attitude toward his own constituents in New York’s 16th congressional district. Earlier this month, Engel admitted, “if I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care.” Engel’s disregard for the basic tasks expected of an elected representative is apparent.[7] The House Foreign Affairs Committee was given an ‘F’ grade by one indexfor the 116th Congress due to the infrequency of oversight hearings conducted under Chairman Engel’s tenure. This represents a decline from the D-rating the committee received last session during which Engel first obtained the authority (and responsibility) to call hearings as Ranking Member.

Similarly, Engel’s conspicuous absence from his district during the public health pandemic was preceded by his hands-off approach to the US-led global weapons pandemic.[8] Over the course of the Trump administration, the US Government has approved and brokered at least $240 billion worth of arms sales. Congress could have objected to any of the major sales that make up this weapons bonanza, but has done so only on extremely limited occasions.  

Engel’s House Foreign Affairs Committee is (theoretically) a major actor in Congress’ oversight of arms sales. On behalf of the President, the State Department submits a preliminary notification of major prospective arms sales 20-40 days before receiving another formal notification that grants Congress another 30 days to object to a proposed sale. Both the preliminary and formal notifications are “provided to the committees of primary jurisdiction for arms sales issues. In the Senate, this is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in the House, it is the Foreign Affairs Committee.” (CRS, 1-2) The Department of Defense has submitted a copy of this notification to the House Foreign Affairs Committee directly, too.

In addition to inattention, maintaining the status quo also requires a conscientious effort to combat progressive reform. On June 16, 2016 Eliot Engel was one of only 16 Democrats to vote against an amendment (H.Amdt. 1212 to H.R. 5293) that sought to block funds from being used to transfer (or authorize the transfer) of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia, despite the Obama administration’s suspension of cluster munition transfers to Saudi Arabia, the range of forensic evidence showing the harm they inflict on Yemeni civilians, and the fact that cluster munitions are banned by 119 countries.

Less than three months later, the manufacturer of US cluster munitions used by the Saudis in Yemen, Textron Inc., announced it would discontinue production of these weapons. This is truly stunning: a defense contractor — a for-profit corporation belonging to one of the most anti-progressive forces in US politics — responded to pressure from progressive voices before Engel, the ‘progressive’ chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.[9] It wasn’t until November 2018 that Engel had a vote in his name opposing US complicity in atrocities in Yemen.

Moving forward (with Jamaal Bowman)

Initially, Bowman did not discuss foreign policy in much detail. In less than a year, he has emerged as a clear and steady voice, and his foreign policy priorities complement the working-class empowerment offered by his domestic platform. Bowman’s rejection of corporate PAC and lobbyist money indicates that he’s serious about responding to sources of insecurity as the working class defines them and not the definition of security espoused by Engel’s corporate and special interest donors.

[1] And four of his top-15.

[2] For the 2018 election cycle, defense contractors occupied four positions in Engel’s top-ten donor list.

[3] The fourth-highest donor to Engel’s 2020 reelection is Raytheon, which contributed $17,000. Lockheed Martin ranks fifth, contributing $12,500.

[4] Engel has received $200,050 in contributions from the defense industry since 1989.

[5] So far in the 2020 election cycle, Engel has accepted $43,300 in contributions from the defense industry. For the 2018 cycle, he accepted $43,000in contributions from this sector. For 2016, $42,000; 2014, $45,000; 2012, $9,250; 2010, $15,000; 2008, $5,300; 2006, $2,000.

[6] This resembles the mission to “enhance Israel’s image in North America” of Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a pro-Israel think tank. Like FDD, Democratic Majority for Israel provides another example of how ‘pro-Israel’ is often a euphemism for ‘neoconservative’ and ‘pro-occupation.’

[7] As police brutality is again at the forefront of national attention, the forces driving the militarization of police have come under renewed scrutiny. The sharing of worst practices between US police and Israeli security forces should undoubtedly be part of this conversation, as highlighted by initiatives like Jewish Voice for Peace’s Deadly Exchange campaign.

[8] Engel has also demonstrated a hands-off approach to his committee as a whole. 

[9] So far in this election cycle, Engel received $3,000 from Textron; in 2018, $2,000; 2016, $1,000. He did not receive any money from Textron during the 2012 or 2014 cycles.