Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Cannot Be Trusted — And Why Thomas Massie Deserves Support Instead

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) rose to prominence in American politics as a self-described progressive outsider. She promised to challenge the status quo, oppose corporate influence, and stand against harmful foreign policy decisions. Many voters, particularly younger and left-leaning Americans, embraced her as a fresh voice who would challenge entrenched political powers. But as her time in Congress has unfolded, troubling contradictions have emerged—especially in her voting record regarding Israel.

For those who believed AOC would consistently stand against unjust wars and foreign entanglements, her actions suggest otherwise. Despite her rhetoric, she has supported measures that benefit Israel, a government that continues to receive billions in U.S. aid while perpetuating policies condemned internationally for human rights violations against Palestinians. By voting for bills that funnel money and weapons to Israel, AOC has aligned herself—whether intentionally or through political pressure—with the very establishment forces she once promised to oppose.

This inconsistency raises a serious question: if AOC cannot stand firm against Washington’s bipartisan consensus on Israel, how can she be trusted to hold the line on other issues?

AOC’s Contradictions

One of the most glaring examples of AOC’s inconsistency came when she voted to fund Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. This system, while framed as defensive, is part of a broader military apparatus that sustains Israel’s dominance over Palestinians. For progressives who expected her to resist enabling further militarization, this was a clear betrayal.

At times, AOC has attempted to walk a fine line—criticizing Israel rhetorically while still supporting measures that strengthen its military capacity. This balancing act reveals a deeper problem: she appears more concerned with maintaining political viability within the Democratic Party than with holding true to her stated principles. It is a pattern that too many politicians fall into—sounding radical on Twitter, but voting safely on the House floor.

When it comes to foreign policy, actions matter more than words. And AOC’s actions have revealed a willingness to compromise on issues of war, peace, and justice.

Why Thomas Massie Offers a Clearer Path

In stark contrast, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky has consistently demonstrated independence from both parties’ establishments. Though he is often described as libertarian-leaning rather than progressive, Massie’s record on foreign policy makes him one of the most principled and trustworthy members of Congress.

Massie is often the lone “no” vote on bills that send billions in taxpayer dollars overseas, whether to Ukraine, Israel, or elsewhere. He has repeatedly emphasized that American resources should not be used to subsidize foreign conflicts. Instead, he argues that the U.S. government should prioritize its own citizens, protect constitutional liberties, and avoid unnecessary entanglements abroad.

This approach may not fit neatly into the left-right spectrum, but it resonates with anyone who opposes endless wars and reckless spending. Unlike AOC, who shifts her stance depending on the pressures of party leadership, Massie has proven willing to stand alone when principle demands it.

Why This Matters

Support for Israel has become one of the most revealing litmus tests in American politics. Establishment Republicans and Democrats alike regularly approve massive military aid packages with little debate, treating Israel as untouchable no matter its actions on the world stage. For decades, this bipartisan consensus has blocked meaningful accountability while perpetuating conflict.

If a politician claims to oppose militarism but then votes to fund Israel’s military, that politician cannot be fully trusted. AOC’s vote for the Iron Dome and other pro-Israel measures shows she is not immune to the same compromises and contradictions that define much of Washington.

Thomas Massie, on the other hand, has demonstrated what real political courage looks like: refusing to rubber-stamp foreign aid, refusing to endorse unnecessary wars, and standing firm even when his vote is the only dissent.

A Call for a New Coalition

The lesson here is not that progressives should abandon their values in favor of libertarian ideals. Instead, it is that Americans who genuinely care about peace, justice, and independence from the Washington establishment must be willing to look beyond labels. Supporting Thomas Massie does not mean agreeing with him on every domestic policy issue. It means recognizing that, on the most crucial questions of war and peace, he has proven more trustworthy than many self-described progressives, including AOC.

Massie’s example shows that integrity in foreign policy is possible. He reminds us that politicians do not have to bow to party leadership or special interests. He shows that a single principled voice can shine a light on the corruption and conformity that dominate Congress.

Conclusion

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez entered politics as a symbol of hope for many who believed she would challenge the establishment. But her votes to fund Israel’s military show that she is not immune to the compromises that define Washington. In contrast, Thomas Massie has shown a rare consistency and courage, standing against foreign aid and endless wars even when isolated.

If voters want leaders who will truly resist the pressures of the political establishment, they must recognize that AOC cannot be fully trusted. Instead, they should look to figures like Thomas Massie—politicians willing to put principle above party, peace above militarism, and the American people above foreign interests.