U.S. Congressional Stances on Aid to Pakistan (2005–2025) | Data

Background and Scope (2005–2025)

Over the past two decades, Pakistan has been a major recipient of U.S. foreign assistance – including military aid (e.g. counterterrorism support, weapons transfers), economic aid (development and economic support funds), and humanitarian aid (disaster relief). This period spans the post-9/11 counterterrorism partnership, the 2009 Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act ("Kerry-Lugar-Berman" Act), and fluctuating relations (e.g. after the 2011 Osama bin Laden raid, and the 2018 suspension of security aid). U.S. lawmakers have periodically debated and voted on Pakistan aid, reflecting concerns over Pakistan's role in counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and human rights.

Below is a comprehensive analysis of key congressional votes and actions from 2005–2025 related to aid for Pakistan, and identification of current (sitting as of 2025) members of Congress who have consistently supported, opposed, or taken a mixed stance on that aid. We highlight not only final passage votes on major bills, but also significant amendments, committee votes, and floor actions – with particular emphasis on votes tied to military aid to Pakistan. All data is drawn from official congressional records and reputable analyses, with sources cited.

Major Votes and Legislative Actions on Pakistan Aid (2005–2025)

Tripling Aid in 2009: Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act

In 2009, amid efforts to strengthen Pakistan's civilian government and counter extremism, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (often called the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act). This law authorized $1.5 billion per year in non-military aid to Pakistan from 2010–2014 for development and democracy programs. It also imposed conditions on military aid, requiring the U.S. President to certify Pakistan's cooperation against terrorism and nuclear proliferation to continue security assistance.

The bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support – it passed the Senate unanimously and the House by voice vote (no dissent recorded). Then-Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) co-sponsored the act, and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) championed it.

Stance of current members: Most current members in Congress who were present in 2009 (primarily senior Democrats and Republicans) supported this aid expansion. For example, then-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD, now a Senator) and then-Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC, still in the House) backed the bill. There was little organized opposition at the time, aside from a few voices raising concern about Pakistan's commitment; any opposition was too small to register in a recorded vote. (Notably, the bill's easy passage reflected a broad consensus in 2009 that strengthening Pakistan's civilian institutions and economy was in the U.S. interest.)

Post-2011 Backlash: Aid Under Scrutiny After bin Laden Raid

The U.S. commando raid in May 2011 that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, led to bipartisan frustration in Congress over Pakistan's "double game" in counterterrorism. Soon after, lawmakers moved to reevaluate U.S. aid. In July 2011, during consideration of the FY2012 Defense Appropriations bill, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) offered amendments on the House floor to slash U.S. aid to Pakistan.

One Poe amendment sought to cut $1 billion from the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) – the fund used to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations – effectively eliminating those reimbursements. This amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 131–297. Another Poe amendment, to cut $1 billion from the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, likewise failed (140–285). A more extreme amendment by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to prohibit all aid to Pakistan was soundly rejected 88–338.

These votes showed that, in mid-2011, only a minority of the House – mostly Republican fiscal hawks and a few anti-war Democrats – wanted to severely reduce or terminate Pakistan's aid, while a large bipartisan majority voted to continue funding (albeit amid "discomfort" and calls for greater conditionality).

Key members and their votes: Many current House members were present for these 2011 votes. Notably, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ, elected 2010) voted AYE on cutting Pakistan's aid (aligning with the Tea Party wave's push to rein in foreign aid). By contrast, Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX, then on the Appropriations Committee, now Chair) voted NO, opposing the aid cut – reflecting the view of GOP leadership and appropriators that aid should continue with conditions.

Among Democrats, liberal members split: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) – a consistent advocate for limiting war spending – voted AYE to reduce Pakistan's military reimbursements, whereas many others (including then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)) voted NO to cutting aid, preferring to maintain engagement. These patterns foreshadowed which lawmakers would emerge as opponents or supporters of Pakistan aid in subsequent years.

In the Senate, parallel skepticism grew. In May 2011, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Sen. John Kerry, held hearings scrutinizing Pakistan's role. Although no immediate floor vote occurred in 2011, sentiment in both chambers was trending toward conditioning or trimming aid, rather than an outright cutoff. This set the stage for more stringent conditions in appropriations. (Indeed, by late 2011 Congress conditioned a portion of Pakistan's CSF reimbursements on counterterrorism cooperation, requiring the Defense Secretary to certify Pakistan's efforts against militants like the Haqqani Network – a provision many current members such as Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) supported in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act.)

2012: Cutting Aid in Response to Pakistan's Policies

Tensions spiked further in 2012 due to events like Pakistan's jailing of Dr. Shakil Afridi (who aided the CIA in the bin Laden operation) and Pakistan's temporary closure of NATO supply lines into Afghanistan. Congress reacted on multiple fronts:

House Floor (July 2012)

In the FY2013 Defense Appropriations debate, Rep. Ted Poe again pushed to reduce aid. This time, House leadership and appropriators agreed to a compromise cut. An amendment to reduce $650 million in military aid to Pakistan (half the year's requested CSF amount) was adopted unanimously by voice vote.

Poe had initially demanded a larger $1.3 billion cut but settled for $650 million, which the House approved without objection. According to media reports, this reduction – cutting CSF for Pakistan from $1.3 billion down to $650 million – reflected a "latest jab at Pakistan" that even aid supporters in the House accepted, given widespread anger over Pakistan's lack of full cooperation. The House's Pentagon funding bill ultimately passed with this bipartisan provision, signaling a rare moment of near consensus to pare back military aid as a rebuke to Pakistan. (The Senate later agreed to some Pakistan aid restrictions in the final appropriations.)

Senate Appropriations Committee (May 2012)

In a symbolic move, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to cut an additional $33 million in aid to Pakistan – "$1 million for each year" of Dr. Afridi's 33-year prison sentence. This 30–0 committee vote (with support from both parties' appropriators, including current Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT, then committee chairman) and Susan Collins (R-ME)) underscored the deteriorating U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

Lawmakers like Graham warned that the U.S. "needs Pakistan, but we don't need a Pakistan that is double-dealing". Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also blasted Pakistan's treatment of Afridi during this debate. The $33 million cut was relatively modest – "given the level of anger, the $33 million cut seemed modest" – and primarily targeted military aid (while leaving civilian economic aid intact). It served as a warning: the committee signaled further aid would be withheld until Pakistan met certain conditions (Graham noted the money would be restored only once the U.S. certified Afridi's release).

Rand Paul's Campaign (2012)

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who had been holding up Senate business to demand votes on foreign aid cuts, forced a floor vote in late September 2012 on a bill to freeze all U.S. aid to Pakistan (and Libya and Egypt) unless certain conditions were met (including Dr. Afridi's release). The Senate overwhelmingly defeated Paul's proposal. The measure failed on a bipartisan 10–81 vote (only 10 senators – all Republicans – voted to cut off Pakistan and related aid).

Current Senators who were part of that tiny minority in 2012 include Rand Paul himself and likely Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jim DeMint (R-SC; DeMint's seat is now held by Sen. Tim Scott). Meanwhile, Senate GOP leaders and foreign policy hawks of both parties strongly opposed Rand Paul's effort. In debate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) lambasted the idea of an aid cutoff as "terrible public policy", arguing it would undermine U.S. interests. Then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and others even cast late "No" votes to ensure Paul's plan was resoundingly rejected, emphasizing the Senate's enduring internationalist streak.

In summary, by end of 2012 Congress had imposed tougher conditions and modest cuts on Pakistan's aid – especially military aid – but had stopped short of terminating assistance.

Continued Conditional Aid (2013–2016)

From 2013 through 2016, direct votes on Pakistan aid became less frequent, but Congress used annual authorization and appropriations bills to maintain pressure: placing conditions on military aid in law and occasionally debating specific aid issues.

Aid with Conditions

Congress repeatedly included certification requirements in annual legislation. For example, the FY2014 and FY2015 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) required the Defense Secretary to certify that Pakistan was taking action against the Haqqani Network and other militants as a condition for releasing certain Coalition Support Fund reimbursements. Members still generally supported funding for Pakistan's counterterrorism role, but these provisions – often endorsed by figures like Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) – signaled a "tough love" approach.

In practice, when Pakistan failed to meet benchmarks, Congress (in concert with the Administration) did withhold funds. For instance, in 2015, $300 million in CSF reimbursements were withheld after then-Defense Secretary Mattis declined to certify full Pakistani compliance – an outcome consistent with the restrictions Congress put in place. Lawmakers such as Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) (both still in Congress as of 2025) were vocal in oversight hearings, warning that "blank checks" to Pakistan were unacceptable and praising these conditional aid provisions.

F-16 Fighter Sale Dispute (2016)

A flashpoint came in 2016 over a proposed U.S. sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan (partly subsidized by U.S. funds). Senator Rand Paul invoked the Arms Export Control Act to force a Senate vote to block the $700 million F-16 sale. This became effectively a proxy vote on U.S. military aid to Pakistan.

On March 10, 2016, the Senate voted on Paul's resolution of disapproval. The result was 24 in favor (to block the sale) and 71 against, as the Senate voted to table (kill) Paul's measure. While Paul's effort failed by a wide margin, the 24 "nay" votes (those siding with Paul, against the arms aid) are telling. They included a bipartisan mix of Pakistan aid skeptics: Republicans like Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Steve Daines (R-MT), Rand Paul himself, and Tim Scott (R-SC), as well as Democrats Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Jon Tester (D-MT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Mark Warner (D-VA).

These senators – many of whom are still in office – took the position that Pakistan's behavior (e.g. failure to crack down on the Haqqani network) did not merit advanced U.S. weaponry or additional military aid. "Pakistan is at best a frenemy – part friend and a lot enemy," Rand Paul argued in urging colleagues to block the sale.

On the other side, 71 senators, including most committee leaders, voted to allow the F-16 deal (effectively supporting continued military aid and trusting the Obama Administration's strategy). Influential voices like Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) opposed Paul's "blunt" tactic even if they shared some frustration; they favored maintaining aid but using "subtle ways" to induce better Pakistani cooperation.

Notably, then-Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker (R-TN) didn't vote to block the sale via Paul's resolution, but he separately put a hold on U.S. financing for the F-16s, achieving a similar effect by delaying funds. In summary, the 2016 F-16 vote highlighted a core group of lawmakers willing to vote against military aid to Pakistan, even as a larger bipartisan contingent still sided with the executive branch to continue security assistance for an ally – albeit an ally often described as unreliable.

Aid Suspensions and Recent Developments (2018–2025)

By 2018, U.S. policy took a significant turn. In January 2018, the Trump Administration suspended most security aid to Pakistan, citing inadequate action against terrorists. This move had tacit support from several longtime Pakistan aid critics on Capitol Hill. Senator Rand Paul enthusiastically backed the suspension – even introducing a bill to permanently end U.S. aid to Pakistan and redirect those funds to domestic infrastructure.

Paul's "End Aid to Pakistan" bill (2018) garnered support from a couple of like-minded House members, Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who introduced a House companion. While Paul's bill did not advance to a vote, the executive branch suspension effectively achieved what aid opponents in Congress had long sought. In subsequent defense budgets (FY2019 and beyond), Congress zeroed out or repurposed Pakistan's military aid accounts – for instance, by removing Pakistan from the list of eligible CSF recipients. Many current members (especially Republicans) raised no objection to these measures, indicating bipartisan fatigue with Pakistan's government by the late 2010s.

On the other hand, some lawmakers urged caution. Throughout 2019–2021, as the U.S. sought Pakistan's help in Taliban peace talks and post-withdrawal stability in Afghanistan, supportive voices like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) suggested that limited security assistance might be restored if Pakistan met certain benchmarks (e.g. helping against ISIS-K or facilitating evacuations).

In 2021, after the fall of Kabul, a group of Republican senators led by Jim Risch (R-ID) introduced a bill to scrutinize and potentially sanction Pakistan for its ties to the Taliban, reflecting continued skepticism among many sitting GOP members (Risch, along with Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Todd Young (R-IN), signaled that Pakistan should not receive aid while abetting Taliban advances). This bill did not come to a vote, but it exemplifies the hardened stance of many current Republicans. Conversely, Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ, current SFRC Chair) have advised against totally severing ties, instead favoring a calibrated approach that supports Pakistan's civil society and humanitarian needs while holding its military accountable.

Humanitarian Aid

One area of continued bipartisan support is humanitarian assistance. When Pakistan was struck by catastrophic floods in 2010 and again in 2022, the U.S. Congress and administration moved to help. In 2022, for instance, the U.S. provided roughly $97 million in disaster relief for Pakistan's flood victims – funding that came from global humanitarian accounts that Congress funds. Even staunch aid skeptics in Congress did not oppose such relief. Lawmakers from both parties, including critics of military aid (like Sen. Sherrod Brown) and supporters (like Sen. Mitt Romney), generally agree on the value of humanitarian support. This underscores that opposition to "aid to Pakistan" in Congress is often targeted at military or unconditional cash assistance, rather than emergency humanitarian aid to the Pakistani people.

In summary, by 2025 the U.S. security aid pipeline to Pakistan remains largely shut (as initiated in 2018), with Congress showing little interest in reopening it absent significant Pakistani policy changes. Economic and development aid continues at lower levels, with oversight. Humanitarian aid is provided on a case-by-case basis for crises. The stage is set with a cohort of sitting members of Congress who have established track records either supporting continued engagement/aid to Pakistan or opposing aid (especially military aid) – as well as some whose stance has been mixed or conditional. Below we identify these key members and summarize their positions and notable actions.

Key Supporters of Aid to Pakistan (Sitting Members as of 2025)

"Supporters" refers to those lawmakers who have generally voted in favor of providing aid to Pakistan, advocated maintaining assistance (with appropriate conditions), and opposed blanket cuts or holds. These members tend to emphasize Pakistan's strategic importance (for counterterrorism, regional stability, or diplomatic leverage) and the benefits of engagement over isolation. Many also differentiate between Pakistan's civilian population and military, supporting civilian aid even when critical of the Pakistani military's conduct.

Senate Supporters

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): A prominent voice on defense and foreign operations appropriations, Graham has often defended sustaining aid to Pakistan as an investment in U.S. security partnerships. In 2012, as noted, he led a symbolic cut to protest the Afridi jailing but called it "modest" and reiterated "We need Pakistan. Pakistan needs us.". Graham opposed Rand Paul's sweeping cuts (voting No in 2012's 10–81 vote and against the 2016 F-16 block). He argued that abandoning Pakistan would backfire, preferring to work "in other ways" to induce change rather than a blunt cutoff. Summary stance: Support, with willingness to condition aid but not end it.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): As current Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez has supported aid programs for Pakistan aimed at economic development and security cooperation – albeit with strict oversight. He voted with the majority against cutting aid in 2012 and 2016. Menendez emphasizes Pakistan's role in counterterrorism and has worked on initiatives to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan. He generally supports aid (e.g. endorsing Kerry-Lugar-Berman in 2009 and opposing aid cut amendments), while pushing Pakistan on issues like terrorism and more recently voicing concern over Pakistan's stance on Afghanistan. Stance: Support.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The Senate Republican Leader has a long internationalist record. McConnell supported continued Pakistan aid during the 2000s and 2010s, in line with both the Bush and Obama Administrations. Notably, in the 2013 vote on Egypt aid (analogous to Pakistan debates), he quietly voted with Rand Paul only after the outcome was decided, highlighting that his true position was to uphold foreign aid commitments. He also reportedly intervened in 2012 to ensure Pakistan aid was not slashed indiscriminately, given U.S. forces still relied on Pakistani supply routes. McConnell's public remarks have warned against isolationism. Stance: Support (he has never been in the camp of cutting off Pakistan).
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): A veteran on intelligence matters (serving through 2023–24), Feinstein was a staunch advocate for engagement with Pakistan. She was a key supporter of the 2009 tripling of aid and, in 2012, passionately defended Dr. Afridi while not calling for broad aid cuts (she voted to table Paul's 2016 resolution, i.e. in favor of the F-16 sale). Feinstein often argued that bolstering Pakistan's civilian government and counterterrorism capability was the best path, citing the need to keep Pakistan as a (albeit difficult) ally. Stance: Support.

House Supporters

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD): Currently a senior House Democrat (and was Majority Leader), Hoyer has consistently supported foreign aid appropriations, including those to Pakistan. He opposed the 2011 Poe amendments (voting No on cutting $1 billion in CSF) and has spoken about the importance of development aid in Pakistan for regional stability. Hoyer has never been associated with efforts to defund Pakistan – instead, he typically rallies Democrats to support omnibus bills that include aid. Stance: Support.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): The Ranking Member (former Chair) of House Foreign Affairs, Meeks has favored sustained assistance to Pakistan to promote security cooperation and economic development. He has highlighted aid's role in improving education and civil society. Meeks voted against aid-cut amendments like those in 2011, aligning with the majority of Democrats to keep aid flows. In recent hearings, he cautioned that disengaging from Pakistan could drive it toward U.S. rivals. Stance: Support.

Other Notable Supporters

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI, Armed Services Chair) – generally supports mil-to-mil ties and aid, voting No on radical cuts
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) – voted to continue the F-16 sale in 2016 and stresses diplomatic engagement (Support)
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) – while critical in rhetoric (especially post-2021), historically he voted with Corker and others to table Paul's 2016 effort, indicating support for aid at that time
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), a long-time appropriator, routinely backed foreign aid bills (Support)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), a current HFAC member, has supported humanitarian and economic aid to allies and likely opposes total cutoff (Support)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) – both voted to table the 2016 block, thus supporting continued assistance

In general, most current Democrats in Congress fall under "support" (they favor foreign aid funding in Pakistan for development and health, and only selectively oppose military aid when warranted).

Key Opponents of Aid to Pakistan (Sitting Members as of 2025)

"Opponents" are those who have consistently pushed to reduce or eliminate U.S. aid to Pakistan, especially military aid. They often cite Pakistan's alleged duplicity (harboring militants targeting U.S. troops, etc.), misuse of funds, or a belief that U.S. funds are better spent at home. These members have sponsored cut-off amendments, voted in favor of restricting aid at every opportunity, or made public statements against aid.

Senate Opponents

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): The most outspoken opponent of aid to Pakistan in the Senate. Paul has made multiple attempts to end or freeze aid. In July 2012, he introduced an amendment to condition aid on Dr. Afridi's release, and in Sept 2012 forced a floor vote to cut off all aid to Pakistan (defeated 10–81). He famously said "I can't in good conscience look away as...politicians tax us to send money to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad. Pakistan is…a lot enemy," during the 2016 F-16 debate. He was one of only 24 votes (and the lone Republican from Kentucky, as McConnell opposed him) trying to block that arms sale. In 2018, Paul introduced a bill to completely end Pakistan aid and boasted of President Trump's support for his stance. Summary stance: Oppose – Paul has consistently opposed nearly all forms of aid to Pakistan (military and even economic), aligning with a non-interventionist, "America First" philosophy. (Key votes: Voted YES on 2012 and 2016 measures to cut aid; introduced S.OLE (2018) to halt aid.)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): A close ally of Rand Paul philosophically, Lee has similarly skeptical views of foreign aid. Although Lee missed the 2016 F-16 vote (he was recorded as not voting), he was one of the small group of Republicans who likely supported Paul's 2012 attempt (contemporaneous reports list Lee as sympathetic to Paul's cause). Lee often votes "No" on omnibus spending that includes foreign aid. In 2013, he was among 13 votes supporting Paul's Egypt aid cut, indicating a general posture of opposing aid to countries seen as not fully aligned with U.S. interests. Stance: Oppose (consistently votes to curtail foreign aid, including Pakistan's).
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): While most Democrats favor foreign aid, Brown is an example of a progressive/populist Democrat who has been skeptical of military aid to Pakistan. Brown broke with his party in the 2016 vote – he was one of only a few Democrats (along with Senators Warren, Booker, etc.) to vote against the F-16 financing. He also likely supported the 2011 House efforts when he was in the House earlier (though by 2011 Brown was already in the Senate). Brown has argued that billions sent abroad could be used for American workers, a viewpoint that extends to Pakistan aid at times. However, Brown does support humanitarian aid. Stance: Mixed/Oppose (leans Oppose on military aid).
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Warren has generally been critical of arms sales to countries with poor human rights or conflicting interests. She voted with Paul in 2016 to block the F-16 sale. Warren's focus is often on anti-corruption and ensuring U.S. aid isn't misused. While she hasn't made Pakistan a signature issue, her votes indicate a willingness to oppose military aid there. Stance: Mixed (supports development aid, opposes military aid to Pakistan absent reforms).

House Opponents

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): In the House, Massie has been a libertarian-standard bearer opposing foreign aid. He voted for every amendment to cut Pakistan aid that came up during his tenure (e.g., he supported Poe's and Rohrabacher's efforts when he entered Congress in late 2012). Massie has also cast lone votes against broad foreign aid bills and even tried to halt security aid to various countries. While specific Pakistan votes for him are few (due to aid being handled in omnibus bills), he has co-sponsored bills like H.R. 5108 (118th) to abolish USAID entirely. Stance: Oppose.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA): Though a newer member (elected 2020), Greene has actively campaigned against foreign aid, including aid to Pakistan. She frequently cites a controversial line about "funding for Pakistan gender programs" to criticize U.S. aid priorities. In 2021–2022, Greene introduced amendments to cut specific Pakistan aid allocations and a bill to defund USAID. One amendment she offered (to a 2022 appropriations bill) sought to reallocate Pakistan aid money to domestic needs; while it failed, it drew ~170 Republican votes in favor. Greene's public "America First" stance puts Pakistan on a list of countries she believes "hate us" and thus should not get U.S. money. Stance: Oppose (consistently, for both military and non-military aid).
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): Another vocal critic of foreign aid, Gaetz has specifically inveighed against aid to Pakistan. He highlighted Pakistan's alleged lack of support for U.S. interests, especially after Afghanistan fell. Gaetz introduced an amendment in 2021 to shift funds from Pakistan to the U.S. border security (this was largely symbolic). He also voted Yes on Greene's attempts to cut Pakistan aid. Gaetz's stance: Oppose – he advocates zeroing out aid to countries he labels as untrustworthy (Pakistan often among them in his speeches).

Notable Cross-Party Opponents

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) – a notable critic of U.S. support to problematic regimes, he joined the 2016 opposition citing Pakistan as "an unreliable partner... these F-16s will provide cover...for not taking on roots of extremism." (Stance: Mixed, supportive of humanitarian aid but opposes rewarding Pakistan's army).
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) – long-serving Republican who surprisingly sided with cutting aid in 2016 and even back in 2011 signaled frustration; he tends to oppose aid if he perceives money is wasted (Stance: Oppose on record votes like 2016, though he doesn't campaign on it).
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) – she voted to block the F-16 sale (perhaps on security concerns), though generally moderate, indicating a more mixed stance.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) – consistently votes against military aid funding; she sees it as part of ending "forever wars" (Oppose for military aid, Support for humanitarian).
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) – voted to cut CSF in 2011 and often challenges military aid on human rights grounds (Stance: Oppose on military aid).
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) – a Freedom Caucus member who has explicitly called Pakistan untrustworthy (Oppose).
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) – voted with Paul in 2016, indicating opposition to aid then, though he's less vocal (Stance leaning Oppose on that vote).

Many of these "opponents" frame their stance as targeting Pakistan's military or government rather than its people – for example, they might support redirecting funds to humanitarian projects or to domestic needs. Their record, however, shows a pattern of voting to cut, restrict, or scrutinize aid to Pakistan at key junctures.

Summary of Congressional Stances (Selected Members)

The table below summarizes key sitting members of Congress (House or Senate, as of 2025) who have notable records on Pakistan aid. It lists their party, state, examples of key votes or actions related to Pakistan aid, and a summary classification of their stance:

Support – Generally supports U.S. aid to Pakistan (though often with conditions) and has opposed broad cuts.
Oppose – Consistently opposes aid (especially military aid), voting for cuts or blockages.
Mixed – Case-by-case stance; e.g. supports certain aid (development/humanitarian) but opposes or has voted to block other aid (military arms, etc).

Member	Chamber/Party (State)	Key Votes/Actions on Pakistan Aid	Stance
Lindsey Graham	Senate GOP (SC)	2012: Offered amendment cutting $33m (symbolic) in protest of Afridi jailing; Voted NO on Rand Paul's 2012 cutoff (10–81) and No on 2016 F-16 block (71–24). Advocates conditioning aid, not ending it.	Support (with conditions)
Bob Menendez	Senate DEM (NJ)	Supported Kerry-Lugar 2009 (vocally); consistently voted against aid cut amendments (2012, 2016) – e.g. voted with majority to table F-16 block. As SFRC Chair, insisted on oversight but argued against abandoning Pakistan.	Support
Mitch McConnell	Senate GOP (KY)	Opposed Paul's moves (reportedly helped defeat 2012 attempt); voted to table 2016 aid-blocking resolution. Publicly warns against isolationism. Backed continued aid in war-on-terror context.	Support
Dianne Feinstein	Senate DEM (CA)	Defended Pakistan cooperation post-9/11; 2012: denounced Afridi verdict but did not back aid cutoff; Voted YEA to allow F-16 sale (2016). Longtime proponent of engagement.	Support
Rand Paul	Senate GOP (KY)	Led multiple anti-aid efforts: 2012 bill to freeze all aid (got 10 votes); 2016 forced vote to block F-16 sale (24–71); 2018 introduced bill to end aid. Votes and rhetoric consistently to stop funding Pakistan's government.	Oppose
Mike Lee	Senate GOP (UT)	Libertarian-aligned with Paul: supported general foreign aid cuts. Though absent on 2016 Pakistan vote, he backed 2012 effort (as per Roll Call reports). Co-sponsored bills to slash aid broadly.	Oppose (consistent)
Chris Murphy	Senate DEM (CT)	2016: Broke with Obama admin – voted to block F-16 sale, citing Pakistan as "unreliable". However, supports humanitarian aid and diplomatic engagement. (Supported 2022 flood aid, etc.)	Mixed (Tough on military aid)
Sherrod Brown	Senate DEM (OH)	One of 10 "Yes" votes to cut off aid in Sep 2012; and one of 24 to block F-16 aid in 2016. Favors domestic priorities over funding Pakistan's military. Supports humanitarian aid.	Mixed/Oppose (opposes mil. aid)
Elizabeth Warren	Senate DEM (MA)	Voted Nay (with Paul) in 2016 to stop F-16 sale. Has raised concerns about U.S. arms to Pakistan. Likely would back conditioning aid on human rights. No major public initiatives on Pakistan aid beyond votes.	Mixed (skeptical of mil. aid)
Chuck Grassley	Senate GOP (IA)	Longest-serving GOP senator, normally pro-defense – yet voted with Paul in 2016 (against F-16 aid) and in 2011 supported tougher line (expressed distrust of Pak. in hearings). Generally wary of foreign aid misuse.	Oppose (on key votes)
Tim Scott	Senate GOP (SC)	New in Senate in 2013 (filled DeMint seat). Voted with Paul in 2016 to block aid (one of few GOP). Has since been quieter on issue. Tends to vote party line on others.	Oppose (in 2016 vote)
Jeanne Shaheen	Senate DEM (NH)	Voted to table 2016 block (supported sale). Emphasizes conditional engagement (worked on securing funds for Pakistan's anti-terrorism efforts with oversight). Criticized wholesale cuts as counterproductive.	Support (conditional)
Susan Collins	Senate GOP (ME)	A moderate who in 2016 voted to block F-16 subsidy (breaking with GOP majority). Likely driven by concerns about Pakistan's reliability. Generally supports foreign aid, but her 2016 vote was notable.	Mixed
Steny Hoyer	House DEM (MD)	Voted NO on 2011 amendments to cut $1B aid; consistently supports foreign aid appropriations (helped pass Pakistan aid funds in omnibus bills). Advocates development and counter-terror aid with accountability.	Support
Gregory Meeks	House DEM (NY)	As HFAC Chair (2021–22), opposed Trump's aid cutoff, calling for calibrated aid. Voted against Poe/Rohrabacher cuts in 2011 (No on 131–297 vote). Supports civil society aid and security ties with reforms.	Support
Kay Granger	House GOP (TX)	Top GOP appropriator. Opposed 2011 Tea Party cuts (voted No on Poe amendments); ensured funding for Pakistan in defense budgets albeit with riders. Believes in maintaining alliances via aid.	Support
Thomas Massie	House GOP (KY)	Consistent isolationist: votes against nearly all foreign aid. Likely one of ~16 House Republicans to oppose 2022 omnibus (with Pakistan aid). Co-sponsored bill to abolish foreign aid agency (USAID).	Oppose (across the board)
Marjorie T. Greene	House GOP (GA)	Introduced amendments to cut Pakistan aid (e.g. FY22, which 170 GOP supported). Outspoken that "not a penny" should go to Pakistan or similar nations. Consistently votes NO on budgets with foreign aid.	Oppose
Matt Gaetz	House GOP (FL)	Voted with Greene on cuts; proposed shifting Pakistan aid to border security (amendment) in 2021 (not adopted). Frequently cites Pakistan's links to Taliban as reason to end aid. Votes NO on most foreign aid funding.	Oppose (mil. aid especially)
Barbara Lee	House DEM (CA)	Progressive anti-war voice. Voted AYE on 2011 cuts to war-related aid for Pakistan; often introduces amendments to reduce military funding (including Pakistan's). However, supports humanitarian aid to Pak. people.	Mixed (Oppose mil, Support human.)
Earl Blumenauer	House DEM (OR)	Another progressive: voted YES on 2011 Poe cut of $1B CSF. Has criticized Pakistan's record on extremism. Generally votes with Dems on final bills, but registers protest votes via amendments.	Mixed/Oppose (similar to Lee)
Brad Sherman	House DEM (CA)	HFAC Asia subcommittee member. Critic of Pakistan's tolerance of militants – pushed to condition aid (e.g. called for cutting off F-16 support after 2016). Still, voted for civilian aid packages.	Mixed (tough conditionality)

Conclusion

The congressional record from 2005–2025 reveals a complex landscape of attitudes toward aid to Pakistan. While the 2009 Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, subsequent events – particularly the 2011 bin Laden raid and Pakistan's perceived "double game" in counterterrorism – led to increased skepticism and conditionality in Congress.

Key patterns emerge:

Military vs. Civilian Aid: Opposition has been most pronounced regarding military assistance, with many members supporting humanitarian and development aid while opposing arms transfers or security assistance.
Regional and Partisan Divides: Opposition tends to be strongest among libertarian Republicans (Paul, Lee, Massie) and progressive Democrats (Warren, Lee, Blumenauer), while establishment figures from both parties generally support conditional engagement.
Evolution Over Time: Congressional sentiment has hardened since 2011, with the 2018 suspension of security aid receiving broad tacit support and little effort to restore military assistance as of 2025.
Humanitarian Exception: Even strong aid opponents typically support disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, indicating that opposition is primarily directed at Pakistan's government and military rather than its people.

The current congressional landscape suggests that any restoration of significant aid to Pakistan would require substantial changes in Pakistan's policies, particularly regarding counterterrorism cooperation and regional stability. Meanwhile, the divide between "supporters" and "opponents" often comes down to different approaches to achieving similar goals – whether engagement with conditions or pressure through aid restrictions is more likely to produce desired Pakistani behavior changes.

Sources: Official congressional vote records (Congress.gov, Clerk of House, Senate.gov) were used to compile the above, along with contemporary news reports and analyses. Key votes and statements are documented from sources such as Politico, Senate roll call records, House Clerk vote tallies, and Congressional Research Service summaries, among others.