Schiff’s anti-Azerbaijan push fails to gain traction in Senate A lobbyist’s misguided effort

The U.S. Senate effectively rebuffed the Armenian lobby by refusing to consider an anti-Azerbaijani amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, proposed by Democrat Adam Schiff. The amendment, which aimed to pressure Azerbaijan, was so politically biased and detached from reality that it never even reached a vote.

Notably, Schiff called on Washington to demand that Baku “cease the sham trials of Armenians who are in the custody of the Government of Azerbaijan” and to “ return all Armenian prisoners of war and captured civilians to Armenia.” The proposal also urged the Trump administration to increase diplomatic pressure on Baku, including through the OSCE Minsk Group, and even suggested considering personal sanctions against Azerbaijani officials under the Magnitsky Act.

However, these proposals were never placed on the agenda for discussion. Schiff’s amendment was, in reality, little more than a political spectacle—doomed to fail from the outset. No senator was willing to back a measure that directly contradicted the White House’s efforts to promote dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The result was predictable: the amendment never reached a vote. For Schiff, it was another defeat; for the Armenian lobby, it was a clear signal that the era of emotional declarations and historical myths is over. And the significance of this outcome is especially clear considering Schiff’s long-standing ties to the U.S. Armenian diaspora.

A representative from California, elected from a district with a historically strong Armenian community, Adam Schiff has consistently and conspicuously taken anti-Azerbaijani positions. He has been a key initiator of numerous resolutions that misrepresent the causes and consequences of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, portraying Azerbaijan as the “aggressor.” He has repeatedly accused Baku of “war crimes” and “genocide” against Armenians in Karabakh. For example, during the 2020 Patriotic War, Schiff demanded in a Congressional speech that the U.S. “intervene and stop Baku,” describing the liberation of Azerbaijani territories as a “humanitarian catastrophe” and effectively defending Armenian separatism. Yet, these actions are only part of the picture.

Schiff’s name has long been associated, as a politician aligned with the U.S. Armenian diaspora, with another well-known supporter of Armenian interests – former Senator Robert Menendez. Menendez became infamous not only for his numerous anti-Azerbaijani initiatives but also for high-profile corruption scandals, including accusations of accepting bribes, engaging in illegal dealings with foreign companies, and abusing his office. Against this backdrop, Schiff’s activities also raise questions: his so-called “principles” frequently align with the interests of the Armenian diaspora, which is known to fund the election campaigns of its Congressional allies generously. It is therefore not inconceivable that, in the future, U.S. law enforcement authorities might uncover something about Schiff reminiscent of the “Menendez case.”

An interesting point: Schiff’s amendment was published on July 31. In it, he called on the Trump administration to engage with the Azerbaijani government at all levels, including through the OSCE Minsk Group. Yet just a few days later, on August 8, during a summit of the leaders of Azerbaijan, the U.S., and Armenia in Washington, the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a joint statement to the current OSCE Chair calling for the closure of the OSCE Minsk process.

Overall, while Schiff and like-minded pro-Armenian American politicians try to throw obstacles into the negotiation process, diplomacy is moving forward. While some are building peace, others remain stuck in the past, repeating mantras from thirty years ago. In this context, Schiff’s amendment was nothing more than a political spectacle for the wealthy donors of the U.S. Armenian diaspora. It was doomed to fail from the start. Even among Democrats, there were no willing supporters for a measure that contradicted the White House’s current approach to fostering dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The outcome of this adventure is both predictable and telling. It is clear that the Senate’s decision serves as yet another confirmation that the influence of pro-Armenian circles in American politics is rapidly diminishing. While a decade ago such initiatives might have gathered dozens of signatures, today they provoke nothing but weary irritation. The world has changed, and American foreign policy is increasingly less dependent on ethnic lobbies. Today, the priorities are stability, energy routes, and strategic alliances. Azerbaijan is a key element in this architecture.