President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that the US would soon cut off military aid to Israel.
During an Election Day interview with Fox & Friends, Trump said of Israel, “We were giving them $4 billion but it’s cut off at the end of the year.”
When asked to explain this position, Trump said that Israel was a “very successful country” that didn’t need Americans’ money — and that the aid had become an “easy target” for “lunatics like [Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Abdul] El-Sayed” in the midterm elections. Trump also suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed with this reasoning and supported a cessation of US aid to his country.
Of course, Trump says a lot of things. If all of his policy declarations could be taken at face value, then US soldiers would now be patrolling the streets of Gaza, while American hoteliers redeveloped its coastline.
Further, Trump’s remarks Tuesday morning seem to have been ad-libbed. The Israeli Treasury Department reportedly had no knowledge of a supposed joint agreement to end US aid. And existing US law provides Israel with $3.8 billion in annual funding through 2028.
All this said, Trump didn’t pluck his Election Day rant out of thin air. Rather, his remarks actually reflect a prominent strain of thinking among Israeli leaders and security experts. In their view, America’s cash may no longer be worth the political blowback that it invites.
Given this Israeli sentiment — and the souring of American public opinion toward Israel — the United States might very well draw down aid in the near future (although, probably not as soon as “the end of the year”).
The Israeli case against US aid to Israel
During a May interview with 60 Minutes, Netanyahu said he would like to “draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have.”
Amit Halevi, a lawmaker in Israel’s parliament and member of Netanyahu’s party, spelled out the logic of his position last year. In a pamphlet outlining his vision for the US-Israel relationship, Halevi said US military aid “creates a false narrative of dependency, weakens Israel’s global standing and subjects it to political pressure.” Halevi met with the leadership of the Heritage Foundation — arguably, the GOP’s most influential think tank — in 2025, shortly after Heritage had released its own controversial call for the (very gradual) phasing out of US aid to Israel.
Many on the Israeli right believe that such aid compromises Israeli sovereignty. As the retired Israel Defense Forces general Amir Avivi told Breitbart in 2024, aid “puts on Israel lots of restrictions,” which prevent it from pursuing its security interests with a free hand. Similar concerns have been voiced by former Israeli Prime Minster Naftali Bennet and ex-Israeli ambassador to Israel Michael Oren.
Their argument boils down to two observations:
- There are many forms of US support that Israel would struggle to do without — but financial aid is not one of them.
- Direct financial aid provokes political blowback in a way that other, more essential forms of US assistance do not.
There is evidence for both these points. In 2025, Israel spent about 7.9 percent of its GDP on the IDF. To sustain its 2025 level of military funding — without American cash — Israel would need to dedicate 8.5 percent of GDP to its military. This might irritate Israel’s taxpayers. But it would scarcely threaten Israel’s ability to pursue whatever foreign policy it sees fit.
By contrast, Israel does need access to American military hardware. It has the money to fund its own military. But to adequately provision it, Israel must be allowed to purchase American-made fighter jets, among myriad other forms of martial technology. And the Israelis would also have a tough time doing without its broad military, diplomatic, and intelligence alliance with the United States.
That alliance has attracted some criticism on the American left and right this year — particularly, after the US partnered with Israel to launch a war against Iran.
But Israel’s American critics seem to have found the aid issue uniquely politically potent. Which makes sense: A voter doesn’t need to have any strong opinion about the Israel-Palestine conflict to oppose sending billions of dollars to a wealthy foreign country. Unlike proposals for an arms embargo or sanctions, cutting off aid speaks directly to Americans’ material interests; that money could be going to US citizens but is flowing to the Israeli military instead.
In his Senate race, Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has tried to tap into this isolationist sentiment, describing his plans for slashing aid to Israel — and increasing benefits for US citizens — as an “America First” agenda.
Meanwhile, in a controversial ad, an outside group supporting El-Sayed’s candidacy made this argument in blunter terms, portraying a couple forced to pare back their grocery list, in order to save enough money for “killing Palestinians.”
US aid to Israel is not actually responsible for Americans’ rising grocery bills (although, the war in Iran plausibly is). But the broader isolationist argument has wide resonance. In a recent survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a majority of Americans favored either reducing or ending aid to Israel. And whether or not Trump’s aid comments referred to a solid plan, his political aides swiftly used them to reclaim the “America First” banner from Democrats like El-Sayed.
Faced with these dynamics, it isn’t hard to see how an Israeli leader might think it best to beat a strategic retreat on financial aid.
A phase-out of US aid may be coming, whether Israel likes it or not
To be clear, Israel’s leadership is by no means united in favor of Trump’s impromptu proposal. Indeed, even those who support winding down US aid have insisted that this withdrawal of financial backing must be gradual. And Gadi Eisenkot, the man most likely to become Israel’s next prime minister, is a staunch advocate for indefinite US aid. On Tuesday, Eisenkot assailed Netanyahu for his purported agreement with Trump about winding down such assistance. Both Israeli leaders are currently trying to cobble together a parliamentary majority through alliances with small political parties, after each failed to win such a majority outright in Israel’s recent elections.
Still, it is quite plausible that Netanyahu genuinely told Trump that he was open to phasing out US aid, given the Israeli prime minister’s public remarks on that subject.
In any case, authority over US spending ultimately lies with the American people’s elected representatives, not Israeli officials. On the US left, right, and center, political winds are blowing against aid to Israel. With some of that country’s own leaders and admirers bowing to such gusts, the draw down of American aid to Israel might now be a matter of when, not if.