With Israel’s current 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. set to expire in 2028, Jerusalem is reportedly seeking a renewed and expanded agreement that would run through 2048 — though questions remain over the deal’s final framework and the future of U.S.-Israel assistance. 

The current memorandum between the two countries was signed in 2016 under President Barack Obama and provides Israel with $3.8 billion in military aid and missile-defense funding annually. 

The first 10-year framework agreement between the two countries, for $21.3 billion, went into effect in 1998, during the Clinton administration. The second, for $32 billion, began in 2008 under President George W. Bush. 

Israel is looking to finalize a new 20-year agreement that entails more in annual assistance, with hopes of securing the deal within the next year. Negotiations were previously delayed due to the war in Gaza; however, Israeli and U.S. officials confirmed to Axios that initial discussion began in recent weeks. In an interview with journalist Erin Molan last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the Axios report, however, “I don’t know what they’re talking about. My direction is the exact opposite.”

“MOU negotiations typically take a long time, and waiting for both countries to get through their respective 2026 elections puts the start of these talks well into fiscal year 2027,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If there are going to be changes in the funding levels, Israeli and American budgeteers will want this information as early as possible.”

“If the Israelis have any concerns about the strength of support in the U.S. or in the subsequent administrations, securing an agreement now is smart,” said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “2028 is an election year, and it’s better to resolve this now. In addition, they may believe that President Trump will be friendlier than any likely successor.”

In his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration has significantly reduced foreign aid spending, and members of both parties have become increasingly skeptical of U.S. assistance to Israel. 

Experts argued that it would be in Israel’s best interest to secure a deal now amid the uncertainty over future support from U.S. officials. Stroul said Israel “may be calculating that it is better to get out ahead of this trend and lock in U.S. commitments before the midterm elections.”

“If the Israelis have any concerns about the strength of support in the U.S. or in the subsequent administrations, securing an agreement now is smart,” said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “2028 is an election year, and it’s better to resolve this now. In addition, they may believe that President Trump will be friendlier than any likely successor.”

Chuck Freilich, Israel’s former deputy national security advisor and an associate professor of political science at Columbia University, echoed those sentiments, and said the agreement will not be a “done deal” as it has been in the past. 

“I don’t think it’s going to be easy this time,” Freilich told Jewish Insider. 

“It’ll still be a very tough sell,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Israel’s solid value proposition as a U.S. partner falls flat with Trump’s base, which tends to reject the premise that we need strong international partnerships.”

Abrams, who served under several Republican presidents, including as Iran envoy during the first Trump administration, said that despite growing skepticism, he does not view the right wing as a problem to Israel’s security agreement ambitions.

“Trump has been insistent that he and he alone defines what MAGA means,” said Abrams. “I don’t think the problem will be the Trump administration or the MAGA voters, who in all polls are strongly supportive of Israel. It will be the Democrats, whose representatives in Congress have cast votes in the last two years that suggest limiting aid to Israel.”

However, some experts argue that such a package still might not be palatable to the MAGA base. 

“It’ll still be a very tough sell,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Israel’s solid value proposition as a U.S. partner falls flat with Trump’s base, which tends to reject the premise that we need strong international partnerships.”

In response to debates over foreign aid, Israel’s proposal reportedly includes “America First” provisions, designed to appeal to the president and his base. This includes using some of the money for joint U.S.-Israeli research and development, rather than direct military aid. 

“The reported changes deal with development and duration,” said David May, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The new MOU would include provisions for funding joint U.S.-Israel research and development projects. Israeli research and ingenuity are part of what makes the relationship so beneficial for the United States, so it is natural to emphasize this fruitful aspect.”

Stroul said these parts of the proposed framework would benefit both parties moving forward.

“Israel and the U.S. can clearly benefit from more co-production, and more joint research,” said Stroul. “The U.S. military should already be learning from the IDF, who are coming out of two years of continuous, multi-front, all-domain warfare, including establishing complete air superiority over Iran.”

“The reality is that military aid is spent in the United States after approval by the U.S. government,” Stroul added. “This is critical for maintaining military production lines in the U.S.  Trump is focused on revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and industry, and creating jobs for Americans. His team is focused on upgrading and streamlining the defense industry. President Trump has a solid track record of bucking the voices in his MAGA coalition questioning Israel and U.S. commitments in the Middle East when it works for Americans.”

U.S. aid agreements are viewed in Israel as vital to preserving its qualitative military edge over regional adversaries. Washington has either jointly developed or financed all three layers of Israel’s missile-defense architecture — the short-range Iron Dome, medium-range David’s Sling and long-range Arrow systems.

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid since 1946 and remains among the top recipients of U.S. arms sales. Brad Bowman, a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the perception that U.S. foreign assistance to Israel is a gift with no return on investment is a misguided approach.

“I think there’s a misperception in some circles in Washington that this is like a charity handout,” said Bowman. “Americans get far more than we give in the relationship with Israel. Some of our allies and partners actually know how to throw a punch against common adversaries, and I put Israel near the top of that list. So when you have an ally or partner like that helping them throw more effective punches it is not charity. It’s a wise investment.”

“Remarkably, the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has only deepened over the past two years despite increasing criticism of its approach to Gaza,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It would be an unmistakable signal to Iran and its degraded network for the U.S to signal through a longer MOU that it will continue to stand with, and invest in, Israeli’s offensive and defensive capabilities.”

By strengthening Israel, Bowman argues that American diplomacy is reinforced and Iran is likely to take the U.S. “more seriously.” 

While U.S. aid once accounted for a large share of Israel’s defense budget, it has declined in recent years as Israel’s economy and domestic defense industry have expanded. Still, Israel depends on American weaponry and security assistance.

“Remarkably, the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has only deepened over the past two years despite increasing criticism of its approach to Gaza,” said Stroul. “It would be an unmistakable signal to Iran and its degraded network for the U.S to signal through a longer MOU that it will continue to stand with, and invest in, Israeli’s offensive and defensive capabilities.”

Analysts said Israel’s reliance on U.S. defense systems is not likely to fade anytime soon, expressing that security ties between Washington and Jerusalem will remain indispensable, even as Israel works to grow its domestic defense capabilities.

“Israel learned from the Gaza war that it needs to manufacture what it can at home — some forms of ammunition, for example — and stockpile what it can,” said Abrams. “But it cannot be independent from the U.S. because it does not manufacture jets or much of the ordinance they use, as well as other weapons systems.”

Bowman echoed these sentiments, telling JI that Israel is “never going to be completely independent in terms of producing its own weapons.” 

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied reports about the framework of a new aid agreement, and has increased calls for an “independent” defense industry. 

“Netanyahu may want to deny it at the moment until he wraps things up with Trump,” said Freilich. “This may have gotten out earlier than he wanted it to, and maybe in a way that he didn’t want it to.”

Freilich said that Trump is unlikely to approve just “any new deal,” and said Israel will need to prepare for a future in which it gradually weans off U.S. assistance.

“[Israel’s] not going to be able to get massive aid forever — at some point it has to end,” Freilich said. “You have to differentiate between the financial aspect and the arms supply aspect. Israel will depend on American weapons for the very long term, if not forever. But that doesn’t mean they have to be funded forever by the U.S.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) championed a U.S. defense agreement with Lebanon during a bipartisan congressional delegation to Beirut on Tuesday, saying it would be the “biggest change in the history of Lebanon.”

Speaking at a press conference alongside Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Graham asked, “How many nations have a defense agreement with the United States? Very few. … The number of nations that America is willing to go to war for is very few. Why do I mention Lebanon being in that group? You have one thing going for you that is very valuable to me: religious diversity.”

“Christianity is under siege in the Mideast. Christians are being slaughtered and run out of all over, all over the region, except here. And so what I am going to tell my colleagues is, ‘Why don’t we invest in defending religious diversity in the Mideast? Why don’t we have a relationship with Lebanon where we would actually defend what you’re doing?’” he continued. 

“I think it’s in America’s interest to defend religious diversity, whether you’re Druze or Alawite or a Christian or whatever. The idea that America may one day have a defense agreement with Lebanon changes Lebanon unlike any single thing I could think of,” Graham said.

During their visit, the delegation, joined by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, diplomat Morgan Ortagus and U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson, met with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and head of the Lebanese Armed Forces Gen. Rodolph Haykal.

During the press conference, the lawmakers conveyed their encouragement over the progress that Lebanon has made in military, financial and democratic reforms and their hope that the government would be able to execute the changes fully. 

“We all see Lebanon is at a point of change. We’re here to tell you that we’re buying into that change, that we support what you’re trying to do. That if you do make an effort to disarm Hezbollah, we’ll be there trying to help. We’ll try to help your military, we’ll try to help your economy. We think that’s the right thing for you to do, and it benefits the entire region,” Graham said.

“If you’re able to pull this off, Saudi Arabia will look at you differently. If you’re able to pull it off, Israel will look at you differently. If you’re able to pull this off, there’ll be a groundswell of support in Washington to help your economy and to help your military,” he continued.

“Congress is looking at Lebanon differently because you’re behaving differently. If you continue to go down this road, I think you have a wonderful opportunity to secure your nation, economically, militarily, like anything I’ve seen since I’ve been coming to the region with [the late Sen.] John McCain (R-AZ). It all depends on what happens with the Hezbollah file and the Palestinian file.”

Wilson compared recent changes in Lebanon and in Syria with the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. “There’s such an opportunity for stability, security, for economic prosperity, for everyone,” he said.

Graham also emphasized the potential for improved relations between Israel and Lebanon if Hezbollah was contained. “If I were the Israeli prime minister, I would be looking at Lebanon differently after Hezbollah was disarmed by the Lebanese people,” he said.

Pressed by reporters on what steps Israel is taking to disarm Hezbollah and de-escalate conflict, Graham answered, “Why do you need Israel to tell you to disarm Hezbollah? That’s not Israel’s decision. That’s yours. Whether [the IDF] withdraw[s from southern Lebanon] or not, it depends on what you do. So don’t tell me anymore, ‘We’re not going to disarm Hezbollah until Israel does something.’ If that’s the model, you’re going to fail.” 

“The reason you disarm Hezbollah is because it’s best for you. This country is going backward, not forward, if you don’t follow through with disarming the Palestinians and Hezbollah and making the Lebanese army the central repository of arms for the nation. If you don’t do that, you’re going nowhere,” the South Carolina senator said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement yesterday that he “acknowledges the significant step taken by the Lebanese Government” and that “in light of this important development, Israel stands ready to support Lebanon in its efforts to disarm Hezbollah and to work together towards a more secure and stable future for both nations.”

Netanyahu pledged that if the Lebanese Armed Forces “take the necessary steps to implement the disarmament of Hezbollah, Israel will engage in reciprocal measures.”

Shaheen and Graham, both of whom serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke about their support for supplying U.S. funding for the LAF and Lebanon’s financial recovery.

Shaheen called the steps Lebanon’s government has pledged to make in military and banking reforms “critical” and said the lawmakers will “continue to press for support, through legislation and through the appropriations process, support for the avenue that Lebanon has chosen for your future.”