Despite initially conflicting claims emerging from the White House and Iranian state media about the contents and timing of a memorandum of understanding between the parties, there were indications on Friday that the gaps between the two sides could be closing. 

Prime Minister of Pakistan Shehbaz Sharif confirmed that a “final and agreed version of the peace agreement has been achieved,” while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X that the memorandum of understanding “has never been closer,” a screenshot of which President Donald Trump reposted directly onto Truth Social.

Terms of the deal, first reported by Axios, include that the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened immediately without tolls and that the ceasefire would be extended for 60 days, including halting Israel’s military action in Lebanon. While the current text includes a framework for addressing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, any binding restrictions on its nuclear development would depend on a second, more detailed accord, according to the outlet. 

A White House official indicated on Friday that under the broader terms being discussed, Iran’s nuclear material would eventually be destroyed and removed from the country, its nuclear program dismantled and its funding of regional militant groups halted. Frozen Iranian assets would be released upon verified performance of those key metrics. 

Iranian state media, however, had reported a vastly different version of the deal, in which Iran would retain control over the strait and receive $300 million from the U.S. for reconstruction, as well as the suspension of sanctions and withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region — among other U.S. concessions. 

Trump rebuffed news of the deal’s provisions on Truth Social, writing that “the terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing.” Trump reportedly had asked the Iranians to issue public clarification over the Iranian state media reports. 

“Very dishonorable people to deal with,” Trump said of the Iranians. “With them, there is no such thing as dealing in good faith.”

Vice President JD Vance also rejected what he called “fake information,” and reiterated that “the president is going to get us a good outcome, one way or the other.” 

“First, the Iranians are not receiving any cash, and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting,” Vance posted on X. “The deal is structured to ensure that the U.S. and its allies’ concerns are prioritized, and that if the Islamic Republic of Iran meets its obligations, then economic benefits will flow to them and to the entire region.”

Araghchi said that pending the finalization of an agreement, “the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content.”

Reports indicate that while the deal has been approved at high levels of Iranian leadership, it has not yet received official clearance from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, despite Trump asserting he believes Khamenei had given the nod.

The sudden diplomatic momentum dramatically reshaped military operations on Thursday, when Trump ordered the Pentagon to call off scheduled airstrikes and a mission to capture Iran’s vital oil infrastructure on Kharg Island after announcing a deal was close at hand. The president hinted that a formal signing ceremony could take place over the weekend at a neutral venue in Europe, with Vance and White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff expected to attend.

“It seems that after repeated signs of an imminent deal for weeks now, a deal will be clear once U.S. and Iranian officials actually publicly agree to the same agreement,” Ari Cicurel, associate director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Jewish Insider. “Until then, it’s not clear that they actually have a deal yet.”

Cicurel noted, however, that the latest reports of an accord appear different from previous iterations throughout the conflict. He said he has seen “reports of [U.S. Air Force] aircraft heading to Europe,” which “could be a sign this is further down the road than previous efforts might have been.”

Foreign policy experts have expressed deep concern about the reported framework floated by the Iranian side, with several backing the Trump administration’s claims that it does not reflect the actual state of negotiations.

“I have been calling for Trump to accept the inevitable bad deal to get us out of this bad war. But even I think the absurd terms laid out here [in Iranian media reports] must represent Iranian spin and cannot possibly be the shape of the actual deal,” Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Biden administration, posted on X.

Richard Goldberg, a former Trump administration official, also expressed skepticism about the initial reporting coming out of Tehran.

“The reported MOU reads like an extortion racket guaranteed to preclude any nuclear concessions and instead lock the U.S. into paying the racket indefinitely for fear of the strait closing,” Goldberg posted on X. “It falls well below anything POTUS would consider a good deal so I question its veracity.”

“The claims that Iran made, if they’re anywhere near true, would be a disastrous agreement that would be rewarding Iranian aggression, providing it funds to further enable its aggression and rebuild its arsenal,” Cicurel said similarly. “The same leadership, the same regime that has been in charge of the proxy agents and conducted aggression against the United States and its partners remains in power.”

However, Cicurel noted that he also holds major concerns regarding the framework being presented by the White House — most notably, that negotiators have failed to address Iran’s missile capabilities.

“My main concern with the White House agreement is that with this proposal, and over the last few weeks, the discussion of Iran’s missile capabilities has disappeared from the conversation, which was a major mistake of the JCPOA and a major mistake of previous agreements,” Cicurel said. “Any agreement that doesn’t include that would enable Iran to take the lessons it’s learned from the current war — that it doesn’t need a lot of missiles, it doesn’t need a lot of drones to exert aggression on the Gulf — and leave a potentially dangerous situation over the long term, in the future.”

Cicurel also took issue with the White House’s indication that the MOU would launch another 60-day ceasefire, warning that the time would allow Iran to delay a durable, long-term settlement and gain leverage. He also argued that the U.S. should not release Iranian assets.

“I don’t think the United States should be unfreezing assets rewarding Iran for for its aggression and allow Iran to leverage its power projection over the Strait of Hormuz to extract financial gains that would enable it to rebuild itself to reassert more of that power projection over the Strait of Hormuz and further attack targets throughout the Middle East,” he said. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he wants to start the process of winding down U.S. aid to Israel in the final two years of the Trump administration, as both countries work on a new memorandum of understanding.

Netanyahu made the comments in an interview with CNBC’s Sara Eisen after being asked about his political future and when Israel would be ready for new leadership. The prime minister responded by noting that while the Israeli people could decide at “any time” to remove him from power, he is currently focused on achieving four objectives: “finish[ing] the security envelope that we have to make vis-à-vis Iran and its proxies”; securing more investments globally to expand Israel’s AI and tech sectors; normalizing relations with several countries in the Middle East; and ending Israel’s reliance on U.S. aid. 

“The other thing I want to do is move away, in America, from aid to partnership. We’re now working on a memorandum of understanding, which will bring down the aid,” Netanyahu said. “I want it to start now, I want it to start in the last two years of the Trump administration and I want it to keep going down, coming to zero, because I think we’ve come of age.” 

The current MOU, which provides Israel with $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid annually, runs through FY 2028. Netanyahu did not clarify whether he would like to see aid begin to wind down through changes to the current agreement, or whether he is focused on ongoing negotiations for the next one.

“Israel has a robust economy, and I want us to go from aid to a partnership where we both invest equal amounts and both share equally in the fruits of our innovators and technologies,” he continued. “I think that’s very, very important. It will also take away the myth that Israel is depleting America’s coffers.”

Netanyahu has said on multiple occasions since January that he hopes to wean Israel off of U.S. aid, initially suggesting in January that Israel would work to end U.S. aid within the next ten years. He pitched the aid drawdown to President Donald Trump in late December, an idea the president was initially bewildered by and not supportive of. 

Netanyahu also downplayed reports that Trump told him he is “f***ing crazy” in a phone call on Monday about Israel’s military escalation in Lebanon and rejected the notion that his relationship with the president had shifted, noting that the two speak as frequently as “every two days.” 

Still, he did not deny that the conversation occurred as reported.

“Sometimes we have, as in the best of families, you have these tactical disagreements. We always find a way to work them out and we do so as great friends,” Netanyahu said. “We can disagree in the morning, and by the afternoon we have common action.”

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on X that the next U.S. memorandum of understanding with Israel will end U.S. aid to Israel in favor of prioritizing trade.

“Israel receives $3.8 billion but spends far more than that buying US military goods. US also receives intel, tech innovations so that ROI is many times more,” Huckabee said on his personal account on X, responding to former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, who had argued in an interview that U.S. aid to Israel does not confer benefits to America. “New MOU w/ Israel ends aid & will be based on trade.”

Analysts have widely predicted that the next MOU, after the current one ends in 2028, will prioritize partnership programs jointly funded by both sides — which constitute a portion of current U.S. assistance to Israel — rather than direct financial aid, but the comments by Huckabee appear to be the first confirmation from a U.S. official that such plans are in the works.

Huckabee’s comments did not make clear whether the next agreement would phase out aid gradually or immediately.

The comments also come following repeated declarations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he wants to end U.S. financial assistance to Israel in the next decade, and on a backdrop of growing skepticism of U.S. aid to Israel on both sides of the aisle.

Prominent pro-Israel Republicans have endorsed Netanyahu’s effort to wind down U.S. aid.

But some critics of current U.S. aid are not likely to be satisfied by a shift to a cooperative model, or any system in which the U.S. continues to supply funding that benefits Israel’s defense.

Late last month, AIPAC circulated what seemed at first glance like a relatively anodyne memo stressing its support for the current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel, which guarantees $3.8 billion in annual military aid and missile-defense funding to Israel through 2028.

“Congress must fulfill America’s commitment by providing full security assistance and missile defense funding to Israel for the remainder of the MOU,” the group wrote in its missive published on April 28. 

The memo was notable, however, for what it left out: calling to negotiate a follow-up MOU — the future of which has been a topic of ongoing speculation among analysts and lawmakers beginning to think about the contours of a potential new agreement in a changing political landscape.

That AIPAC had only urged the implementation of the final two years of the current deal was in many ways a tacit acknowledgement of shifting attitudes against U.S. military aid even among supporters of Israel.

The omission, intentional or not, was otherwise reflective of uncertainty around an agreement that has drawn scrutiny not only among Israel critics on the far left and right but also moderate defenders of Israel in both parties who are openly questioning the necessity of U.S. military assistance to a longstanding Middle East ally.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for winding down U.S. financial aid over the next decade, saying that the Jewish state has “come of age” and matured economically to continue on its own. In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this month, he confirmed that he wanted to immediately begin the process of weaning Israel off of U.S. aid, noting the future of the U.S.-Israel alliance should be focused on joint projects equally funded by Israel and the United States.

“Each U.S.-Israel MOU to date — negotiated by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — has laid the framework for the decade ahead, strengthening an alliance that advances American interests, supports a strong and capable ally in an unstable region, and drives a remarkable ecosystem of joint development and cooperation between two reliable allies,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told Jewish Insider in a recent statement.  

Some pro-Israel Republican lawmakers — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), the Senate majority leader, and Roger Wicker (R-MS) — have welcomed the idea, even as the GOP has long touted its staunch support for such funding. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and Democratic presidential prospect who holds close personal ties to Israel, has advocated for immediately ending military aid to Israel, arguing it is not worth expending the “political capital” to promote spending that is facing mounting opposition in Congress and among voters.

But Jewish and pro-Israel groups seem at pains to clarify how they are now assessing an issue that has long been key to their advocacy — particularly as the conversation around such funding and the possibility for a new MOU, which remains an open question, has rapidly evolved in recent months.

“Each U.S.-Israel MOU to date — negotiated by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — has laid the framework for the decade ahead, strengthening an alliance that advances American interests, supports a strong and capable ally in an unstable region, and drives a remarkable ecosystem of joint development and cooperation between two reliable allies,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told Jewish Insider in a recent statement.  

She added, “We appreciate the Trump administration working closely with the Israeli government toward a new agreement that will strengthen and define the mutually beneficial partnership in the years ahead.”

“We’re figuring it out ourselves,” said Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, adding that he believed Israel “made a mistake” in choosing to forgo U.S. financial aid. He suggested that the U.S. sign “one more” MOU with Israel to cover the next 10 years and help Israel replenish its munitions stocks amid the war against Iran, which he believes is key to advancing American interests in the region. “It zeroes down at the very end,” he explained to JI.

In lieu of an agreement, Makovsky floated “non-monetary” alternatives, for instance, a U.S.-Israel mutual defense treaty — though he questioned whether such a pact could gain enough support in the Senate, where most Democrats recently voted in favor of resolutions to block arms sales to Israel.

Former U.S. and Israeli officials have also recently called for building closer technological ties between the two countries, in anticipation of an era in which financial aid is not a defining feature of the alliance.

“The model in which Israel is assisted by the United States and receives aid has a very small chance of continuing under any future administration,” former IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said this month while promoting a new strategic technology alliance with Tom Nides, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. “And perhaps even under the Trump administration, so we need to find a new basis for the relationship that is a transition from aid to partnership.”

Even as analysts had indicated last year that the U.S. should begin considering what the next MOU entails, it is unclear if the process is now seriously underway, as Netanyahu’s remarks have complicated the effort. One Hill staffer to a pro-Israel House member told JI he had no knowledge of discussions at the moment.

President Donald Trump was initially surprised when Netanyahu first proposed winding down U.S. funding late last year and did not immediately lend support to the move, JI has previously reported. 

A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the prospects for a future MOU, the framework for which first went into effect in 1998 during the Clinton administration. The current agreement was finalized in 2016 near the end of the Obama administration — which touted the deal as “the largest single pledge of military assistance in U.S. history” at the time.

Tal Naim, a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, referred JI to Netanyahu’s comments to “60 Minutes” this month.

Looking ahead, Brian Romick, the president of Democratic Majority for Israel, said “there can and should be a discussion about how the U.S.-Israeli security relationship should change with the times, how our partnership must evolve as Israel’s own capabilities grow and its security needs change, and how we can align on a long-term vision for the region.”

“While a new MOU should reflect that Israel’s economy has grown, it should also recognize that Israel’s defense requirements have too, and Israel may struggle to fill the gap in its defense budget that the loss of FMF would create,” Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power who specializes in U.S.-Israel security cooperation, said.

But, he added, “that debate must bring a serious analysis grounded in prioritizing America’s interests and Israel’s security. It cannot shift with political changes or in the middle of a war, especially when American troops are actively deployed in the region. Ultimately this will be a negotiated agreement between two democratically elected governments.”

A spokesperson for the American Jewish Committee likewise used broad strokes to discuss a future MOU, saying it is “far more than a financial commitment.”

The agreement “is a cornerstone of a broader strategic relationship that advances both U.S. and Israeli national security interests, strengthens deterrence against shared adversaries, and reinforces America’s commitment to the security of its closest ally in the Middle East,” the spokesperson told JI. “At a time of growing regional volatility and evolving security threats, maintaining strong and sustained U.S.-Israel security cooperation remains critically important.” 

Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power who specializes in U.S.-Israel security cooperation, said that “there will likely be a new, heavily modified MOU following the current agreement’s expiration.” 

Netanyahu, he told JI, “already revealed his desire to phase out American military aid, granted primarily as Foreign Military Financing,” which typically must be used to purchase U.S. defense products and services.

“While a new MOU should reflect that Israel’s economy has grown, it should also recognize that Israel’s defense requirements have too, and Israel may struggle to fill the gap in its defense budget that the loss of FMF would create,” Leopold-Cohen said.

Dan Shapiro, a U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration who served as a top defense official in the Biden administration, speculated that “the next MOU — if there is an MOU — will look very different from the current one.”

“It will likely phase out FMF, which both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Americans from the left and right are calling for,” Shapiro added. “It will likely emphasize joint research and development, sharing technological advances, and expanded co-production to answer President Trump’s question of what’s in it for the United States. To garner bipartisan support, it should include a consultative mechanism to ensure U.S. weapons are only used in ways consistent with American laws and values and that minimize civilian casualties.”

Daniel Silverberg, a former top foreign policy advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), characterized the MOU as “mutually beneficial,” saying that “it does not need to be exclusively assistance-based.”

“There are many ways to expand cooperation that involve more than giving aid,” he said. “The MOU is a key framework to do so, and it’s crucial to spell that out for a skeptical U.S. audience.”

But, he emphasized to JI, “We can’t want the MOU more than the Israelis want it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel is seeking to end the military assistance it receives from the U.S. in the next 10 years, a move that he said is “in the works.”

In an interview with The Economist released Friday, Netanyahu said that during his December visit to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., he told Trump that Israel “very deeply appreciate[s] the military aid that America has given us over the years.”

But, he said, “we’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacity. And our economy, which will reach, certainly within a decade, will reach about a trillion dollars — it’s not a huge economy, but it’s not a small economy. So I want to taper off military aid within the next 10 years.”

“And that’s not saying that I don’t want to fight for the allegiance and support of the American people — I do, you would have to be crazy not to,” Netanyahu continued.

“You want to taper it off to zero?” Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist, asked.

“Yes,” Netanyahu said.

“That would be a very dramatic shift,” Beddoes responded.

“Well, it’s in the works,” the prime minister replied.

Israel and the U.S. currently have a 10-year memorandum of understanding that provides Israel with $3.8 billion of security assistance annually, through 2028. Negotiations to establish the next MOU are underway.

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.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed a memorandum of understanding with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright on Tuesday, advancing U.S. and Israeli cooperation in energy and artificial intelligence research and integrating AI into the Abraham Accords.

“Artficial intelligence is the thrust of innovation now and will create unbelievable things in the future,” Netanyahu said during the signing ceremony at the Blair House in Washington. “It’s both challenging, because there could be bad things in it, but there could be unimaginable good things. I think we can lead this.”

The MOU calls for integrating artificial intelligence into the power grids of the U.S. and Israel, in addition to building joint policies around artificial intelligence usage. Regional agreements, including the Abraham Accords and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, will also be strengthened through the memorandum, according to a press release from the Prime Minister’s Office.

The move comes on the heels of the AI giant Nvidia announcing it will expand its presence in Israel, including opening a new R&D center, and the company’s acquisition of Israeli AI start-up Run:ai for $700 million.

During the ceremony, U.S. officials touted the benefits of the MOU, including minimizing the dangers within developing advanced AI models and its security-focused applications.

“This step takes us into the future around collaboration because we know that defense would not be working without artificial intelligence,” Burgum said. “But all the incredible technological leadership, the great entrepreneurship, the incredible startup community that’s strong and vibrant in Israel, all of this bodes well for the future. The first kind of agreement that Chris [Wright] and I have signed with any country is this one and we think it’s a great place to start.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed on Wednesday that the memorandum of understanding between the Trump administration and Qatar for the gift of a luxury jet worth $400 million to join the Air Force One fleet has not been completed and signed.

Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine were pressed repeatedly on the terms of the contract allowing for the U.S. to formally accept the Boeing 747 jumbo jet from Qatar while testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on the Pentagon’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget. The two largely declined to answer questions on the subject given the public setting, though the defense secretary acknowledged that the MOU was still being worked on.

“Any specifics about future aircraft that could be Air Force One can’t be discussed here, but there is a conversation about a memorandum of understanding. A memorandum of understanding remains to be signed,” Hegseth said in response to Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asking if the U.S. was currently in possession of the jet.

Hegseth declined to answer Reed’s subsequent questions about the price of the contract to reconfigure the aircraft, saying he would provide it to the senator’s office but could not divulge that information in public. He offered the same response when Reed asked about the delivery time for the reconfiguration contract. 

Reed pointed out that the terms of the contract originally signed with Boeing to deliver the next Air Force One jets were public while criticizing the secrecy around this deal. 

“The Boeing information was public knowledge — the delivery date, the cost, the course overruns — but this is not, because this is not only a bad deal for the American public, it is just gratifying the presidency, that’s all it is,” Reed said.

Later in the hearing, Hegseth again confirmed to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) that the MOU was still not signed. The Connecticut senator then pressed the defense secretary on the need for the Qatari jet, noting that the extensive modifications and security enhancements may keep it from being usable before Boeing’s new fleet of Air Force Ones are ready in 2028. 

“It doesn’t stand to reason that you will be able to retrofit the plane from Qatar much sooner than 2028 so I’m trying to understand what the gap is that we’re trying to fill. If this contract ends up being a half a billion dollars and the gap only ends up being six months, that doesn’t sound like a wise investment for this committee to make,” Murphy said.

Hegseth replied by pointing to the repeated delays from Boeing in delivering on their new fleet. “I don’t know that’s a firm fixed date yet, unfortunately, that can be counted on,” Hegseth said.

A senior Air Force official testified at a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last month that Boeing had told the service that it could potentially deliver the fleet by 2027 if certain requirements were lifted.

After Hegseth told Murphy it was his understanding that the plane would be transferred to Trump’s presidential library at the conclusion of his term, the Connecticut senator replied: “Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of $1 billion on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transferred directly to the president?”

Hegseth emphasized the importance of the modifications to “ensure the safety and security of the president of the United States,” but did not address Murphy’s question directly. 

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) pressed Hegseth on whether the Department of Defense or the Qataris initiated conversations about the jet and how the transaction came to be. Hegseth said he would need to “go back and review” the details and did not go into specifics, to which Schatz asked, “I think it kind of matters who’s asking, doesn’t it?”

“I think this is illegal and unconstitutional and I won’t rant about that, but I actually think from the standpoint of our collective responsibilities it very much matters what the paper flow was. Who started these conversations? Did it come out of the White House, did it come out of the secretary of state or the president or the SEC Def [secretary of defense] or at a lower level or ambassadors?” Schatz asked. 

“We’re entitled to know, because we can agree or disagree about the propriety of this, but my basic request of you is that if we’re going to disagree, let’s disagree with the same set of facts. Let’s have the documentation on the Qatari aircraft,” he continued.