House Democrats remain divided over a push by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to slash $3.3 billion in military aid the U.S. is set to provide Israel in the 2027 State Department funding bill, and top Democratic leaders are continuing to keep their own positions vague. 

But when that vote comes to the floor is still uncertain, as a handful of hard-line Republican rebels have pushed normal House business to a halt. Some senior House Democrats indicated that, even if they don’t support this particular effort, they still seek changes to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) continued to withhold his position on the amendment, after saying a day prior he might have more to share on the subject after a caucus meeting on Tuesday morning.

“Those conversations are ongoing,” Jeffries said. “We had a very productive meeting today, and as I’ve indicated, there’s a lot that needs to happen differently to get to a place where there’s a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and we all need to focus on actually achieving a two-state solution once and for all.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), the No. 3 House Democrat, said at a press conference on Tuesday that Democrats had continued to air a variety of views on the issue at the caucus meeting. But he again declined to offer Democratic leadership’s view on the subject, pending whether the amendment would actually come up for a vote.

“Whether you are supportive or in opposition to the Massie amendment, that doesn’t mean that we feel everything is going well in that region, and that doesn’t mean that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has a blank check,” Aguilar — generally viewed as one of the more staunchly pro-Israel members of Democratic leadership — said. “It also doesn’t mean that our aid and support will go on forever, and we will continue to work through that.”

He said that Democratic leaders would have more to share if and when the amendment comes up for a vote. Pressed on how and whether Democrats can explain their decision on the issue, Aguilar called it “tough and emotional for the American people,” before pivoting to criticize GOP policies.

The timing of the vote on the amendment remains in question, as right-wing Republicans have stalled the House floor for the second week in a row, blocking the procedural measure that would advance consideration of the State Department funding bill, as well as the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) — the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee — joined his counterparts on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees in opposing the amendment, putting the top Democrats on each national security committee in agreement. But he said he would support conditioning U.S. aid to Israel.

“The Massie amendment is way too overbroad,” Himes told Jewish Insider. “I am all in favor of making sure that the Israelis don’t get weapons that can find their way into settlers’ hands in the West Bank, [and] put some conditions on the way they conduct their wars in Gaza and in Lebanon. But this proposal is way overbroad.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) criticized Republicans for allowing the amendment to come to the floor at all. Republicans blocked another Massie-led amendment aiming to strip U.S.-Israel cooperation provisions out of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act from coming to the House floor.

“I still hope that [House Speaker Mike] Johnson (R-LA) pulls it,” Landsman told JI. “The other side allowing this to come to the floor is truly a mystery to me. My hope is that ultimately Johnson appreciates how terrible this is and the kind of conflict and division it creates. It hurts us, it hurts our partner [and] everything we’re working to do in the Middle East.”

He said he believes Republicans are allowing the amendment to move forward as a deliberate wedge to divide Democrats.

“You don’t play around with issues like this,” Landsman said. “This stuff can become very dangerous very quickly. … Why does he keep using Israel this way? It’s not right, and I think he’s getting a lot of calls from his supporters saying, ‘Stop doing this. Leave this issue alone unless you’re actually voting on something meaningful, but don’t give Thomas Massie airtimes for his grievances as it relates to an entire community of people.’”

Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) told reporters that he expects a “significant number of Democrats” to support the amendment. He said there’s a “growing number of members” that do not support providing additional weapons “for Netanyahu” but “I respect that others may have a different opinion.”

“What I think we’re all trying to get united around is the idea that everybody in the Democratic caucus should be working towards there being peace in the region, stability for Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike, and working to make sure that the Israeli government does not drag us back into war with Iran,” Casar said.

Asked about Democratic leadership’s silence on the issue, Casar said “the leadership should listen to our members, listen to our voters and do their best to provide guidance and information.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that “after witnessing U.S.-funded weapons help perpetuate genocide of Palestinians,” the American people “want to see more accountability into where public taxpayer dollars are going.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that, as part of negotiations over the next U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding covering military aid, the U.S. and Israel have been discussing an Israeli proposal to wind down U.S. military aid to Israel.

“What Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and the Israelis have told us is they would like to set up a scenario where they wean off U.S. assistance the way they did with foreign aid a decade and a half ago,” Rubio said at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday, referring to non-military, economic aid, which was phased out in 2007. “They’d like to go from the numbers they’re getting now to slowly less every year, until the number hits zero.”

He said that current MOU talks are at a “high level,” and that Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter has been engaging with Rubio’s counselor and chief of staff on the issue, as well as with the Department of Defense.

And he said that the Israelis had made such a proposal “on a number of occasions over the last year” in private, which Netanyahu has since made public.

He said that nothing is finalized at this point, but that the Israelis want over the next 10 years to end in a position where they can continue to buy defense products from the U.S. but will not receive “any sort of assistance” in doing so.

Also at the hearing, Rubio blamed the stalled ceasefire and reconstruction effort in Gaza on Hamas’ intransigence. He said that, at this point in the ceasefire agreement, an international stabilization force should be going into Gaza, but “this requires the demilitarization of Hamas, which right now, they have not been willing to meet the conditions necessary.”

As originally conceived, the security force was set to be charged with demilitarizing Hamas, but there had been ongoing questions about whether states other than Israel would be willing to commit troops to that effort.

Rubio said that other U.S. partners in the region are also pressuring Hamas to proceed with demilitarization. He also said various donors and countries are coming forward to offer funds and investment for reconstruction, but none of that can begin until Hamas is demilitarized.

He also said that the administration continues to oppose any change in the status of the West Bank, and that moves by Israel to annex territory would complicate the U.S.’ ability to push the Gaza peace plan forward. He said the U.S. has shared its position on the issue with Israel as well.

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.”

Evanston, Ill., Mayor Daniel Biss, who has expressed support for cutting off some military aid to Israel during his campaign for Congress in the Chicago suburbs, had expressed support for continued aid to Israel earlier in the campaign, according to a position paper Biss himself released Friday.

Biss released the position paper amid scrutiny of his relationship with and outreach to AIPAC and the group’s supporters in the Chicago area. Sources told Jewish Insider that Biss had sought out AIPAC’s support prior to formally launching his campaign, which Biss has repeatedly denied. Evanston Now, a local outlet, reported Friday that Biss had submitted a policy paper to AIPAC early in the campaign and communicated at multiple points with its representatives.

Evanston Now reported that, days after outreach from AIPAC to Biss in the late summer, he came out in support of a series of more hardline anti-Israel positions, including blocking offensive weapons.

Responding to the reports, Biss said Friday that he had met with local AIPAC representatives to lay out his positions, but that he does not share AIPAC’s views and met with the group in the interest of open communication and in hopes “they might decide not to direct [their] MAGA donors to support [his primary opponent, state Sen.] Laura Fine. Perhaps naively, I wanted to show them that, while we disagree on Israel and Palestine, I have family in Israel who I care about deeply, that I take the issue of antisemitism seriously, and that I can engage respectfully with people who have views that are very different from my own.”

Biss said that AIPAC had indicated it wanted to support him “if I was willing to parrot their views.” He went on to share what he said was the text of a position paper he had provided to AIPAC — which included views that do not diverge significantly from those of other AIPAC-backed candidates.

Most notably, the paper stated that Biss supports continued aid to Israel under the terms of the current U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, and that he would support another MOU in the future.

“Daniel recognizes the importance of the safety and security of a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel. As Israel’s closest friend and ally, the United States must always be committed to providing for Israel’s defense,” the paper reads. “As a member of Congress, Daniel will support continued aid to Israel in accordance with the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding, and looks forward to seeing a renewed, expanded Memorandum of Understanding in the coming years.”

The paper also notes, “Daniel believes all military aid to every nation must be compliant with U.S. law.”

Biss now supports efforts to impose an offensive weapons ban on Israel — a direct contradiction to the MOU — and the Block the Bombs Act, which critics characterize as effectively an arms embargo on Israel for many key systems.

In the paper, Biss also called for expanding funding for the Iron Dome missile-defense system and condemned the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, stating that he would continue to oppose it in Congress, “while also opposing efforts to criminalize free speech or political activity.”

He also called for a long-term “transition to fully autonomous Palestinian governance once agreed upon conditions are met.”

Biss now supports preemptive American recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Biss offers support in the paper for the United Nations and other existing humanitarian mechanisms in Gaza — though he does not specifically mention the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Though AIPAC has been critical of UNRWA, it has endorsed lawmakers who have supported the agency’s continued work.

“Daniel will also advocate for U.S. humanitarian assistance, delivered in partnership with civil society, established NGOs, and the United Nations to address the needs of the Palestinian people,” the paper reads.

In the paper, Biss also calls for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program, making no mention of support for military action or other means to do so. AIPAC opposed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, though the group has endorsed and supported many Democratic lawmakers who voted for that deal.

Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement that Israel seeks to wean itself off of U.S. aid within next 10 years, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Jewish Insider he will push forward an effort to end U.S. aid more quickly — a major shift from one of Israel’s closest allies on Capitol Hill.

“From my point of view as an American, now that this decision has been made, I don’t think we need to wait 10 years,” Graham, who chairs the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPs) subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said. “I’m going to work on expediting the wind down of the aid and recommend we plow the money back into our own military.”

The majority of direct U.S. military aid to Israel — $3.3 billion annually through the U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding — comes through the SFOPs budget package. An additional $500 million in cooperative missile defense funding for co-produced systems is provided through the Defense funding tranche, along with funds for other cooperative programs.

The current MOU guaranteeing $3.8 billion per year expires in 2028.

Graham said that he wants to see the funding redirected into the U.S. military, in light of President Donald Trump’s plan, announced this week, to request $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon for 2027, a more than 50% increase over the 2025 budget.

“President Trump’s budget request of $1.5 trillion for [the] Department of War is a major increase, and every dollar we can recoup, from efficiency or allies who don’t need the money anymore, is welcome to go into building up our military,” Graham said. “Israel’s a great friend and a marvelous military, but we’re the only superpower in the world. America and the demands on us are at an all-time high because of the threats. The American military is the best in the world and in great demand. So what I think is best for America, now that Israel has made this decision, is to expedite this money, plowing it back into our own military needs.”

Netanyahu’s announcement came at a time of rising criticism of U.S. aid to Israel on both sides of the aisle.

But Graham argued that — if Israeli leaders believe that winding down U.S. aid will help rebuild support for the Jewish state among those who are critical of Israel — they are likely mistaken. He added that he’d communicated that view to Israeli leaders, but they pushed ahead anyway.

“From a political point of view, if people in Israel think this will get more support in America, I doubt it. I don’t think people who support Israel and understand its vital role object to the aid, which is a small fraction of our budget, and I don’t think you get any credit from people who think Israel is a liability by reducing our military assistance,” Graham said. “I made that position clear, but Israel is a sovereign nation, a great friend. I respect their decision.”

The South Carolina senator said that he “respect[s]” Netanyahu’s decision, adding “As an American, you’re always appreciating allies that can be more self-sufficient.”

Graham described the U.S. funding for Israel as a “great investment” for U.S. national security which has ultimately saved American taxpayer funding and filled capacities the U.S. would otherwise struggle to achieve.

“The investment we’ve made into the IDF has been a great investment for our national security. We have no better ally than Israel. The more capable they are, the safer America [is],” Graham said. “So I’ve always seen this money going to the IDF as investing in a very capable partner being able to do things that we can’t do at a fairly small price. It would be hard for America, if not impossible, to replicate some of the things the Israeli military and intelligence community can do because of location and expertise.”

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.”