On election day, Donald Trump suggested that U.S. annual military aid to Israel—approximately $4 billion—might end by year’s end, arguing that Israel no longer needs it. The statement carried strong political overtones, though its actual feasibility remains uncertain.

1. What Exactly Did Trump Say?

In an interview with Fox News early on election day, Trump stated that the United States could terminate its roughly $4 billion in annual military assistance to Israel by year-end, citing that “they don’t need it.” He added that America provides more financial support to Israel than to any other nation, a fact now used politically by Democrats to criticize Republicans. He questioned why the U.S. should continue bearing the cost if Israel no longer requires such aid.

Yet he left room for flexibility: if Israel genuinely needed assistance, the U.S. would still provide it. He claimed to have reached an “agreement” with Prime Minister Netanyahu, though he did not clarify its terms. Neither Netanyahu’s office nor the White House has offered further details.

2. What Is This Funding For?

Since 2018, the U.S. has operated under a ten-year military aid agreement providing about $3.8 billion annually to Israel, originally set to expire in 2028. This funding is not disbursed as direct cash for unrestricted use; instead, it is primarily channeled toward purchasing American-made weapons. As a result, most of the money ultimately flows back into U.S. defense contractors, directly benefiting American industry and employment.

Trump’s remarks suggest the aid could be halted before 2028, possibly by the end of this year. However, a critical distinction exists: while the executive branch may announce a pause, congressional approval is required for appropriations. Since Congress holds the power of the purse, former officials question whether Trump can unilaterally halt the program.

3. Why Announce It on Election Day?

The statement was not merely directed at Israel—it was aimed at American voters.

Domestically, support for Israel is no longer uniformly bipartisan. Progressive Democrats oppose unconditional aid, while within the Republican Party’s MAGA faction, many express skepticism about spending U.S. resources abroad. Trump linked the issue to Michigan Democratic candidate Shahid, signaling his intent: rather than let Democrats weaponize the question of foreign aid against him, he would seize the narrative first.

Thus, this move represents both a shift in policy toward Israel and a strategic maneuver in the electoral arena.

4. How Has Israel Responded?

The timing is particularly awkward. Israel had just held elections, and Netanyahu is currently engaged in coalition negotiations to form a government and retain power. A unilateral announcement from the U.S. president that a cornerstone of the U.S.-Israel relationship is being dismantled amounts to throwing a political grenade into Israel’s domestic politics.

Netanyahu’s political rival, Benny Gantz, immediately criticized the statement, asserting that the special U.S.-Israel relationship lies at the heart of Israeli security and that Netanyahu has lost credibility and must be replaced. Yair Lapid, leader of Israel’s left-wing Democratic Party, declared that a responsible prime minister would seek increased U.S. aid, not jeopardize it—a failure attributed directly to Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s biographer, David Peper, went further, calling the situation a personal defeat for Netanyahu and his inner circle, especially for figures like Dov Weissglas, who claim expertise in U.S. politics but have allowed bilateral relations to deteriorate dramatically.

Interestingly, Netanyahu himself had previously remarked that U.S. aid was nearing an end, advising Israelis to “get used to it”—indicating prior awareness. Yet the abruptness and speed of Trump’s public declaration caught many off guard.

5. What Does the U.S. Public Think?

Former Middle East peace negotiator Aaron Miller noted that the issue of Israel has become increasingly contentious within the Republican Party. Figures such as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Vice President J.D. Vance represent a growing segment of voters who do not perceive significant value in the close U.S.-Israel alliance. Miller also described Trump’s timing—during Israel’s ongoing coalition talks—as “awkward.”

Yet doubts persist about whether Trump will actually follow through. Reasons include: if the U.S. resumes military operations against Iran, it may still require Israeli cooperation; congressional approval remains essential for funding; in September, the U.S. government approved the sale of $2.8 billion worth of heavy ordnance to Israel; and the House-passed defense bill earlier this year includes provisions to deepen defense technology collaboration between the two countries.

Trump’s statement appears framed as fiscal prudence, but beneath the surface, it forces a broader question onto the American political stage: Should the U.S. continue to provide unconditional support to Israel? For Israel, the most disconcerting aspect is not the loss of several billion dollars, but the fact that the U.S. leadership is now openly assessing the cost-benefit of the alliance. For Netanyahu, it is a political blow—just as he is attempting to form a new government, Washington has already undermined one of the pillars supporting his position.

Focus on Israel’s General Election

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1880891991067660/

Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author alone.