Influential Conservative Groups Propose Phasing Out Direct Aid to Israel to Shift U.S. Relationship

Influential Conservative Groups Propose Phasing Out Direct Aid to Israel to Shift U.S. Relationship

A recent report by the Heritage Foundation has ignited significant debate, calling for the United States to gradually eliminate direct aid to Israel. Instead, the organization advocates for a ‘strategic partnership’ that redefines the nature of U.S.-Israel ties. This proposal faces fierce backlash from pro-Israel advocates who view it as undermining Israel’s security.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, the report’s co-authors argue their intentions have been misunderstood. They assert that unconditional aid puts Israel at risk by granting the U.S. excessive leverage over its policies. Victoria Coates, a former deputy national security advisor to President Donald Trump and co-author of the report, emphasized that they do not aim to abandon Israel but rather to strengthen its self-reliance.

Coates stated, ‘Our goal is actually to reduce U.S. leverage over Israel. I don’t want to force them to do stuff. We want them to act based on a strong partnership, not because we financially compel them.’ This perspective challenges the traditional model of U.S. foreign aid, which has long played a pivotal role in U.S.-Israel relations.

The Current Landscape of U.S. Aid to Israel

According to an existing memorandum of understanding, the United States is committed to providing Israel with $3.8 billion in foreign military financing each year until 2028. This level of support was supplemented in 2024 with an additional $9 billion to assist Israel in its ongoing conflict with Hamas.

The Heritage Foundation argues that the upcoming renegotiation of this memorandum in 2026 represents a unique opportunity to transition Israel from being a primary security aid recipient to a more balanced strategic partner.

Within their plan, the Heritage Foundation proposes an increase in Israeli aid to $4 billion from fiscal years 2029 to 2032. However, they would subsequently decrease the aid by $250 million annually until its complete phase-out by 2047. Such a strategy aims to foster a sense of independence in Israeli defense capabilities.

Mixed Reactions from Lawmakers and Experts

The idea of reducing military aid to Israel has sparked a variety of reactions. Representative Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, vehemently criticized the proposal, labeling it misleading and dangerous. Hoyer underscored the potential risks posed to Israel’s security by suggesting that it admits vulnerability at a time when threats against the nation persist.

Amid this controversy, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, were scheduled to discuss the report at a Heritage event. However, both withdrew unexpectedly, leading to speculation about potential discomfort with the proposal.

Notably, Jonathan Schanzer, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group supportive of robust U.S.-Israeli ties, acknowledged the merit of discussing the evolution of their relationship. Schanzer remarked, ‘There is a legitimate debate about whether continuing USAID as it stands is sound for Israel’s long-term interests.’ His endorsement indicates that even within pro-Israel circles, opinions on the aid dynamic are becoming more nuanced.

A Shift in U.S.-Israel Relations

Schanzer further emphasized that the dialogue surrounding U.S. aid must account for recent events, such as the previous administration’s actions, which included holding military assistance to Israel. This scenario created a backdrop for discussions on ways to secure a more sustainable and equal partnership going forward.

Coates pointed out the necessity for a balanced relationship, stating, ‘Given the scale of their economy, they don’t actually need $4 billion a year from us.’ Instead, she envisions a partnership similar to that between the U.S. and the United Kingdom, marked by collaboration rather than dependence.

Investment in Joint Programs

The Heritage report also suggests increasing funding for U.S.-Israeli joint programs, particularly in the area of missile defense capabilities, to $2.25 billion. This reflects a strategic shift toward enhancing joint defense initiatives while reducing direct aid dependency. Furthermore, the proposal outlines a gradual increase in the sale of U.S. weapons to Israel, aiming for $2.25 billion in defense goods by 2047.

Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing Initiatives

In addition to military investment, the Heritage Foundation emphasizes the need for greater intelligence sharing and robust counterterrorism measures, establishing a cybersecurity partnership, and loosening export controls. These elements aim to create a multifaceted partnership focused on regional stability.

Moreover, the report advocates for conditioning U.S. aid to Palestinians on tangible progress in deradicalization efforts within Palestinian territories. This approach aims to address the root causes of conflict while fostering a climate of peace.

Addressing Backlash and Future Prospects

In light of the backlash against their proposal, Coates urged critics to focus on the substance of the issues rather than dismissing the report outright. She expressed concern over rising antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment while highlighting the need for constructive dialogue on U.S.-Israel relations.

As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, discussions surrounding the U.S. relationship with Israel and the nature of aid provided will remain crucial. With multiple perspectives emerging from influential voices, the future of U.S.-Israel cooperation hangs in the balance, necessitating careful consideration by policymakers.

A Strategic Shift in Perspective

Ultimately, the debate sparked by the Heritage Foundation’s report signifies a transformative moment in U.S.-Israel relations. Both sides of the aisle must navigate the complexities of international diplomacy, security needs, and evolving regional dynamics. As this discussion unfolds, the importance of forging a more equitable partnership based on mutual respect and shared goals will undoubtedly be paramount.