Foreign Aid to Israel is Manifestly in America’s Interest

Key Takeaways:

• 103 Democrats and one lone Republican voted to immediately strip all U.S. security aid from Israel, exposing a disturbing willingness to abandon a vital ally even as the amendment failed 314-104.
• US aid to Israel is not charity but a highly effective investment, honing U.S. military technologies and creating jobs in the U.S.
• Critics who targeted only Israeli funding while ignoring the rest of the $47 billion foreign aid bill revealed hypocrisy, not fiscal responsibility, as other programs were not harassed.

Last week, outgoing Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) offered an amendment to strip aid to Israel from the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) bill. When it came to a vote, sadly, 103 members of the Democratic Caucus chose to vote in favor of the amendment, and 10 more voted “Present.”

Congressman Massie was the sole Republican vote in favor, and the amendment failed 314-104.

More disturbing than so many congresspeople voting to immediately strip Israel of all offensive and defensive aid were the flawed lines of reasoning argued by the amendment’s proponents.

Foreign aid to Israel – technically Foreign Military Financing (FMF) – is not a blank check, and it is not charity. It is one of the most cost-effective investments the United States makes in its own national security. Over 90% of the money appropriated must be spent in the United States on American-made military hardware or joint missile defense programs. Starting in 2028, the amount spent in the United States will be increased to 100%. Foreign aid to Israel, before any of the national security benefits are even considered, is a net jobs creator in the United States.

Other nations besides Israel receive FMF. The aid isn’t given out of kindness; it is given because it fosters stability, builds alliances, and advances the strategic interests of the United States. What sets Israel apart as a uniquely valuable strategic partner for the United States is the wide range of benefits the investment returns to America.

What are the benefits of aid to Israel?

As military scholar John Spencer described the relationship in a June 12 Substack article, “[n]o other recipient of American military assistance provides the same combination of economic, security, military, innovation, and strategic returns.”

Israel, for obvious reasons, must use its offensive and defensive equipment on a regular basis. Since many of Israel’s systems are either American or joint ventures with the United States, Israel provides a testing ground to improve systems for American use. And, as part of the strategic relationship, and thanks to American funding, Israel refines American technology, providing American troops with the most advanced equipment possible. 

Some recent examples:

1. Iron Dome – Iron Dome is a very well-known short-range anti-rocket and missile defense system that has saved countless Israeli lives. This year, Israeli-developed Tamir interceptors, which are manufactured by American workers in Arkansas, have begun to be deployed by the United States Marine Corps to defend frontline American servicemen against enemy rockets, missiles, and drones.
2. Iron Fist Active Protection System – The United States began earlier this year to use this system to protect tanks and armored vehicles against anti-tank and guided missiles.
3. F-35 – As the first country outside the United States to deploy the F-35, Israel has provided valuable lessons that America has integrated to improve tactics, software, and technical capabilities. These practices have already been used by American pilots in Venezuela and Iran.
4. Multi-Tiered Missile Defense – Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow have been jointly funded and developed by Israel and the United States. These systems have not only saved countless Israeli lives, but they have also protected civilians and American troops in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and other U.S.-allied countries as they’ve fallen under Iranian attack.

Budgetary Arguments on Israel Aid

In addition to a gross misunderstanding of the benefits of FMF to American strategic interests – and an apparent disregard for the American lives saved by the defense cooperation it funds – many who voted in favor of the Massie Amendment also seem to misunderstand the scale of Israel’s FMF as it relates to the United States’ budget.

Last year, $3.3 billion was allocated in FMF and, separately from NSRP, $500 million for joint missile defense. In FY2025, federal budget spending in the United States was over $7 trillion. The notion that less than 1% of the federal budget is the reason for deficits or why every American does not have healthcare is laughable in its absurdity. For example, some have suggested that money spent on Israeli FMF should instead be directed towards programs like Medicare for All. While estimates vary, most put the annual additional cost of Medicare for All to the north of $2 trillion per year. Whatever the benefits or deficiencies of the program, it is clear to any serious interlocutor that FMF to Israel is not even a fraction of the reason Medicare for All hasn’t been enacted.

There are also those who like to blame FMF to Israel for America’s ongoing budget deficits. While any spending theoretically adds to the deficit, blaming FMF doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The budget deficit was around $1.8 trillion in the most recent fiscal year. Much like with the costs of Medicare for All, proportional to the federal budget, FMF to Israel has a minuscule impact on the deficit. The benefits from investment in Israel also offer a counterbalance to the allocation of the budget to FMF. Nearly all the money is spent back in the United States, creating jobs and driving additional tax revenues. The United States also saves expenditures on R&D that Washington would otherwise have to invest in separately. Taking into account these factors, it is clear that FMF to Israel is not a driver of deficits or the larger debt.

Hypocrisy and Double Standard

The reason the term “FMF to Israel” is repeated ad nauseam in this article is because of the hypocrisy of the vote to end it, while leaving the rest of the bill, all related to foreign spending, untouched. The NSRP in total is approximately $47.3 billion. 

If the members of Congress who supported the Massie Amendment were consistent deficit hawks looking to cut every superfluous penny from the budget, or if they opposed all foreign assistance, you might be able to respect their position. However, that is not the case. They have not voted for similar measures to ban FMF to other countries, including those in the same region, such as Jordan and Egypt, which have no history of real democracy and an abysmal human rights record in contrast to Israel.

Historically, the NSRP, and its predecessor the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs bill, was a target of libertarians and “America First” deficit hawks. 

FMF to Israel has long been the largest consensus issue in the bill and, in many years, was the main driver allowing the broader bill to pass. The bill includes funding for international water and sanitation programs and health programs such as those fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa (PEPFAR) and economic development in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and other poorer regions of the world. If the primary concern is that all funds should be spent domestically, there would be no justification for spending $44 billion for various non-Israel-related international programs, especially when the strategic advantages for the United States of FMF to Israel far outweigh comparable benefits of any other program in the bill. 

Over the years, many pro-Israel members of Congress opposed to other areas of the foreign aid budget have pushed to separate out Israeli FMF so it could be passed alone, while cutting other programs. American pro-Israel organizations have consistently and vigorously opposed such efforts for two reasons. 1. Aid to Israel belongs in the overall foreign aid package; and 2. The belief that foreign aid is a cost-effective use of American soft power that brings greater stability to the world. With the knowledge that removing Israel would jeopardize the overall bill, something they believed would be dangerous to American interests, they pushed for FMF to Israel to be included in the overall bill and to be the driver of its final passage.

With these considerations in mind, a question must be asked: are “progressive” members of Congress willing to sacrifice funding for life-saving initiatives such as clean water and global health, just so Israel can no longer defend itself or to score some cheap political points with the more extreme members of their base? Do they really believe all money must be spent at home, or that foreign aid should be placed in jeopardy globally – or was this simply a political stunt and nothing more?

There is room in Congress for a healthy debate on FMF broadly and in relation to Israel. No country is entitled to assistance, and the American people should only fund initiatives that are in the American interest. However, a performative vote on a doomed amendment targeting only Israel does nothing to advance American strategic, economic, or military interests. Such stunts only raise the long-term risks to American service members who rely on Israeli innovation and make peace and prosperity harder to achieve for all people in the Middle East.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!