Posts
President Donald Trump casually dropped a foreign-policy bomb on Tuesday morning that somehow managed to be both completely reasonable and maximally annoying to the exact people who have spent years demanding it. Speaking to Fox & Friends while Americans were dutifully voting in the midterms, Trump announced that Benjamin Netanyahu himself had suggested America stop writing Israel that annual $4 billion check, and that the two of them had already worked it out.
If true, this would be the rare Trump announcement that does exactly what certain leftist activists claim to want, only without the part where America also stops selling Israel the actual weapons or abandons the alliance entirely. Naturally, the immediate response from the usual corners was a mixture of confusion and quiet disappointment that their best attack line had just been revoked.
Trump insists the whole thing is already settled. By the end of 2026 the United States will stop providing Israel with roughly $4 billion a year. Israel can still buy American weapons with its own money, and Washington will still show up if things get spicy. In other words: the welfare portion ends; the alliance does not.
There is an almost comical straightforwardness to the idea. Israel is a rich, high-tech country with a military that has been demonstrating, for roughly two years now, that it can handle its own neighborhood without American ground troops. Continuing to hand it free money forever was always going to become harder to defend the richer Israel got. Netanyahu has been saying some version of this himself. The only difference is that Trump appears to be treating “eventually” as “by Christmas 2026.”
Trump was especially eager to make clear that this was Bibi’s idea, not his.
“Can I be honest with you? He brought it up. He brought it up,” Trump said, Trump said. Did I mention Trump said this?
According to the president, Netanyahu told him: “I think it would be appropriate if we do not receive aid.”
Trump continued that the two had been discussing it for a while: “And I was approached by Bibi Netanyahu, and we’ve been talking about it for a couple of years because it’s a lot of money.”
Netanyahu has indeed floated versions of this in public. In January he told The Economist he wanted to phase out U.S. military assistance over a decade. In May he told 60 Minutes: “I want to taper off American support for Israel to zero. We’ve come of age.”
A ten-year glide path is one thing. Trump’s version sounds more like “we’re done after next year.” Whether Netanyahu actually signed off on that compressed timeline, or whether Trump simply heard “I want to end this eventually” and translated it into “great, let’s finish by 2026,” remains one of those details the president treats as less important than the headline.
The Fox hosts then spent several minutes trying to pin down what “$4 billion” actually meant, which is always a fun exercise when Trump is involved. “So, Mr. President, you’re saying you’re not giving them $4 billion worth of weapons?”
Trump did not answer directly. He wandered into the Strait of Hormuz instead.
The hosts tried again. “Can I just ask again? I’m sorry for not knowing this, but do you mean $4 billion in military aid? Actually, hardware is being cut off? Do you mean $4 billion, as in a check?”
The President responded: “I’m giving four in any way you want to define it. You can consider it barter. You can consider military aid or cash. What we give them, $4 billion of things and money, and they don’t need it.”
In reality the current package is not a giant check. It is a 2016 Obama-era memorandum of understanding that runs through 2028 and provides $3.3 billion a year in Foreign Military Financing plus $500 million for joint missile-defense programs—roughly the $3.8 billion Trump rounded up to $4 billion. It is not a treaty. Congress still has to appropriate the money. An understanding between two leaders does not magically zero out a line item that has already been authorized. Trump did not dwell on any of that.
He was considerably clearer about the politics.
Michigan’s Senate race features Republican Mike Rogers against Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, who has made opposition to aid for Israel a signature issue and has called Israel’s campaign in Gaza “genocide.” The issue has already split Michigan Democrats; Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost the primary to El-Sayed by a hair, recently announced she would back Rogers after an outside ad tried to blame grocery prices on aid to Israel. Stevens correctly called the ad anti-Semitic.
El-Sayed claimed his campaign had nothing to do with it.
Trump, never one to leave a political gift unopened, explained the timing with characteristic subtlety: “And because why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they don’t need it? It’s a bad talking point because when you say, ‘Why don’t we give everybody $4 billion?’ Israel’s our number one. We give them more than anybody else, and they no longer need it.”
When a host suggested that ending the aid would deprive Democrats of one of their most reliable attack lines, Trump agreed enthusiastically: “I want to say that it’s great, great word usage. Talking point, the best talking point that these lunatics have on the left.”
In other words: keep the alliance, drop the check, and watch a certain class of activist suddenly discover that they were never actually that interested in the precise dollar figure after all.
Trump was unambiguous that Israel could still buy whatever it wants. “Oh yeah, they can buy whatever they want. They can buy whatever they want. So can Europe.” What Trump meant was that Israel can buy whatever they want, whatever they want, in case you missed what he meant.
Trump, never one to leave a political gift unopened, explained the timing with characteristic subtlety: “And because why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they don’t need it? It’s a bad talking point because when you say, ‘Why don’t we give everybody $4 billion?’ Israel’s our number one. We give them more than anybody else, and they no longer need it.”
When a host suggested that ending the aid would deprive Democrats of one of their most reliable attack lines, Trump agreed enthusiastically: “I want to say that it’s great, great word usage. Talking point, the best talking point that these lunatics have on the left.”
In other words: keep the alliance, drop the check, and watch a certain class of activist suddenly discover that they were never actually that interested in the precise dollar figure after all.
Trump was unambiguous that Israel could still buy whatever it wants. “Oh yeah, they can buy whatever they want. They can buy whatever they want. So can Europe.” What Trump meant was that Israel can buy whatever they want, whatever they want, in case you missed what he meant.
[Have you noticed that Trump nearly always repeats his important points at least twice, sometime thrice?]
Whether that means existing procurement deals get rewritten, whether the joint missile-defense programs continue under a different label, and whether Congress will simply stop appropriating the money are questions the interview did not resolve. Defense contractors, who get paid either way, appeared unbothered. Taxpayers who have been hearing for years that Israel is a “welfare queen” may notice the sudden silence from the same people once the check is no longer being written.
Trump has supplied the headline. Netanyahu has previously said he wants to taper the aid. What has not been independently confirmed is that the two governments have locked in a hard stop by the end of 2026, or that Congress will play along. One IDF source declined to comment; another sounded surprised; Defense Ministry officials were quiet. That is not usually how ironclad bilateral agreements are announced.
I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.
Still, the basic case is not crazy. Israel can afford to pay out their own collective pocket. The relationship is strategic, not charitable. Ending the annual transfer while keeping the ability to sell weapons and coordinate on defense is a perfectly coherent evolution. The only open question is whether Tuesday morning’s television appearance constituted the entire negotiation, or whether the usual tedious process of lawyers, appropriators, and actual agreements will eventually catch up to the president’s version of events.
Whether that means existing procurement deals get rewritten, whether the joint missile-defense programs continue under a different label, and whether Congress will simply stop appropriating the money are questions the interview did not resolve. Defense contractors, who get paid either way, appeared unbothered. Taxpayers who have been hearing for years that Israel is a “welfare queen” may notice the sudden silence from the same people once the check is no longer being written.
Trump has supplied the headline. Netanyahu has previously said he wants to taper the aid. What has not been independently confirmed is that the two governments have locked in a hard stop by the end of 2026, or that Congress will play along. One IDF source declined to comment; another sounded surprised; Defense Ministry officials were quiet. That is not usually how ironclad bilateral agreements are announced.
I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.
Still, the basic case is not crazy. Israel can afford to pay out their own collective pocket. The relationship is strategic, not charitable. Ending the annual transfer while keeping the ability to sell weapons and coordinate on defense is a perfectly coherent evolution. The only open question is whether Tuesday morning’s television appearance constituted the entire negotiation, or whether the usual tedious process of lawyers, appropriators, and actual agreements will eventually catch up to the president’s version of events.
For the moment, the left’s favorite $4 billion talking point has been taken out of circulation by the same president they routinely accuse of being Israel’s lapdog. The irony appears to be lost on no one except, possibly, the people who spent years polishing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment