Israel is by far the biggest recipient of U.S. military aid over the past 80 years. Is America getting its money’s worth? Advocates say it provides critical support for a small, embattled American ally. In any case, Israel must spend more than 90 percent of the aid on American weaponry (and the figure will soon rise to 100 percent) that has been used to great effect, enhancing the reputation of American arms. Much of the aid has gone to joint missile development that benefits both countries. But critics say that, today, Israel is rich enough to pay for its own defense and that the aid effectively discourages an over-armed Israel from reaching peace agreements with its neighbors or resolving the Palestinian issue. Israel’s growing violation of Palestinian human rights shouldn’t be funded by American taxpayers, the argument goes.

For Israel, the case for military aid is much clearer. It covers a good part of its defense budget, and because U.S. presidents have never seriously used it to pressure Israel to change policies, it comes with almost no political strings attached. Israeli leaders never seriously considered forsaking it. That is, until now. In an interview with the Economist on Jan. 9, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he wanted to “taper off” the military aid over the next 10 years to zero. In fact, he has been speaking along these lines for some time, but they now have real meaning as talks about a new 10-year aid package to take effect in 2029 have begun.

Israel is by far the biggest recipient of U.S. military aid over the past 80 years. Is America getting its money’s worth? Advocates say it provides critical support for a small, embattled American ally. In any case, Israel must spend more than 90 percent of the aid on American weaponry (and the figure will soon rise to 100 percent) that has been used to great effect, enhancing the reputation of American arms. Much of the aid has gone to joint missile development that benefits both countries. But critics say that, today, Israel is rich enough to pay for its own defense and that the aid effectively discourages an over-armed Israel from reaching peace agreements with its neighbors or resolving the Palestinian issue. Israel’s growing violation of Palestinian human rights shouldn’t be funded by American taxpayers, the argument goes.

For Israel, the case for military aid is much clearer. It covers a good part of its defense budget, and because U.S. presidents have never seriously used it to pressure Israel to change policies, it comes with almost no political strings attached. Israeli leaders never seriously considered forsaking it. That is, until now. In an interview with the Economist on Jan. 9, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he wanted to “taper off” the military aid over the next 10 years to zero. In fact, he has been speaking along these lines for some time, but they now have real meaning as talks about a new 10-year aid package to take effect in 2029 have begun.

Netanyahu hadn’t adopted the critics’ arguments, but he is grudgingly accepting the fact that the mood in Washington is changing. The wide bipartisan support for military aid Israel once enjoyed is gradually evolving into bipartisan opposition, with President Donald Trump being opponent no. 1. Better that Israel accept the inevitable and win some points with Trump along the way by taking the lead on the issue.

Still, the timing for reduced aid is awkward and promises to be painful. The Israel Defense Forces not only has to rebuild its stocks in missiles and ammunition from the war of the past two years, but it is also taking on more manpower amid continued anxiety about a repeat of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack and unresolved regional threats. Netanyahu wants to boost spending on the military by $80 billion over the next decade over and above the prewar level. That would raise defense spending to 6 percent of GDP, up from 4.4 percent in 2022, the last prewar year.

America began delivering significant aid to Israel in the early 1970s amid increasingly close military ties between the two countries and growing recognition of it as a strategic asset. The money back then was critical for Israel as its small economy struggled with the cost of building its military after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. In those years, U.S. aid accounted for as much as 14 percent of Israeli GDP. But today (not counting the surge of aid that came during the war in Gaza), annual aid amounts to less than 1 percent of GDP. As Netanyahu told the Economist, Israeli GDP may well reach $1 trillion within the decade. “We’ve come of age, and we’ve developed incredible capacities.”

That is true, but that has been the case for a long time. The real reason is that Israel and its supporters in Washington are having more and more trouble making the case for continued aid.

The carnage in Gaza dealt a serious blow to Israel’s standing with the American public. A poll by the Pew Research Center released in October, about the time the cease-fire was brokered, found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the Israeli people favorably had dropped 11 percentage points over the previous three years to just 56 percent. That was close to the 52 percent share who viewed Palestinians favorably. Some 42 percent of Americans believe aid should be reduced or ended, more than those favoring an increase or keeping it at its current level, according to an August Economist/YouGov poll.

The cease-fire and the disappearance of Gaza from the news will probably help restore some of Israel’s traditional luster in public opinion, as has happened following past wars. But it is unlikely to fully recover due to broader developments in American politics.

Many people in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, most famously New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are hostile to Israel—indeed, a hard line on Israel is now a defining characteristic of the progressive camps. Worse still, it is no longer about specific instances of Israeli misbehavior, but for many on the left, it’s about Israel’s very existence. Older Democrats, like former President Joe Biden, who reflexively support the Jewish state, are fading from the scene. The Pew poll showed that among Democrats and voters who leaned toward the party, less than half looked on Israelis favorably; a mere 18 percent looked favorably on the Israeli government (just 4 points ahead of Hamas). During the war in Gaza, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent aligned with the Democrats, forced three votes of disapproval on sending U.S. arms to Israel. They failed, but a substantial minority of Democratic senators voted in favor of them, and in one case, he even garnered a majority of them.

Netanyahu recognized years ago what was happening in the Democratic Party. But rather than contend with it, he chose to openly align Israel with the Republicans, thereby helping to sharpen the partisan divide. Republican support seemed like a sure thing. Israel could count on neoconservatives inside the Beltway and evangelical Christians everywhere else for unwavering support. Today, Republican voters remain far friendlier to Israel than Democrats or independents, but less so than a few years ago. To some degree, that is due to Gaza, but it is mainly about “America First,” which is likely to have more staying power than memories of the war. In the America First universe, Israel is no different than any other American ally: It must justify America’s friendship by helping to advance U.S. interests and must pay its own way. All of this is reinforced by increased antisemitic views, which a recent Manhattan Institute poll found were shared by a quarter of Republicans under age 50.

December’s Turning Point USA conference brought to the fore the growing indifference, if not hostility, to Israel, as pro-Israel stalwart Ben Shapiro squared off against other leading MAGA lights such as Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens. Bannon called Shapiro a “cancer” and Carlson slammed Israel as “immoral” for killing innocents in Gaza. Referring to Turning Point co-founder Charlie Kirk, Kelly admitted during a conference talk, “There was a rift even before we lost Charlie, and it revolves around Israel.”

On a more wonkish level, and one that probably reflects the thinking in the Trump White House, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that’s gone MAGA in the Trump era, last March suggested a way for the U.S. to ease out of its aid commitment to Israel. Called “U.S.–Israel Strategy: From Special Relationship to Strategic Partnership, 2029–2047,” it deems Israel “one of America’s most strategically vital partnerships” but no longer in need of handouts. The paper proposes a brief uptick in aid in the next 10-year package before falling to zero. In place of grants, the U.S. would provide funds for joint military research and development contingent upon Israel purchasing a similar value of U.S. arms.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is considered a good friend in Israel, said in response to the Netanyahu interview that the tapering should be expedited. “I will always appreciate allies who are trying to be more self-sufficient and believe that, given what the Prime Minister said, we need not wait ten years,” he said in an X post. “The billions in taxpayer dollars that would be saved by expediting the termination of military aid to Israel will and should be plowed back into the U.S. military.”

Trump himself has not directly addressed the aid issue, but he has hinted more than once that he views the money America gives Israel as something for nothing. Asked last April whether Israel should get relief from his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump answered, “We help Israel a lot. You know, we give Israel $4 billion a year. That’s a lot. My congratulations, by the way. That’s pretty good.” Israel is reportedly hoping that it can finally win the tariff relief it is seeking by agreeing to less aid.

Dialing aid down to zero is unlikely. Kobby Barda, an expert on U.S.-Israel relations at the Holon Institute of Technology, has suggested a MAGA-friendly deal whereby Israel passes a buy-American law equal to the level of annual aid and commits its sovereign wealth fund to investing in the Nasdaq. However, it is more likely that the aid package will follow the lines of the Heritage proposal—a gradual reduction in outright grants to be replaced by joint development projects, such as the ones that led to the David’s Sling and Arrow air defense systems and the laser-based Iron Beam system currently under development. That would be a far easier sell. Given the increasingly chilly political environment in Washington, Israel may push for a 20-year agreement to better shield it from getting an even worse deal a decade from now.