GOP lawmakers push to make Israel pay for U.S. weapons — with Netanyahu’s blessing

Inside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem last week, U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana) handed him a short stack of papers that effectively called for the United States to stop providing military aid to Israel for free.

“I like it,” the prime minister replied after skimming through the draft House resolution, Stutzman recalled in an interview. “This is the direction I’ve been wanting to go for a long time.”

“We want to stand on our own feet,” Netanyahu added during the nearly 45-minute meeting on May 27, which was also attended by Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-Arizona).

A week after that meeting in Jerusalem — and with Netanyahu’s support — Stutzman, a steadfast Israel ally, on Wednesday is introducing a resolution calling for the U.S. to develop a new memorandum of understanding between the two nations that would end the $3.8 billion in annual aid Israel receives from the United States, and instead have the nation fund its own purchases of American weapons. The resolution, and the fact that Netanyahu has written a letter supporting it, have not previously been reported.

While the specifics of any such arrangement remains under discussion by the Trump administration’s national security officials, Israel would likely benefit from U.S. support through other means, such as a provision currently being considered in the National Defense Authorization Act that would deepen cooperation between the two militaries regarding weapons production and technology systems.

The current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Israel, which includes $38 billion in direct military aid to Israel, is due to expire in 2028.

Stutzman’s effort, while not binding, is the first of its kind in Congress, and it is notable coming from a Republican lawmaker who maintains close ties with Netanyahu and Israel. It represents a growing challenge, even in the largely pro-Israel GOP, to the longtime sentiment that the U.S. should provide direct aid to Israel — a notion facing increasing scrutiny from the American public.

Israel has become a more sensitive and volatile topic in American politics than at any time since its founding in 1948, largely as a result of its war in Gaza that has killed more than 75,000 Palestinians. Democrats and liberals are increasingly pushing to impose conditions on military aid to Israel or cut it altogether, and some Republicans have also grown wary of providing no-strings-attached military aid.

Wednesday’s measure reflects in part a concern among Israel’s strongest U.S. backers that support for the country is waning, and that a way must be found to rebut the argument that American taxpayers are funding Israel’s wars.

Just a year ago, it would have been unexpected to see a proposal by conservative pro-Israel lawmakers to cut military aid to the U.S. ally. But in recent months, some Republicans have expressed support for just that after Netanyahu floated the idea in news interviews, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), a top Israel supporter, saying in January that he would propose a plan to expedite the winding down of military aid to the country.

Josh Paul, a former State Department official who was involved in negotiations on the last U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, said Netanyahu recognizes the new American political reality and wants to get ahead of it.

The Israeli prime minister is “reading the room, seeing the very clear direction that American politics are going and asking how can Israel maintain the military-to-military relationship and the security cooperation relationship, but do so in a way that is sheltered from American politics — whether that’s Congress, or American public sentiment writ large,” Paul said.

Stutzman said the goal of the resolution, embraced by Netanyahu, is to send a message “to the rest of the world that Israel is not just leaning on America.”

“It’s just simply the relationship is changing and growing, and Israel showing the world that they are standing on their own feet,” the congressman said. “Even though we will have a strong partnership with them going forward, it’ll look different.”

Stutzman also cited a rise in antisemitism in the U.S. in recent years, and said this approach would not “fix it,” but could be “an important piece to all this.”

“A lot of taxpayers don’t even like foreign aid altogether, but there’s a lot of questions around why are we giving Israel $3.8 billion a year under the MOU,” he said, adding that many of those critics don’t understand the full arrangement.

On Monday, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee previewed the ongoing discussions about the shift in aid — which have largely remained behind-the-scenes — writing on social media that a “New MOU w/ Israel ends aid & will be based on trade.”

Huckabee’s remark was a response to criticisms about U.S. support to Israel raised by Joe Kent, former director of President Donald Trump’s National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned earlier this year over objections to the war with Iran. In resigning, Kent said “it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.’’

In a letter to Stutzman on Monday expressing support for the new resolution, Netanyahu wrote that his country “appreciates the financial component of the military aid” the U.S. has provided over the years.

“The time has now arrived for us to move from aid recipient to partner,” Netanyahu added, according to a copy of the letter viewed by The Washington Post.

Stutzman said he has been in touch with the White House, the office of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), various senators and outside groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee about the effort. The response, he said, has been “very much an openness to the dialogue.”

Spokespeople for the White House and Johnson’s office did not comment on whether they support the measure, but Tony Perkins, a longtime influential force on the Christian right, signaled that the idea could soon be palatable among conservatives.

“What happens in a change of administration if Israel is beholden to the United States in aid — military aid in particular — and it’s withheld or slowed down as we saw in the Biden administration? It becomes deadly,” said Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council. (Biden administration officials deny withholding aid to Israel.)

Perkins supports Stutzman’s effort, despite having been a vocal proponent for aid to Israel in the past, a position held by many conservative evangelical Christians.

Citing the strength and resilience of Israel’s economy, Perkins said the approach highlights a “paradigm shift” surrounding the U.S. relationship with Israel — though not quite in the way Democrats want — that shows a maturing of the relationship.

Last month, Netanyahu told CBS News he wants “to draw down to zero ... the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” adding that “it’s time that we weaned ourselves from the remaining military support.” The prime minister said he did not want to wait until another Congress convenes to start that process.

A Pew Research poll conducted this spring found an increased number of Americans have an unfavorable view of Israel, up to 60 percent compared to 53 percent last year. While much of the dissatisfaction is concentrated among Democrats, the number of Republicans with an unfavorable view of Israel also increased, largely driven by younger Republicans, with 57 percent of GOP voters under 50 having an unfavorable view, up from 50 percent last year.

Hamadeh, whose office said he will support Stutzman’s resolution, said in a statement that the “next bold chapter in the U.S.-Israel relationship has arrived.” The dynamic was changing from “aid to trade,” he said, with the two countries “moving towards true collaboration as strategic partners.”