Negotiations will soon begin on a new memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel. This framework, renewed every decade, has long been a pillar of the alliance between the two nations. But this round of talks will not be routine. The politics are harsher, the critics louder and the stakes — for both Washington and Jerusalem — immeasurably higher.
When President Barack Obama announced the last MOU in 2016, pledging $38 billion over 10 years, Democrats and Republicans applauded. That consensus has collapsed. Today, the war in Gaza fuels Democratic skepticism, while an isolationist current on the right pushes hostility toward foreign aid of any kind. Polls show declining support for Israel across the political spectrum. As Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter bluntly observed in a recent podcast interview, partisanship now threatens to turn Israel from a bipartisan anchor of American foreign policy into just another wedge issue. That would be a grave mistake.
Israel also confronts a structural reality: The MOU is not legally binding. Each year, Congress must appropriate the $3.3 billion in military financing and $500 million in missile defense outlined in the deal. Those funds can be delayed, conditioned, or withheld entirely.
The MOU is, at its core, a political commitment — one that must be constantly defended.
Critics argue the money is excessive. Leiter reminds us what they leave out: Nearly all the money is spent on U.S.-made hardware, sustaining American defense jobs and industries while ensuring Israel’s survival. This is not charity. It is a strategic bargain that keeps a frontline ally strong while keeping American factories open. Intelligence cooperation alone — worth, in the words of one U.S. general, “five CIAs” — more than justifies the price tag. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
As Israel has grown into a technological and economic powerhouse, some Israelis want to reduce dependence on U.S. aid to shield themselves from shifting political winds. But even the United States does not pretend to fight alone. Rather, as Leiter suggests, the smarter path is not withdrawal but evolution toward a hybrid approach that maintains U.S. assistance while expanding joint research and development. That model highlights what too many forget: This is a two-way partnership that benefits both nations.
The Trump administration will lead the negotiations, but Congress and public opinion will decide what happens. If the talks devolve into partisan theater, the cost will be significant and risk a weakened alliance, emboldened adversaries and a Middle East less stable for both America and Israel. If they are handled with discipline and vision, however, the next MOU can reaffirm the bipartisan foundation of the relationship while adapting it to new realities.
The principle is simple: A strong Israel is not just good for Israel. It is also good for America. It deters Iran, strengthens emerging partnerships with Arab states, and provides unmatched intelligence and technology. For Washington to let this alliance erode in the crossfire of domestic politics would be reckless and wasteful.
Handled poorly, these negotiations could deepen divides and undermine decades of hard-won trust and security. Handled wisely, they can prove again that the U.S.-Israel partnership is not optional, not expendable and not for partisan games. It is indispensable — for both nations. ■
