Republicans warm to Netanyahu plan to end US military aid to Israel

“I think it represents a show of resolve by Israel to be the master of their own destinies, and I think it’ll be well-received,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “It’ll be well-received by Congress, by the administration, by the American people.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the phase-out should at least be entertained and that Israel knows best what’s in its national security interests.

The change would not end the sale of weapons to Israel, such as the F-35s and missile defense systems that give it a military edge over regional adversaries. Instead, it would effectively alter who pays for that equipment, shifting the burden from the United States to Israel.

“If that’s how the Israeli leader feels about it — like they’re able to deal with their national security threats with their own resources, then I guess, I would listen to what he has to say,” Thune said of Netanyahu’s proposal. “I think he knows better than anybody about the challenges they face and the importance of the alliance with the U.S. and the resources that have come with that through the years.”

With the call, Netanyahu is effectively getting ahead of a turn in public sentiment against Israel that has left the fate of that aid in doubt.

As recently as 2024, Congress was infusing Israel with an additional $15 billion in military aid to carry out its war with Hamas. But Democrats have grown increasingly unwilling to finance new arms sales due to Netanyahu’s perceived disregard for U.S. calls for military restraint and its casualty-heavy operation in Gaza.

On the Right, Israel is being squeezed by a smaller faction of the Make America Great Again movement that wants to pare back all American foreign aid.

Netanyahu’s decision to preempt that debate was initially met with GOP skepticism. In December 2025, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the chairman of a subcommittee that oversees the aid, called phasing it out a “big mistake” that would weaken Israel’s alliance with the U.S.

But Graham did a U-turn a few weeks later, praising Israel’s desire to be “self-sufficient” and announcing that he would personally ask the Trump administration to “dramatically expedite” a 10-year wind-down.

Netanyahu has generally cited Israel’s growing economy to justify why now is the right time to wean off foreign assistance. For the U.S., Graham described it as an opportunity to “plow” the money back into the U.S. military, and Wicker, too, appears to want to repurpose those dollars.

“To the extent there are federal funds that can be used elsewhere, that would be helpful,” said Wicker, who has previously called for a dramatic ramp-up in defense spending.

Netanyahu’s remarks come as the U.S. prepares to renew an Obama-era memorandum of understanding that cemented the current tranche of aid, $500 million of which is paid each year to the Pentagon, not Israel directly, in support of missile defenses such as the Iron Dome.

That funding runs through fiscal 2028, meaning the Trump administration has two more years to negotiate the terms of a new arrangement. But Netanyahu has begun ratcheting up the timeline for Israel to taper off aid and told CBS recently that he hopes to start “right now.”

“Let’s start now and do it over the next decade, over the next 10 years, but I want to start now,” Netanyahu said. “I don’t want to wait for the next Congress.”

The White House sidestepped the question of where President Donald Trump stands on continuing aid, but he was reportedly taken aback when Netanyahu broached the topic at Mar-a-Lago last December.

“The United States has a tremendous ally in Israel, whose military helped our Department of War achieve all of the objectives of Operation Epic Fury,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement, referring to the war in Iran. “We do not detail President Trump’s private conversations.”

By and large, Republicans were also reluctant to weigh in on Netanyahu’s proposal, and several downplayed the impact in interviews with the Washington Examiner. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned how quickly that aid would actually phase out.

“That seems contrary to the memorandum of understanding that we have with Israel,” added Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “It’s been a vital partnership.”

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), another appropriator, said his default position is to continue funding aid for Israel.

“I’m a very, very strong supporter of Israel, and I’m going to continue to be,” he said.

Democrats, for their part, were most receptive to the shift. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a defense hawk and one of the few remaining Democrats still opposing efforts to block weapons sales to Israel, said the U.S. should not “object” if Netanyahu wants to phase out American military aid.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a longtime supporter of Israel, called Netanyahu’s comments an “encouraging sign,” though he declined to stake out a clear position and questioned whether the Israeli government widely shares Netanyahu’s view.

The notable exception among Democrats was Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), a centrist who echoed Graham’s prior warning that ending the aid would be a mistake and blamed his party for Netanyahu’s change in posture.

“I mean, you can’t force it on him, but it’s, because it’s become so hostile that I think he realized that inevitably, the Democrat Party is going to vote to try to cut it anyway,” Fetterman said.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a drawdown in aid would reflect a “maturing of the relationship,” given that American allies of comparable size do not receive the same aid as Israel.