EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Disgusted by US complicity in delivering more than $30 billion in weapons to Israel to facilitate its genocide of Palestiniains in Gaza, a clear majority of all Americans–including super- majorities of Democrats–now oppose more US taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel. Recent statements by Israeli and US leaders to phase out US military aid to Israel appear to respond to this demand. However, the emerging plan is to substitute formal military aid–known as Foreign Military Financing–with greater US taxpayer-funded co-development and co-production of weapons with Israel. This development would further enmesh the US in Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and by extending the co-development and co-production of weapons into the spheres of cyber, AI, border, and drones would help the Trump administration replicate Israel’s dystopian control over the Palestinian people to advance his domestic authoritarian agenda. Instead of deepening the US-Israeli military partnership through the expansion of joint weapons projects, the US should be fulfilling its obligations under domestic and international law to punish Israel’s genocide and cut off all forms of assistance as is required for regimes that systematically violate human rights.
BACKGROUND
In an interview last week with The Economist, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity conducted during Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, stated that he wants to “taper off” formal US military aid–known officially as Foreign Military Financing (FMF)– over the course of the next ten years.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS), which has jurisdiction over FMF appropriations, immediately amplified this interview and stated that “we need not wait ten years” to phase out FMF to Israel. Instead, Graham committed to presenting a proposal to Israel and the Trump administration to “dramatically expedite the timetable” for ending FMF appropriations.
These seemingly dramatic announcements by Netanyahu and the pro-Israel stalwart Graham come as a ten-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated in 2016 between the US and Israel during the Obama administration winds down. In this MOU, the US pledged to seek Congressional appropriations of $38 billion of weapons for Israel ($3.3 billion in FMF and $500 million for the co-development and co-production of anti-missile systems annually) between FY2019-2028.
Last November, Axios reported that US and Israeli teams had begun negotiating the terms of the next MOU. Israel is reportedly pressing for a two-decade-long commitment totaling at least $76 billion in US weapons. Although this article did not hint at the prospect of completely ending FMF allocations to Israel, it noted that Israel was pressing for at least some shift to less FMF and more appropriations for US-Israeli co-development and co-production of weapons instead.
The proposal to phase out FMF allocations to Israel altogether, however, is not wholly surprising in light of previous Israeli statements and efforts, and policy papers published last year by The Heritage Foundation and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Last May, Netanyahu told his cabinet that “we will have to wean ourselves off of” FMF allocations. And Likud MK Amit Halevi has been spearheading an effort to transform the US-Israel military relationship to one of “joint projects and investments” rather than FMF–a plan which Israel pitched extensively to the Trump administration and Capitol Hill last year.
This initiative appears to be orchestrated with the policy proposals of major right-wing think tanks backing the Trump administration’s agenda. Last March, Heritage published a policy paper entitled “U.S.–Israel Strategy: From Special Relationship to Strategic Partnership, 2029–2047”. Heritage argues for a gradual phasing out of FMF while increasing appropriations for the co-development and co-production of weapons, and Israel’s commitment to purchase increasing amounts of US weapons from its own funds through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Under Heritage’s model, in total, the annual flow of US weapons to Israel would increase from $3.8 billion to $4.5 billion annually despite FMF appropriations being phased out.
And last December, Bradley Bowman, Senior Director of FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power, published a similar policy paper entitled “Beyond the U.S.-Israel MOU: The Case for a Strategic Partnership Agreement”. Bowman argues that a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) between the US and Israel should replace the previous MOU model. However, unlike Heritage’s proposal, FDD does not advocate ending FMF appropriations to Israel; instead these would be subsumed in a broader $5 billion annual Partnership Investment Incentive (PII), which, in addition to FMF appropriations would also include–like the Heritage proposal–increased levels of funding for the co-development and co-production of weapons and Israeli purchases of US weapons, presumably through FMS.
While differing over the question of whether to continue FMF appropriations for Israel, the commonalities in the Heritage and FDD policy papers are striking: both aim to enhance, rather than diminish US-Israeli military coordination and cooperation, and to increase, rather than decrease, weapons flows from the US to Israel.
While the prospect of ending FMF appropriations to Israel would, in some respects, respond to a key demand of Palestinian rights organizations to end some forms of US taxpayer-financing of Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, let’s be clear: Netanyahu, Graham, Heritage, and FDD all want to strengthen the US-Israel military relationship, potentially making the US even more deeply complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel’s ongoing denial of freedom and self-determination to the Palestinian people.
Members of Congress should oppose any new MOU outlining future US-Israeli military coordination and collaboration regardless of whether or not it includes FMF appropriations. Opposing all manner of weapons deliveries and the co-development and co-production of weapons with Israel is aligned with US obligations under both domestic and international law to prevent and punish genocide. This stance also comports with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), which forbids US weapons from being used by foreign countries for reasons other than internal policing and legitimate self-defense, and with the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), which prevents all forms of US assistance to countries which engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights or which block the provision of US humanitarian aid, as Israel continues to do as part of its ongoing blockade of Gaza.
TOPLINES
The American people do not want the US giving Israel more weapons. In a September 2025 IMEU Policy Project/Gen Z for Change poll conducted by YouGov, 71% of likely Democratic primary voters opposed taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel (only 7% approved); 63% opposed the US selling weapons to Israel (only 14% approved); and 75% opposed the signing of another MOU (only 9% approved).
And another poll conducted by YouGov and released by IMEU Policy Project in December 2025 found that only a minority or bare majority of Republicans supported providing additional weapons to Israel. Only 38% of Republicans support taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel (30% oppose); only 51% of Republicans supported the US selling weapons to Israel (21% oppose); and more Republicans oppose the signing of another MOU than support it (42% versus 35%).
While there are partisan gaps, overall, the American people oppose providing more weapons to Israel. For example, an August 2025 Quinnipiac poll found that 60% of all Americans opposed sending more taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel.
Reducing or ending FMF while increasing co-development and co-production of weapons is “bait and switch”. While a reduction or elimination of FMF appropriations to Israel might appear to decrease American taxpayer-funding for Israel, by simultaneously increasing the co-development and co-production of weapons with Israel the American taxpayer is still on the hook. Co-development and co-production of weapons is funded through DoD appropriations, still leaving American taxpayers with a potential annual multi-billion dollar tab to pick up for Israel’s benefit.
In some respects, co-development and co-production of weapons is even a bigger boon for Israel than FMF appropriations by subsidizing the research and development, and production of weapons systems made in large part by Israeli weapons manufacturers and/or their US subsidiaries. Up to this point, co-development and co-production of weapons has focused on various anti-missile systems which allow Israel to aggressively attack its adversaries while reducing the likelihood of effective retaliation, thereby increasing instability in the region and ensuring Israel’s predominance of power. While these anti-missile systems have greatly benefited Israel’s strategic posture, they have little, if any, benefit for the US. In other words, co-development and co-production provides a double benefit for Israel: US taxpayers pay for Israeli weapons manufacturers to develop weapons systems which preponderantly benefit Israel, not the US.
The American people are sick of forever wars and disproportionate federal discretionary spending on programs that contribute to further militarization at the expense of funding unmet human needs for health care, affordable housing and childcare, infrastructure, and student loan relief, to name just a few domestic priorities starved of budgetary support. Increasing levels of co-development and co-production of weapons with Israel only furthers this unhealthy budgetary imbalance between militarization and human needs.
The US must end all forms of assistance to Israel to comply with its obligations under both domestic and international law. Israel continues to inflict an ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and continues to deny all Palestinians freedom, equality, and self-determination through both an apartheid system of control imposed on the indigenous inhabitants of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and through a nearly 60-year brutal military rule over millions in the West Bank and Gaza. In light of these realities, it is obscene that the US would consider strengthening the US-Israel military partnership, as recommended by Heritage and FDD. Such a move would serve as a de facto endorsement of Israeli military rule over, apartheid toward, and genocide of Palestinians, and provide yet more tangible assistance to Israel in consolidating and entrenching further its oppression of the Palestinian people. Moreover, strengthening the US-Israel military partnership flies in the face of US obligations under both domestic and international law to prevent and punish genocide, and under US law preventing US assistance to regimes which systematically violate human rights. As a party to the Genocide Convention, the US made genocide a federal crime. Under US law people suspected of inciting or committing genocide are ineligible for US visas, and, if they are in the US, are subject to arrest. Congress has also appropriated money in many previous instances for collecting evidence of genocide and bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide. Rather than negotiate a new MOU for an enhanced US-Israeli military partnership, the US should instead be fulfilling its obligations to punish Israel for its ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. (For further details, see US Legally Obligated to Prevent, Punish Israel’s Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza | IMEU Policy Project Policy Memo #23.)
In addition, Israel’s systematic violations of Palestinians’ human rights should make it ineligible for any form of US assistance, including DoD appropriations for increased levels of co-development and co-production of weapons. The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) prohibits any form of US assistance to a country “which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” And Section 620I of the FAA specifically prohibits any weapons transfers to a country which blocks the provision of US humanitarian aid. As Israel continues to deregister and block international, including American, NGOs from providing life-saving humanitarian aid to Palestinian survivors of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and as Israel continues to fail to meet its commitment to a minimal target of allowing 600 trucks of humanitarian aid to be delivered daily, the US must hold Israel accountable for its violations of this law–not upgrade its military partnership with it. (For further details, see US Should Not Sign Another MOU for More Weapons to Israel | IMEU Policy Project Policy Memo #25.)
DETAILS
From a close reading of the Heritage and FDD policy papers, which appear to be the blueprint for the proposals of Netanyahu and Graham to eventually phase out FMF appropriations to Israel, it is clear that the intent of these proposals is to increase the collaboration and partnership between the US and Israeli military and weapons manufacturers. Not only would these plans further enmesh the US in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people; by encouraging the co-development and co-production of cyber, AI, border, and drone technologies, they also raise troubling ramifications for civil rights in the US under an increasingly authoritarian Trump administration.
Heritage calls for an initial increase in FMF funding for Israel to $4 billion annually, followed by a reduction of FMF of $250 million annually beginning in FY2032, resulting in a zeroing out of FMF within the next two decades. This reduction in FMF, however, would be offset by greater appropriations for US-Israeli co-development and co-production of weapons, which would increase by $250 million annually beginning in FY2032 to level off at $2.25 billion annually. In addition, under Heritage’s proposal, Israel would also be required to commit to purchasing US weapons from its own funds through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) beginning in FY2039 and increasing by $250 million annually to plateau at $2.25 billion annually. In total, Heritage proposes that by the end of this two-decade period, US weapons flows to Israel would increase from the current level of $3.8 billion annually to $4.5 billion annually–a nearly 20% increase.
FDD proposes that the MOU be superseded by a Partnership Investment Incentive (PPI). In exchange for a guaranteed annual spending of $1 billion of its own funds on US weapons, presumably through Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and at least $150 million of its own funds for the co-development and co-production of weapons, Israel would be rewarded with $5 billion of US taxpayer money. Although the specifics of the proposal are unclear, this $5 billion appropriation would appear to encompass both FMF and DoD co-development and co-production. This proposal would increase US weapons flows to Israel from the current level of $3.8 billion annually to $6.2 billion annually–a nearly two-thirds increase over.
Up until this point, co-development and co-production of weapons has largely been confined to anti-missile systems. As noted by Congressional Research Service, this collaboration stretches back to the Reagan administration, which signed an agreement with Israel in 1986 to co-develop the first generation of the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system. From modest beginnings, anti-missile co-development and co-production is now one of the main features of the US-Israel military relationship, with Congress appropriating nearly $15 billion of taxpayer money since FY2006 to support five separate anti-missile systems: Arrow II, Arrow III, David’s Sling, Iron Dome, and Iron Beam. More than 100 companies in 34 states are now involved in the co-development and co-production of these anti-missile systems which preponderantly benefit Israel’s strategic posture rather than that of the US.
Heritage and FDD propose that the model for co-developing and co-producing weapons branches out much further than anti-missile systems, encompassing in the next US-Israel agreement the co-development and co-production of cyber, AI, border, and drone capabilities, to name a few. Israeli companies have gained expertise in these areas by field-testing such capabilities against Palestinians under brutal Israeli rule with devastating human rights and civil liberties ramifications both for Palestinians and dissidents targeted by authoritarian regimes.
For example, in November 2021, the US sanctioned the Israeli cyber firm NSO Group for selling its Pegasus software to authoritarian regimes, which enabled them to infiltrate the cell phones of human rights activists to crack down on protests in a complex web of transnational repression.
And in April 2024, +972 revealed that the Israeli army is employing an AI program codenamed “Lavender” to automatically generate assassination target lists of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza with little human input.
The Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit already epitomizes how Israel’s militarized spatial sequestration of Palestinians helps fuel an anti-immigrant agenda in the US through the militarization of the US border with Mexico. Elbit built a “‘smart’ electronic deterrence system—consisting of an electronic fence, communications systems, and computerized command and control posts” along portions of Israel’s apartheid wall in the West Bank, which was declared to be illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Now its US subsidiary–Elbit USA–is installing more than 300 surveillance towers along the US-Mexico border to advance the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.
And throughout its genocide of Palestinains in Gaza, Israel has made extensive use of drones to kill Palestinians, including civilians. As the Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies notes, “Israel has not only deployed advanced drones such as the Heron TP, Hermes 900, and the smaller fixed-wing Hermes 450 for missile strikes but has also used smaller drones, including quadcopters…to directly fire at Palestinians.”
Enhanced surveillance, spatial sequestration, AI-generated kill lists and lethal drones would be just some of the augmented tools put at the disposal of the Trump administration through new co-development and co-production agreements with Israel in the fields proposed by Heritage and FDD. Israel’s dystopian cyber, AI, and autonomous weapons platforms which it has developed to consolidate its apartheid rule over Palestinians and facilitate its genocide in Gaza is definitely not a model for the US to emulate, especially given the manifest authoritarian tendencies of the Trump administration.
Cover Photo: noamgalai, via Shutterstock. Stock Photo ID: 2581328887