Direct aid to Israel should be phased out to 'reduce US leverage,' influential conservative groups argue
A new report from the conservative Heritage Foundation calling for the U.S. to phase out direct aid to Israel in favor of a "strategic partnership" is facing backlash from pro-Israel advocates.
But the report's authors tell Fox News Digital they've been misunderstood. The "best thing" for Israel would not be to leave them at the mercy of U.S. policymakers who can choose to withhold direct aid, they say.
"Our goal is actually to reduce U.S. leverage over Israel. I don't want to force them to do stuff," said Victoria Coates, deputy national security advisor to President Donald Trump during the first administration and co-author of the report.
"We want them to do stuff because we have a strong partnership and they have confidence that the United States is their best partner, but we don't want that to be because we bought and paid for them," she explained in an interview with Fox News Digital.
Trump Softens Gaza Stance, Says Palestinians Will Not Be Expelled From The War-torn Territory
A current memorandum of understanding [MOU] signed in 2016 stipulates that the U.S. provides Israel $3.8 billion in foreign military financing per year until 2028. Congress allocated a supplemental $9 billion in 2024 for Israel's war against Hamas.
Read On The Fox News App
The memorandum must be renegotiated in 2026, which Heritage argues will allow Israel's relationship with the U.S. to evolve from "primarily a security aid recipient" to that of a "true strategic partnership."
The Heritage plan calls for a new MOU that increases Israeli aid to $4 billion from fiscal year 2029-2032, and requires all of it be spent on equipment made in the U.S., before decreasing that number by $250 million per year until it ends in FY 2047.
But the call to wind down military aid raised some eyebrows when it was first reported by Jewish Insider on Tuesday.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said it was, "wrong, dangerous, and gives comfort to those who seek [Israel's] destruction."
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter had been slated to headline an event at the Heritage headquarters Wednesday to discuss the report, but they abruptly withdrew the day before. An Israeli embassy spokesperson said the ambassador would not be able to attend due to a "miscommunication regarding the format for the event," but "looks forward to future engagement" with Heritage.
Still, the idea of reorienting the Israeli relationship got the backing of Jonathan Schanzer, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish pro-Israel think tank.
"It's a legitimate debate that I think needs to unfold," Schanzer told Fox News Digital. "What happened over the last year with the Biden administration withholding military assistance to Israel… must not happen again.
"I believe that is the impetus for the discussion that is now taking place. There does need to be discussion about making sure that America's closest ally in the Middle East does not find itself in a position where it's begging for the assistance that it expects."
Biden halted arms transfers to Israel last year amid frustrations over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the war on Gaza.
"There is a legitimate debate about whether this is healthy for Israel to continue down the path of total reliance on the U.S.," Schanzer asserted.
Gop Lawmakers Push Trump To Recognize West Bank As Israeli Territory
"Some are trying to cast us as alt-right isolationists. It's so disingenuous as to be laughable," said Coates, who last year authored a book entitled 'The Battle For The Jewish State: How Israel – And America – Can Win.'
She claimed the plan was "non-controversial" among the Israeli officials Heritage had circulated it to.
"The Biden administration used their control of Israeli resupply to try to coerce their behavior," she said.
Once Trump leaves office, "we can't assume we'll have another friendly president to this alliance, and if we have started a process like this now, we'll be all the further along to having a more equal footing between Israel and the United States."
Coates said the goal was for the U.S. to have the same sort of relationship it has with Israel as it does the United Kingdom.
"We want to continue to invest in joint programs, the way we do with the U.K. Do joint exercises, station stuff in the country which gives them a lot of confidence, but not necessarily direct aid.
"Given the scale of their economy, they don't actually need $4 billion a year from us."
The report also calls for an increase in spending on U.S.-Israeli joint programs, like developing missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities for both nations, to $2.25 billion.
Beginning in 2039, the plan calls for a $250 million per year increase in the amount of weapons the U.S. sells to Israel, until Israel is buying $2.25 billion worth of U.S.-made defense goods by 2047.
Heritage also calls for an increase in intelligence sharing and joint counterterrorism measures, establishing a cybersecurity partnership, loosening export controls and establishing "high-level economic dialogue."
It also said the U.S. should condition aid to Palestinians on "robust deradicalization and disengagement programming in Palestinian territories to undo decades of antisemitic and anti-Israel propaganda."
In response to the backlash against the report, Coates added: "The outburst of antisemitism here in the United States, you know, the attacks on Israel, showed that there's a lot of work to do here."
"Rather than trying to tear us down for contributing, you know, maybe, maybe we should look more to getting after the substance of these issues, instead of instituting a circular firing squad."Original article source: Direct aid to Israel should be phased out to 'reduce US leverage,' influential conservative groups argue
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
43 minutes ago
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON -- Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NY Assembly Dems accused of ‘veiled antisemitism' after killing bipartisan bill to commemorate Oct. 7 attack on Israel
ALBANY – Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie torpedoed a bipartisan bill that would have commemorated the horrific Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel. The Bronx pol went to extraordinary lengths Friday to ensure that the measure would not make it to the Assembly floor for a vote, stacking a committee with compliant Democratic allies who'd vote to scuttle it, sources said. The bill, sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Lester Chang, would have enshrined Oct. 7 alongside other days of commemoration in the Empire State, such as 'Rosa Parks Day' and 'Susan B. Anthony Day.' Sources suggested that Heastie, the most powerful Democrat in the Assembly, likely didn't want a bill with a Republican as its primary sponsor reach the floor for a vote — even though a number of Dems co-sponsored it. 'It shouldn't be controversial just because I'm a Republican,' said Chang (R-Brooklyn). 'It's ugly. It's destructive. It's hurtful for both sides,' Chang said of Heastie's actions, adding, 'And it's important that we remember 1,200 victims.' The move to kill the Oct. 7 bill follows chaotic behind-the-scenes drama that unfolded this week when Heastie permitted putting up a resolution honoring Palestinian Americans onto the floor before yanking it at the last minute. The lower chamber's ways and means committee also killed a bill by Assemblyman Ari Brown (R-Nassau) that would've required New York schools to teach about Oct. 7, in addition to making it a day of commemoration like Chang's measure. Brown, who is Jewish, accused the Democrats of 'veiled antisemitism.' 'Albany's legislature is rotten with veiled antisemitism, and their sabotage of my bill, A06557, to honor October 7th victims and fight hate, is proof,' Brown said. 'If this were a bill for the Black or Hispanic community, it would've passed with praise and fanfare. This isn't just obstruction; it's a vile, calculated betrayal of Jews as a minority, letting hatred win with their cowardly tactics.' Other lawmakers piled on condemning the Democrats' allegedly craven — or worse — motivations. 'It's particularly disheartening to see a bill held for purely political reasons,' said Assemblyman Ed Ra (R-Nassau), the top GOP lawmaker on the ways and means committee. 'These bills are designed to ensure we remember the atrocities of October 7, 2023 and help combat antisemitism, neither of which should ever be partisan or political.' The Oct. 7, 2023 attacks by terrorist group Hamas and Israel's subsequent war in Gaza have roiled New York politics and exposed bitter rifts among Democrats. The divide can be clearly seen in New York City's mayoral race, where old-school Democrat Andrew Cuomo has presented himself as a steadfast supporter of Israel and its fight against Hamas. Cuomo is the contest's frontrunner, but Israel critic Zohran Mamdani — a Democratic socialist Assembly member from Queens — is nipping at his heels. Many progressive Dems and leftists have claimed Israel's actions amount to genocide against Palestinians. Pro-Israel advocates have said that stance is antisemitic. One high-ranking Democratic Big Apple lawmaker said uniting over commemorating the 1,200 victims and dozens of hostages still being held by Hamas should be a no-brainer. 'There should be no controversy of a day commemorating the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust,' the lawmaker said. The bill's road to legislative purgatory began when ways and means committee Chair and top Heastie lieutenant Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Westchester) announced that four regular members of the panel would be substituted by other, 'acting' members. The four members included one Jewish lawmaker and another who reps a district with a significant Jewish population, as well as Assemblywoman Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn (D-Brooklyn), would've voted against killing it, her spokesperson said. But the spokesperson noted that Bichotte Hermelyn would've preferred the bill had a Democratic sponsor. Chang said that he'd be willing to let a Democrat take over as the bill's sponsor if it meant passing it. Substitutions on committees aren't unheard of, but the maneuver is usually made to spare a member from making a tough vote or when leadership expects some of its members to vote out of line, as happened Friday. Several Democrats – Assemblymembers Ed Braunstein, William Colton, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Nily Rozic, Rebecca Seawright, and Amanda Septimo and David Weprin, who are all from New York City – broke from their party to support the commemoration bill. 'No one should use Oct. 7th as a political pawn. We owe the 56 hostages and their families more than that,' Rozic said. The sudden switcheroo on the commemoration bill committee came after Heastie also put the kibosh on a resolution honoring Palestinian Americans, sponsored by lefty Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher (D-Brooklyn), earlier this week. Tens of thousands of such resolutions are passed by the Assembly every year, and are usually not controversial. A copy of the draft resolution obtained by The Post indicates it would have read that 'Palestinian Americans in New York are increasingly involved in advocacy, activism, and civil rights work, particularly related to Middle Eastern issues, anti-racism, and immigrants.' Sources said Heastie allowed the resolution onto the floor with strict instructions for Gallagher to keep her remarks specific to it, meaning he didn't want her to opine on the Israel-Gaza war. But Heastie caught wind that that Republicans were going to call for a roll call vote — meaning every member would have to be recorded as voting in support or against her resolution — a highly unusual, if not totally unheard of move, sources familiar with the backroom dealings said. Heastie then pulled the measure, so as to avoid any drama on the Assembly floor. A spokesperson for Heastie did not return a request for comment. — Additional reporting by Matt Troutman
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A timeline of the twists and turns in the Trump-Musk relationship
The escalating war of words this week between President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk marked the most contentious chapter in a yearslong and at-times rocky relationship between two of the most influential figures in business and politics. Musk, a former Democrat, has criticized Trump in the past, but over the past year forged a strong relationship with the president that positioned him to wield significant power in the early months of Trump's second administration. Those close ties, though, came after years of ups and downs stretching back to 2016 when Musk accepted a spot on several of Trump's business advisory councils. Here are some of the highlights of Trump and Musk's volatile relationship from the past few years. Musk, who would ultimately emerge as one of the most loyal contributors to Trump's 2024 campaign, was initially a vocal opponent. Despite a solid working relationship with Trump during his first term, the enigmatic tech leader called on Trump to skip the 2024 race. "I don't hate the man, but it's time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset," Musk wrote on X. "Trump would be 82 at end of term, which is too old to be chief executive of anything, let alone the United States of America." The post was not without provocation — Trump days earlier at a campaign rally in Alaska bashed Musk for his effort to purchase X, then known as Twitter, and for saying in an interview that he never voted for a Republican. "He told me he voted for me," Trump said at the rally. "He's another bulls--- artist." Musk in response threw his support behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. "If DeSantis runs against Biden in 2024, then DeSantis will easily win — he doesn't even need to campaign," he wrote on X. Weeks after officially taking control of X, Musk extended an olive branch to Trump by reinstating his account on the social media platform — once his favorite online megaphone — after it was banned following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Musk reinstated the account on Nov. 19, four days after Trump formally launched his 2024 campaign. By the summer of 2023, Trump had been indicted in three separate criminal cases. Musk, who months earlier predicted Trump would win the 2024 election if arrested, condemned the prosecutions. "I did not vote for him last election, but such aggressive legal action against a former president is not right," Musk wrote. The post served as a shift for Musk, who soon after began posting more sympathetic messages about Trump. In the first few months of 2024, Trump's campaign found itself in a cash crunch after allocating upwards of $50 million toward his legal defense. So when Trump met with Musk alongside several other wealthy Republican donors in Palm Beach, Florida, most political observers were quick to connect the dots. Musk, the world's richest man, has insisted that the meeting was unplanned and maintains that Trump never explicitly requested funding. 'I'm not paying his legal bills in any way, shape or form … and he did not ask me for money,' Musk said in an interview after the meeting, though he did say afterward that he was at least "leaning away" from President Joe Biden. When asked about their meeting, Trump said he'd "helped" Musk in the past, without providing details. According to campaign finance documents, Musk created America PAC, a pro-Trump Super PAC, on May 22. Soon after, reports emerged that Trump and Musk had discussed a possible advisory role for the Tesla CEO in a second Trump administration, an effort to ensure Musk would hold a key position in the White House. Less than an hour after an assassination attempt on Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania, Musk officially threw his support behind Trump's candidacy. "I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery," Musk wrote on X. Trump responded by touting reports that Musk planned to contribute $45 million a month to his re-election effort and promising to make life "good" for him. "We have to make life good for our smart people. You know, we have some smart people. We have to make life good for our smart people, and he's as smart as you get," Trump said at his first campaign event after the assassination attempt. In an event billed by Trump's campaign as "the interview of the century," Trump joined Musk for an online rally on X. The event was repeatedly delayed due to tech issues, but saw the pair bond over their shared disdain for Biden's immigration policies. It also saw Musk unsuccessfully try to prod Trump into prioritizing renewable energy over fossil fuels. When Trump returned to the site of the first assassination attempt against him, he shared the rally stage with Musk, who accused Democrats of seeking to take away voters' freedom of speech and right to bear arms. Musk emphatically encouraged Trump supporters to "vote, vote, vote." By October, Musk had already given nearly $75 million to the super PAC he created to support Trump, according to campaign finance filings. That money was used in part to fund sprawling get-out-the-vote drives in battleground states, including door-knocking programs in deep-red, traditionally low-turnout areas. Trump's striking victory, in which he won all seven battleground states and the popular vote for the first time, came as Musk's spending for the effort surpassed a quarter billion dollars, according to campaign finance reports. Of that total, $120 million came in the final weeks of the race. In his election night speech, Trump praised Musk, saying, "A star is born." One week after the election, Trump appointed Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head up a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, fulfilling a campaign promise to allow Musk to oversee cuts to government spending. Ramaswamy later left to pursue a gubernatorial bid in Ohio. Toward the end of the month, Trump traveled to Texas to watch the launch of Musk's SpaceX Starship rocket, despite previously ridiculing the company. Musk spoke at Trump's inauguration rally at Capital One Arena, emphatically lauding Trump's victory, jubilantly raising the prospect of taking DOGE to Mars and thanking the crowd for voting to guarantee "the future of civilization is assured." "My heart goes out to you," Musk said before forcefully touching his heart and raising his hand in a gesture some critics likened to a Nazi salute. Musk has denied that assertion. Among the first executive orders Trump signed on Jan. 20 was one that formalized the creation of the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency. The White House officially announced Musk's role in early February, clearing way for him to oversee a wide-ranging effort to reduce to the size of the federal government through mass job cuts, the cancellation of research programs and grants and the dismantling a federal agencies. In an early sign of tensions between Musk and several Cabinet members, Trump placed limits on his adviser, making clear in a Truth Social post that staffing decisions across the federal government will be determined by agency heads, not Musk. The Tesla CEO had been exercising authority over rank-and-file federal workers, including a threat to fire them if they didn't respond to inquiries regarding their work output. The new publicly established guardrails appeared to do little to hurt the pair's relationship, with Trump a week later turning the South Lawn of the White House into a Tesla show room to demonstrate support for Musk amid slumping sales for his electric vehicle company. On the first day of May, Musk told reporters at the White House that he would soon step back from DOGE to focus on his companies, comparing the shift to going from full-time to part-time work. The announcement came after Tesla reported a drop in its first-quarter profit and revenue. By the end of the month, Musk's exit was formalized. The White House on May 28 confirmed that Musk's tenure as a special government employee, a temporary role that he soon would legally have to exit anyway, had come to an end. Musk thanked Trump "for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending," and the president at a news conference with Musk days later said, "Elon's service to America has been without comparison in modern history." Trump presented Musk with a gold-colored key at the event. But underneath the polite exchanges hid simmering tension: Musk days earlier appeared on CBS' "Sunday Morning" and bashed a massive Republican bill, designed to fund much of Trump's domestic agenda, by condemning the expected impact of the legislation on the national debt. Trump soon after pulled the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman, an associate of Musk, to be NASA administrator. Days after formally departing the White House, Musk launched a scathing attack on the Trump-backed bill making its way through Congress. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote in a post on X. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Asked about those criticisms, Trump expressed disappointment. "Elon knew the inner workings of this bill,' Trump told reporters, before suggesting Musk's opposition to the bill was personal. 'Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate which was a lot of money for electric vehicles. They're having a hard time the electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy," Trump said. The attacks quickly grew more personal. Musk called out Trump's "ingratitude," arguing that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without his support. Trump in response said Musk "went crazy" after being asked to leave his White House role, and he toyed with the idea of severing government ties with Musk's companies. Musk replied by claiming Trump was in what are known as "the Epstein Files," and said Trump's tariff policy would cause a recession. He also amplified a post calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance. A day after the barrage of attacks, Trump told reporters he's no longer thinking of Musk. "Honestly, I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran, working on so many — I'm not thinking about Elon. You know, I just wish him well," he said. This article was originally published on
