Are there multi-year agreements affecting US aid to Israel (e.g., 2016 memorandum of understanding through 2028)?
Executive summary
The United States and Israel currently operate under a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2016 that commits roughly $38 billion in security assistance for FY2019–FY2028 and is legally in effect through September 30, 2028 [1] [2]. Reporting in late 2025 says Israeli officials are seeking a substantially longer, 20‑year security pact — potentially running through 2048 and including new funding and “America First” elements — but those proposals are described as exploratory and politically fraught [3] [4].
1. The 2016 MOU: the present baseline and its main numbers
The 2016 memorandum is the binding framework both sides have used for decade-scale planning: it pledges $38 billion over ten years (about $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) annually plus $500 million per year for missile defense) and runs through FY2019–FY2028, formally expiring in 2028 [1] [2] [5]. Analysts and official fact sheets note the MOU shapes Israeli procurement decisions and includes detailed terms — for example, phase‑out rules for offshore procurement and annual missile‑defense contributions [6] [5].
2. Why a new, longer agreement is being discussed
Multiple outlets report that Israeli officials have floated a 20‑year deal that would double the usual 10‑year MOU term and could carry commitments through Israel’s 100th anniversary in 2048; proponents reportedly hope the longer horizon would lock in at‑least‑current levels of assistance and expand cooperative R&D options [3] [7] [4]. Coverage frames this as an initiative by Israeli negotiators amid a politicized U.S. environment where some factions — especially within MAGA circles — are skeptical of open‑ended foreign aid, making any new deal both technically complex and politically contentious [3] [8].
3. Political headwinds in Washington and domestic U.S. debate
Reporting emphasizes that a 20‑year package faces significant hurdles in the U.S.: congressional appropriations still control actual spending, public opinion and parts of the Republican base are increasingly wary of large foreign‑aid commitments, and critics argue long‑term MOUs risk locking U.S. security assistance on “autopilot” [3] [9] [10]. Think tanks and commentators explicitly caution that a multi‑decade deal could constrain future administrations and reduce strategic flexibility [10].
4. What “MOU” means in practice — binding frame vs. appropriations
Experts stress that MOUs are frameworks for presidential budget requests and bilateral commitments but do not themselves appropriate funds; Congress still must enact annual appropriations to deliver aid. Past MOUs have functioned as multi‑year planning tools, but they do not remove congressional oversight or the political process that ultimately funds assistance [11] [2]. Thus, even a long MOU would not fully guarantee straight‑line spending without continued congressional support [2] [11].
5. Competing perspectives from Israeli and U.S. sources
Israeli officials and supporters argue a longer MOU would stabilize Israel’s long‑term procurement and security planning and potentially increase joint U.S.-Israel R&D, while some U.S. analysts and think tanks warn a 20‑year pact could undermine U.S. strategic evaluation and limit policy leverage [4] [8] [10]. Some Israeli leaders have publicly distanced themselves from specifics of such proposals even as negotiators reportedly explore options, showing internal caution about publicizing demands [4].
6. Historical precedent: three decade‑spanning MOUs, usually 10 years
Historically, Washington and Jerusalem have reached successive 10‑year security MOUs [12] [13] [14]. The 2016 agreement is the third such decade‑long framework and is widely treated as the standard cadence for these deals; proposals to double that term to 20 years would be unprecedented [3] [1] [15].
7. Limitations of current reporting and open questions
Available sources report Israeli proposals and U.S. reactions but do not show a concluded 20‑year agreement; they describe concepts under discussion and note political resistance without confirming any finalized deal [3] [4] [8]. Important unanswered items in reporting include precise dollar amounts proposed for an extended MOU, legal mechanisms to bind future administrations, and whether Congress or the White House would accept “America First”‑style conditions described in some coverage [3] [10].
Bottom line: the 2016 MOU remains the controlling, documented multiyear framework through 2028 [1] [2]. Late‑2025 reporting documents Israeli interest in an unprecedented 20‑year pact through 2048, but that proposal is exploratory and faces clear political and institutional limits in Washington [3] [4] [10].