Why does the US give israel money?
Executive summary
The United States provides Israel large, sustained financial and military assistance primarily to secure a strategic ally in the Middle East, bolster U.S. and Israeli defense cooperation, and uphold legally and politically binding commitments negotiated through memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and Congress’s appropriations decisions [1] [2] [3]. That relationship is reinforced by decades of cumulative aid, special administrative terms and industrial links that make much of the assistance flow back into U.S. defense manufacturing, while critics point to oversight gaps and growing domestic political resistance to additional transfers [4] [5] [6].
1. A formal, bipartisan security pact: why money is written into policy
U.S. financial support is not random charity but the product of formal agreements: the 2016 MOU pledged roughly $38 billion in military aid for FY2019–FY2028, and annual Foreign Military Financing has been set at about $3.3–$3.8 billion in recent agreements, a level Congress has repeatedly appropriated as part of U.S. security policy toward the region [2] [1] [3]. Those MOUs and annual appropriations mean aid is baked into U.S. budget law and defense cooperation practices rather than being ad hoc support.
2. Strategic alliance and regional deterrence: the security rationale
Washington views Israel as a strategic military partner in a volatile neighborhood and channels aid to sustain Israel’s qualitative military edge and missile defenses that, in turn, are presented as contributing to broader U.S. security goals against actors such as Iran and militant proxies [1] [5]. Since the Oct. 7, 2023 conflict the U.S. approved substantial additional security assistance—reports estimate at least $17.9 billion in new support tied to that period—underscoring how crisis dynamics drive extra transfers [7] [8].
3. The money’s mechanics: how aid is structured and where it goes
Most U.S. assistance to Israel takes the form of Foreign Military Financing that functions as a grant Israel must largely spend on U.S.-manufactured defense systems, and missile-defense funds are often separately appropriated; Israel typically receives its FMF early in the fiscal year under exceptional terms set by Congress [3] [2] [9]. Proponents emphasize that this structure supports U.S. industrial jobs and technology collaboration—arguments highlighted by organizations like the AJC which note much procurement and production occurs in the U.S. [5].
4. Domestic politics, accountability concerns and changing narratives
Despite bipartisan continuity, public support for additional aid has eroded in some polls and some Israeli leaders have publicly said they aim to reduce dependence on U.S. assistance over time, feeding a debate over whether the financial relationship should be restructured [10] [11] [2]. Oversight critics point to problems in accountability: an inspector general report found that over $13 billion in recent military aid was not properly tracked, raising risks about end-use monitoring and potential technology leakage [6].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Supporters frame U.S. aid as strategic insurance and a mutually beneficial industrial partnership that preserves regional stability and supports American jobs [5] [3]. Opponents argue the scale and unique delivery terms—such as lump-sum disbursements and atypical accounting rules—create moral, legal and policy problems, including insufficient civilian oversight of how U.S.-origin weapons are used [9] [12]. Political actors also bring implicit agendas: congressional majorities have reinforced the aid relationship for decades, while recent administrations and Israeli leaders have both used aid negotiations to curry favor domestically and internationally [2] [10].