Trump’s Election Day bombshell on Israel points to historic shift in US politics

Alex Wong/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is arguably the most pro-Israel president of modern times. So his Election Day announcement that the United States would end nearly $4 billion in annual aid to Israel was stunning.

But as is often the case with Trump, the announcement — made on Fox News — was short on details and difficult to pin down. It could end up being less seismic in practice than the shock announcement might suggest.

Still, Trump’s move was yet another intriguing twist in his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — his partner in the Iran war, which threatens GOP hopes in Tuesday’s midterm elections. And it comes at a critical political moment, with Israel in political limbo after there was no clear winner in last week’s election and uncertainty over Netanyahu’s future.

The political dynamic in the US is also impossible to ignore. In a sense, Trump seems to be conceding a point to Democrats such as Michigan Sen. Abdul El-Sayed in implying that aid to Israel is becoming politically unsustainable in US politics.

This underscores an extraordinary fracture in the long-lasting bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in Washington.

And it goes beyond the question of how a new Democratic House or Senate would handle the issue after Tuesday’s midterms. The announcement points to an uncertain new era for Israel: Netanyahu has been aligned with Republicans in Washington through several administrations, but there has been significant domestic backlash to Netanyahu’s response in Gaza to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks, not only among progressives but also activists on the right of Trump’s MAGA movement.

Growing uncertainty over whether there will be a congressional majority to back Israel and arms sales to its military will create huge future geopolitical implications for the Jewish state and US Middle East policy.

Trump loves to shock, to create news around himself and to distract. So perhaps his announcement in an interview on Fox News was a political play on a day when many Republicans fear a stinging rebuke from voters .

He certainly seemed to surprise the Fox anchors.

“I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping …. they’re fine with it because, you know, they’ve become a very successful country,” he said. Trump added that the US would help the Israelis if they needed it. “But by end of this year, we won’t be paying Israel.”

The president appeared to be referring to annual US military aid to Israel, which amounts to just less than $4 billion a year under a deal made under former President Barack Obama in 2016. That arrangement is due to run through the end of 2028 .

Most of the funds are spent on buying weapons and equipment for the Israeli armed forces from exclusively US manufacturers, so the deal has significant implications for US businesses and employment. Attention is turning to what US and Israeli military cooperation will look like in future. Netanyahu told the Economist in January he wanted to “taper off” US military aid to Israeli within 10 years and that the shift was “in the works.”

Mohammad Nazal/AFP/Getty Images/File

It’s hard to know whether Trump’s statement on Tuesday means that the US aid would stop immediately, a step that would be intriguing but would not amount to a strategic fracture between the allies. Foreign policy analysts who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations have argued Israel is now such a powerful economy that it doesn’t need US aid to buy military equipment. The nexus between US arms manufacturers and Israel is expected to remain strong, and the militaries of the allies have recently worked together more closely than ever. That was the case even before the Iran war — for instance, when the Biden administration staged massive air and naval defensive operations to repel Iranian cruise missile and drone attacks in 2024.

Brett McGurk, who was a senior White House and State Department official for four administrations, said the issue of US aid to Israel is deeply misunderstood. “I wouldn’t overstate the significance” of Trump’s remarks Tuesday, McGurk said.

“Whether he’s talking about, we’re going to end the MOU when it ends in 2028, or we’re going to stop it right now, I don’t know,” added McGurk, a CNN global affairs analyst and author of the new book “Brink” about his role negotiating hostage releases in the Gaza crisis.

Trump’s announcement came as tens of millions of Americans are voting after an election campaign that showcased the new intertwining of the issue of Israel and the Palestinians in domestic US politics.

It was extraordinary to hear him apparently reacting to opposition to US aid to Israel from Democrats like El-Sayed, whom he’s subjected to a torrent of anti-Muslim rhetoric . The Michigan Democrat has argued that Americans are paying more for groceries because of a war the US is fighting at the behest of Israel.

“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they (Israel) don’t need it?” Trump told Fox and Friends. “It’s a bad talking point because you’d say — ‘Why don’t we give everybody $4 billion?’”

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

The Israel issue caused a weekend clash between El-Sayed and his former Democratic primary foe Haley Stevens , who then endorsed his GOP rival, Mike Rogers. Stevens objected to an ad by a left-wing influencer featuring a couple in a supermarket blaming higher prices on Israel. El-Sayed denounced the ad, which his team said was not affiliated with the campaign. But the showdown encapsulated the schism over Israel that could complicate any new Democratic congressional majorities.

Progressives may interpret Trump’s shift as a validation of their positions. “Even a broken clock can be right twice a day,” El-Sayed said Tuesday, according to the Wall Street Journal . Others, however, argue that critiques of Israel’s government too often cross over into antisemitism — a charge candidates like El-Sayed deny.

Trump may also be seeking a political win for himself. Ending US aid to Israel would speak to Trump’s “America First” instincts and hostility to the use of American wealth to support foreign nations. His argument that he’d use unspent cash to pay down the deficit is less convincing, given ballooning national debt in his two terms.

While progressives are outraged at Israel because of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, anti-Israel sentiment has also been rising to Trump’s right in the Republican Party, fanned by influencers and podcasters with huge audiences. CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, who has spent months speaking with Trump supporters , found many believe the US is fighting Israel and are skeptical about the US relationship with its government.

In a Quinnipiac poll published in June, 48% of respondents said the US is too supportive of Israel; 38% said US support was about right; and only 7% said the US was not supportive enough. This was the highest percentage of voters thinking that Washington was too supportive of Israel since Quinnipiac first started asking the question in January 2017.

Erik Marmor/Getty Images

Eyad Baba/AFP/Getty Images

In a sign of how sentiment on Israel has shifted among Democrats, former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who may run for president in 2028, has argued against unconditional US military aid to Israel and called for a new US relationship with the country in a speech in Tel Aviv earlier this year.

In one sense, it might make sense politically for Israel to try to separate its military decisions and purchases from polarizing US domestic politics. It would be free to make its own choices about what to buy, although in practice it’s unlikely to turn to Europe’s manufacturers because of huge public anger there over Gaza. The idea that it would purchase Russian or Chinese equipment seems a long shot given certain US opposition.

But such scenarios point to another headache for Israel if it remains a flashpoint in US politics. Presidents can authorize arms sales to foreign states; lawmakers can seek to block them, but in this case, the chances of veto-proof majorities seem slim.

But there’s another worrying possibility for Israel’s supporters: that political hostility produces a president from either party who is less committed to its national security needs than Trump, former President Joe Biden or their predecessors.

As Emanuel put it in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in July, Israel could pay a price because of its own actions. “That’s not a Democratic Party problem. That’s an America problem,” he said.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

唐纳德·特朗普总统可以说是近代以来最亲以色列的总统。因此，他在选举日宣布美国将停止每年向以色列提供近40亿美元的援助，这一消息令人震惊。

但正如特朗普一贯的作风，他在福克斯新闻上发布的声明缺乏细节，难以捉摸。实际情况可能远没有声明中暗示的那样影响巨大。

尽管如此，特朗普的举动仍然为他与以色列总理内塔尼亚胡的关系增添了又一​​个耐人寻味的转折——内塔尼亚胡是他在伊朗战争中的盟友，这场战争威胁着共和党在周二中期选举中的希望。而且，此举正值关键的政治时刻，以色列在上周的选举中没有产生明确的赢家，内塔尼亚胡的未来也充满不确定性，目前以色列正处于政治僵局之中。

美国的政治动态也不容忽视。从某种意义上说，特朗普似乎在向密歇根州参议员阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德等民主党人做出让步，暗示对以色列的援助在美国政治中正变得越来越难以为继。

这凸显了华盛顿长期以来两党亲以色列共识的重大裂痕。

这不仅仅关乎周二中期选举后，新一届民主党控制的众议院或参议院将如何处理这一问题。这一声明预示着以色列将进入一个充满不确定性的新时代：内塔尼亚胡在几届政府中都与华盛顿的共和党人保持着密切联系，但内塔尼亚胡对2023年10月7日哈马斯恐怖袭击事件在加沙的应对措施，在国内引发了强烈的反弹，不仅来自进步人士，也来自特朗普“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）运动的右翼活动人士。

国会是否会有多数派支持以色列以及向以色列军售武器，这种日益增长的不确定性将对以色列和美国的中东政策产生巨大的未来地缘政治影响。

特朗普喜欢制造轰动效应，喜欢围绕自己制造新闻，喜欢转移视线。因此，或许他在福克斯新闻采访中发表的声明，是在许多共和党人担心遭到选民严厉谴责的当下，精心策划的一场政治博弈。

他显然让福克斯新闻的主播们感到惊讶。

“我之前达成了一项协议，每年向以色列提供40亿美元援助，但几个月前我们又达成了一项协议，要停止这项援助……他们对此并不介意，因为你知道，他们已经发展成为一个非常成功的国家，”他说道。特朗普补充说，如果以色列需要帮助，美国会提供帮助。“但到今年年底，我们将不再向以色列支付任何费用。”

总统似乎指的是美国每年向以色列提供的军事援助，根据前总统奥巴马在2016年达成的协议，这笔援助金额略低于每年40亿美元。该协议将于2028年底到期。

大部分资金用于从美国制造商处购买以色列武装部队的武器装备，因此这项协议对美国企业和就业有着重大影响。人们的关注点正转向未来美以军事合作的走向。内塔尼亚胡今年1月告诉《经济学人》，他希望在10年内逐步减少美国对以色列的军事援助，并表示这一转变“正在筹划中”。

Mohammad Nazal/AFP/Getty Images/文件

很难判断特朗普周二的声明是否意味着美国将立即停止对以色列的援助。虽然此举令人关注，但并不会导致盟友之间出现战略裂痕。曾在共和党和民主党政府任职的外交政策分析人士认为，以色列如今的经济实力如此强大，无需美国援助即可购买军事装备。预计美国军火制造商与以色列之间的联系仍将十分紧密，而且两国军队近期的合作也比以往任何时候都更加密切。即使在伊朗战争爆发之前，情况也是如此——例如，拜登政府在2024年组织了大规模的空中和海上防御行动，以抵御伊朗的巡航导弹和无人机袭击。

曾任四届美国政府白宫和国务院高级官员的布雷特·麦格克表示，美国对以色列的援助问题被严重误解。麦格克说：“我不会过分夸大”特朗普周二讲话的重要性。

“我不知道他指的是在 2028 年谅解备忘录到期时终止它，还是现在就终止它，” CNN 全球事务分析师、新书《边缘》的作者麦格克补充道，该书讲述了他在加沙危机中参与谈判释放人质的经历。

特朗普发表此番言论之际，数千万美国人正在投票，此前的竞选活动凸显了以色列和巴勒斯坦问题在美国国内政治中新的交织。

令人惊讶的是，他似乎对像埃尔-赛义德这样的民主党人反对美国援助以色列的言论做出了回应，而他本人却对埃尔-赛义德进行了铺天盖地的反穆斯林言论攻击。这位来自密歇根州的民主党人声称，由于美国应以色列的要求发动战争，美国人购买食品杂货的价格上涨了。

“以色列根本不需要这些，我们为什么要承受像埃尔-赛义德这样的疯子的攻击？”特朗普在接受福克斯新闻《福克斯与朋友们》节目采访时说道。“这根本就是个糟糕的论点，因为你会说——‘为什么不给每个人40亿美元呢？’”

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

以色列问题引发了埃尔-赛义德与他之前的民主党初选对手海莉·史蒂文斯之间的周末冲突。史蒂文斯随后转而支持他的共和党对手迈克·罗杰斯。史蒂文斯反对一位左翼网红发布的广告，该广告中一对夫妇在超市里将物价上涨归咎于以色列。埃尔-赛义德谴责了这则广告，他的团队称该广告与竞选无关。但这场对峙凸显了围绕以色列问题的分歧，这可能会使民主党在国会获得多数席位后陷入困境。

进步派人士或许会将特朗普的转变解读为他们立场的认可。据《华尔街日报》报道，埃尔-赛义德周二表示：“即使是坏掉的钟一天也能准两次。”然而，也有人认为，对以色列政府的批评常常带有反犹主义色彩——埃尔-赛义德等候选人否认了这一指控。

特朗普或许也在寻求一场政治胜利。终止美国对以色列的援助，符合特朗普“美国优先”的理念，也体现了他对利用美国财富支持外国的敌意。鉴于他两届任期内不断膨胀的国债，他声称会用未使用的资金偿还赤字的说法就显得不太令人信服了。

尽管进步人士因加沙人道主义危机而对以色列感到愤怒，但反以色列情绪也在共和党内向特朗普右翼阵营蔓延，并受到一些拥有大量受众的意见领袖和播客的煽动。CNN记者唐尼·奥沙利文（Donie O'Sullivan）曾花费数月时间与特朗普的支持者交谈，发现许多人认为美国正在与以色列作战，并对美以关系持怀疑态度。

昆尼皮亚克大学6月份公布的一项民调显示，48%的受访者认为美国对以色列的支持过度；38%的受访者认为美国的支持力度适中；只有7%的受访者认为美国的支持力度不够。这是自昆尼皮亚克大学2017年1月首次就此问题进行民意调查以来，认为华盛顿对以色列支持过度的选民比例最高的一次。

Erik Marmor/Getty Images

Eyad Baba/AFP/Getty Images

从民主党人对以色列的态度转变来看，奥巴马时期的白宫幕僚长拉姆·伊曼纽尔（他可能在2028年竞选总统）反对美国无条件向以色列提供军事援助，并在今年早些时候于特拉维夫发表的演讲中呼吁建立美以新关系。

从某种意义上说，以色列试图将其军事决策和采购与两极分化的美国国内政治脱钩，这在政治上或许是合理的。它可以自由选择采购哪些装备，但实际上，由于欧洲民众对加沙局势的强烈不满，它不太可能转向欧洲制造商。考虑到美国的反对，以色列购买俄罗斯或中国装备的可能性似乎微乎其微。

但如果以色列继续成为美国政治的焦点，上述情况将给以色列带来另一个难题。总统可以授权向外国出售武器；议员可以试图阻止这些武器出售，但在这种情况下，获得足以推翻总统否决权的多数票的可能性似乎很小。

但对于以色列的支持者来说，还有另一种令人担忧的可能性：政治敌对情绪可能会导致任何一方的总统对以色列国家安全需求的重视程度低于特朗普、前总统乔·拜登或他们的前任。

正如伊曼纽尔7月份接受CNN记者法里德·扎卡利亚采访时所说，以色列可能会为其自身行为付出代价。“这不是民主党的问题，这是美国的问题，”他说。