Israel has begun negotiations with the United States on an expanded security pact at a moment when political pressure around the relationship between the two countries is rising in Washington. Axios, breaking the story on Thursday, reports “growing frustrations with Israel, including within Trump’s MAGA base,” and says Israeli officials now view this political shift as a factor that makes early action necessary.
According to the outlet, which cites American and Israeli officials,
Israel is seeking a new 20-year security agreement with the U.S. — doubling the usual term and adding “America First” provisions to win the Trump administration’s support.
No previous framework has attempted a commitment of this length. All earlier agreements were set for 10 years.
The timing reflects a straightforward calculation. The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expires in 2028. It totals $38 billion between 2019 and 2028, or $3.8 billion per year.
However, between October 7, 2023, and September of 2025, the United States has provided considerably more military aid to Israel, totaling at least $21.7 billion. In addition to that, the United States spent between $9.65 billion and $12.07 billion on wars in Yemen, Iran, and other military operations in the region in support of Israel. That brought the total of our support up to $33.77 billion over the said period.
Axios reports that Israeli officials want the next agreement completed within the coming year to avoid negotiating in a more unstable political environment. They are seeking the new pact to extend to 2048, Israel’s centennial year.
U.S.-Israel Alliance
The proposed pact builds on a long record of expanding U.S.–Israel security arrangements. As Axios notes,
There have been three 10-year framework agreements for long-term security assistance to Israel, in 1998 ($21.3 billion), 2008 ($32 billion) and 2016 ($38 billion).
“Emergency packages,” including the substantial aid approved during the 2024 Gaza campaign, came on top of these baselines. Each cycle raised both expectations and commitments. None reversed the trend.
The underlying logic is laid out in “U.S. Security Assistance to Israel” briefing materials published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The document states:
The United States has long defined Israel’s survival and security as important to its own national interests. Israel helps the United States meet its growing security challenges through close cooperation and a range of innovative technologies.
It explains that annual assistance helps “the Middle East’s only democracy defend itself — by itself — against mounting security threats.”
AIPAC calls this assistance “the most tangible manifestation of American support for the Jewish state,” noting that it primarily consists of funding “for Israel to purchase the arms needed to defend itself from its adversaries.” These funds take the form of taxpayer-financed grants — officially known as Foreign Military Financing funds (FMF) — that must be spent on U.S.-made weapons. That means much of the money flows directly into the American defense industry.
A core element of this structure is the U.S. commitment to Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME). It is defined as “the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat while sustaining minimal damages and casualties.” Congress codified this obligation in 2008.
In 1998, the two governments signed their first 10-year memorandum to phase out older aid formats and consolidate security assistance under a predictable framework. Every subsequent agreement followed the same logic: Israel received long-term support, and the United States maintained a stable regional partner while its own defense sector absorbed the bulk of the spending.
“America First” Pitch
Israeli officials hope to expand the next package. Axios reports,
Israeli officials hope the next package will include even more in annual assistance, but are concerned the negotiations will be more difficult after the Trump administration’s broad cuts to foreign aid.
Securing such a deal will require political maneuvering. As Axios notes,
The negotiations are both technically and politically complicated, given MAGA’s opposition to foreign aid and bipartisan concerns over Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
Even Donald Trump acknowledged the scale of destruction in Gaza. Upon taking office, he remarked that the enclave looked like a “demolition site.” This environment shapes how Israeli planners frame their proposal.
Axios describes the new strategy as making it look beneficial for U.S. military as well as Israel. Besides “extending the agreement from 10 to 20 years,”
[T]he Israelis proposed … to use some of the money for joint U.S.-Israeli research and development, rather than direct military aid. That could be in the fields of defense tech, defense-related AI, and the Golden Dome missile defense project.”
The report explains the political rationale:
That format is designed to appeal to the Trump administration’s “America First” instincts, because it could benefit the U.S. military rather than just being sent to Israel.
One Israeli official summed up the shift:
This is out-of-the-box thinking. We want to change the way we handled past agreements and put more emphasis on U.S.-Israel cooperation. The Americans like this idea.
And while the “Americans” inside the military-industrial complex — and the politicians aligned with them — may welcome this arrangement, everyday Americans have far less reason to do so.
Will Americans Like This Idea?
Indeed, while pitched as mutually beneficial, cooperation in defense tech, AI, and the Golden Dome raises practical concerns. First of all, such collaboration does not require a binding 20-year taxpayer-funded agreement. Secondly, the technologies involved deserve far more scrutiny.
Recent reporting underscores why. Israel’s military campaigns often serve as testing grounds for next-generation war-fighting systems. For instance, media investigations described how AI-powered tools such as the Lavender system generated large numbers of targeting recommendations with minimal human review — a model far removed from traditional battlefield standards.
Some of this technology is already appearing in U.S. civilian contexts. The Grayzone reported last week that the same Skydio drones supplied to Israeli forces after October 7 are now being adopted by hundreds of American law-enforcement agencies, illustrating how tools refined in conflict can migrate into domestic policing with limited public oversight.
Golden Dome introduces another dimension. Announced by President Trump in May, the $175-billion project is framed as a missile-interception system. Yet, its architecture depends on integrated sensor networks and real-time data flows. Aside from Lockheed Martin, industry reporting points to possible involvement of SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril. Those are firms already embedded in the defense and “national security” sectors and are central to surveillance, AI, and autonomous targeting. With few details publicly disclosed, concerns are growing that Golden Dome’s real function may lie closer to integrated surveillance than to straightforward deterrence.
In other words, the United States is being asked to finance and solidify technologies that are, by any reasonable reading, edging into the dystopian. For that reason alone, the reported plan does not resemble a prudent long-term investment. Its utility for Americans is not just dubious. It arrives at a moment when Israel’s influence over the U.S. political establishment is becoming more visible — and more openly questioned.
