Senator Graham Says He Wants to “dramatically expedite the timetable” for Ending U.S. Security Assistance to Israel: What Does It Mean?

An Explainer.

What happened?

On Friday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on X that he intends to “dramatically expedite the timetable” for ending U.S. military funding for Israel. This comes on top of comments from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that ”Israel aims to end its reliance on U.S. military aid within a decade.” Why is this happening, and what does it actually mean in practice?

First, the basics. As Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, the Senate body responsible for the State Department’s budget, including the $3.3 Billion that are provided to Israel annually in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), Senator Graham has significant ability to make true on his commitment. That said, even in the unlikely event of an immediate cut to Israel’s FMF, under previous Appropriations, Israel likely has several billion dollars held in its FMF account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, meaning that U.S. taxpayer dollars will continue to contribute to the IDF budget for several years after Congress stops appropriating funding.

Nevertheless, this is a significant, and in some ways surprising, statement from a senior Republican Senator, particularly in light of previous reporting from Axios that Israel was seeking a 20-year extension to its security assistance from the U.S. under a new Memorandum of Understanding. Despite Graham’s statement, any rampdown in funding for Israel should not be taken as a done deal.

So why did Graham make this announcement of intent?

At one level, this is straightforward fiscal policy. Israel is a wealthy nation with a per-capita GDP comparable to that of many European countries, and Netanyahu’s declaration of self-sufficiency would be appealing to the ears of any appropriator seeking to distribute U.S. budgetary funds where they are most needed in what is always a tight and hard-fought process. It is also apparent that the political-military context in the Middle East has changed in the past years, with external threats to Israel, including that of Hezbollah and Iran, significantly reduced or abated.

But it is also very clear that support for spending billions of taxpayer dollars on Israel’s military is an increasingly unpopular policy with not only Democratic, but also Republican, voters, and is out of step with President Trump’s own approach to foreign assistance. By making this announcement now, Graham (who, it should be noted, himself faces a potentially tough re-election battle this cycle) may be seeking to de-escalate and avoid an internal battle between the Republican establishment and its own base – thereby also reducing Israel’s own exposure to the U.S. national political debate. By “solving” the taxpayer funding aspect, Graham (and the Government of Israel) may hope that U.S. policy and diplomatic support – and arms sales – may proceed unimpeded with less attention from the U.S. public.

So what does this actually mean in practice? 

First, Senator Graham, though very influential, does not speak for the entire Republican caucus. Particularly if Israel pushes back on his response to Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is possible that many Senate Republicans (and certainly some Senate Democrats) will be less than enthusiastic about his plans, weakening or stymying them altogether over the course of upcoming Appropriations cycles.

Assuming that Graham’s proposal does move forward, it is unlikely that any cuts to Israel’s FMF will be seen in the current-year budget (a bipartisan Bill has just been introduced in the House, and does not include any cuts). If this proposal does go forward, A New Policy would expect to see a phased approach that reduces spending over the course of the coming years. It is also important to note that cutting funding does not mean cutting arms sales. Presuming that Israel picks up the slack with its own funding, arms sales to Israel would not only be unaffected by Graham’s announcement, but, once Israel is picking up the tab, will actually be less subject to some of the constraints and conditions in U.S. law which apply to U.S. grant funding, such as the Leahy Laws.  It is also important to note that while Graham’s remit as Chair of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee does cover FMF, it does not cover the $500M in Missile Defense support provided by the U.S. to Israel through the Defense Department Appropriations, and A New Policy cannot rule out a shift in the funding from State to Defense that would make up for some, if not all, of a ramp-down in FMF – a change that would reduce the impact from Israel’s perspective, given the fungibility of money.

Graham’s statement should also bolster attempts to forestall or prevent the U.S. from signing a new Memorandum of Understanding with Israel for a further period of security assistance. After all, how can the White House make any sort of a commitment when Congress, which holds the power of the purse, is considering ending that funding?

Where are the Democrats?

To all appearances, the Democrats have been blindsided by a Republican policy shift that may undercut their existing positions. No senior Democrat on either the House or Senate appropriations committees has, up to this point, called for an expedited termination of all U.S. security assistance funding to Israel. A New Policy is encouraging Democratic appropriators to back up Senator Graham’s call for an expedited termination of funding for Israel’s military, to condition any future funding during the rampdown on Israeli compliance with international humanitarian law, and to ensure that the question of taxpayer funding does not consume the entire debate over U.S. policy towards Israel, at the expense of the equally – if not more important – debate over the arms transfers themselves.