It’s not about American aid. It never was.
During an Election Day interview with the Fox News Channel, Donald Trump ruminated on America’s commitments to “paying Israel,” which is a terrible way of describing U.S. aid and support for the Jewish State (most taxpayer dollars earmarked for aid never leave the United States). Nevertheless, the president made some news:
President Trump on U.S. aid to Israel: "We were giving them $4 billion. We are. But it gets cut off at the end of the year. Why? Because they don't need it.
"Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like El-Sayed when they don't need it? It's a bad talking point." pic.twitter.com/xkfmbs5lTg
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) November 3, 2026
“We made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” he said. “And they’re fine with it. Because, you know, they’ve become a very successful country. They don’t need it.”
However, the president’s approach to this issue has a domestic political component. “Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like [Abdul] El-Sayed when they don’t need it?” Trump asked. “It’s a bad talking point.”
The policy that Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu hashed out may be mutually agreeable and strategically sound. And yet, if Trump thinks that a revision of the status quo like this will persuade the “anti-Zionist” left to soften its outlook toward Israel, he’s nuts.
If this becomes U.S. policy at the beginning of next year, as Trump forecast, it will have about as much effect on the anti-Israel left’s advocacy as did the end of high-tempo combat operations inside Gaza 13 months ago. Which is to say, it won’t have any effect at all.
Those who continue to rail against the ongoing “genocide” inside Gaza are operating independently of the facts on the ground. Why should an amendment to a line item that consumes 0.05 percent of America’s annual outlays represent a moderating force?
As CBS News correspondent Ross Douthat expertly exposed in his interview with El-Sayed, the candidate is himself hostile to, in his words, “the currently existing state of Israel.” He retreats to the motte of foreign aid when addressing mixed company. But when El-Sayed is pressed even modestly to expound on his views, he explains that his true objective is Israel’s dismantlement.
It’s not about American aid. It never was. There are many compelling reasons to transition away from the current posture toward Israel on which both sides of the equation can agree. But mollifying Israel’s monomaniacal critics isn’t one of them. They cannot be appeased.