Israel Named “Model US Ally” by Trump Administration as Military Aid Negotiations Approach

In a significant shift in U.S. defense policy, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth unveiled the 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) last week, a document that elevates Israel to the status of a “model ally” and translates President Trump’s national security priorities into concrete military policy.

“Israel has long demonstrated that it is both willing and able to defend itself with critical but limited support from the United States,” the strategy states. “Israel is a model ally, and we have an opportunity now to further empower it to defend itself and promote our shared interests, building on President Trump’s historic efforts to secure peace in the Middle East.”

The document arrives at a crucial moment, as discussions begin over the next decade of U.S. security assistance to Israel. The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which expires soon, provides Israel with $3.3 billion annually in foreign military financing plus $500 million yearly for missile defense cooperation.

Some conservative voices have recently argued for phasing out direct aid to Israel, characterizing the alliance as a burden rather than a strategic asset. However, the new NDS frames Israel’s relationship with the United States differently, emphasizing Israel’s demonstrated ability to defend itself following the October 7 attacks while advancing shared regional interests.

Jonathan Ruhe, director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, notes that the strategy reflects a broader American shift toward mutually beneficial security partnerships.

“U.S. defense assistance to Israel in the MOU is spent in dollars here in America to support our industry,” Ruhe told Fox News Digital. “And like in the national security strategy, it then enables Israel to go and do more to protect U.S. interests.”

Ruhe predicts that a future agreement would expand beyond simple funding mechanisms. “A new MOU would also likely be broader and include things that are more 50-50 partnership, like joint research and development, co-production, intelligence sharing and things like that to reflect the changing partnership going forward,” he said.

The strategy also emphasizes revitalizing America’s defense industrial base, noting that allies purchasing U.S. systems help strengthen domestic production capabilities while enabling partners to shoulder greater regional security responsibilities.

Avner Golov, vice president of the Israeli think tank Mind Israel, emphasized that the document positions Israel as an active participant rather than a passive aid recipient. “Israel is in the fight. We are protecting ourselves by ourselves. We just need the tools to do that. And by doing so, we enhance not only America’s standing in the Middle East, but also worldwide and contribute to the American economy.”

This framing marks a shift from tensions experienced during the Biden administration, when the White House temporarily paused deliveries of certain weapons to Israel in May 2024, including a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs. At that time, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that Israel “will stand alone” if Washington halted weapons deliveries, reflecting concerns about the impact of delays on Israel’s military readiness and regional deterrence.

Defense analysts note that approximately 70% of Israel’s military imports come from the United States, underscoring the strategic calculations behind Netanyahu’s recent push for greater independent production capabilities.

Golov criticized the emphasis on independence as shortsighted. “I believe that is a short-term vision,” he said. “In the long term, Israel must first be prepared for the next round of escalation. If we are not ready, we will face another war. If we are prepared, perhaps we can deter it.”

The ongoing conflict has exposed vulnerabilities created by heavy dependence on U.S. supply chains and potential political delays, according to Ruhe. “The war of the last two years showed that Israel can’t afford to be as dependent on the U.S. or continue to maintain the same defense partnership that it has because that creates a dependence,” he said, noting that Israel becomes vulnerable to “U.S. shortages in weapons output or politically motivated embargoes and holdups that can impact Israel’s readiness.”

Despite these concerns, both experts acknowledge Israel’s continued reliance on the United States for major defense platforms. “Even Israel will say we’re utterly dependent on the U.S. for those big-ticket platforms,” Ruhe said, pointing to aircraft such as the F-15 and F-35 that Israel has already committed to purchasing.

For practical reasons, Ruhe argued that maintaining stable funding under the next MOU may be the most effective path forward. “It’s actually much easier for Congress just to go ahead and approve that money,” he explained, noting that predictable funding reduces annual political battles on Capitol Hill.

Rather than reducing ties with Washington, Golov envisions deepening the alliance. “I don’t want to reduce dependency,” he said. “I want to increase contribution to America.”

He characterized the emerging vision as a fundamental transformation of the alliance structure. “We are moving from a 20th-century aid model to a 21st-century strategic merger,” Golov said. “Israel is the only partner that delivers a 400% return on investment without asking for a single American soldier.”

The proposed framework centers around three pillars: an industrial defense ecosystem, a joint technology ecosystem, and a regional ecosystem connecting Israeli innovation, Gulf infrastructure, and American power. Golov emphasized that maintaining U.S. security assistance during this transition period remains critical.

“We need a final ten-year ‘bridge’ with the current security aid MOU,” he concluded. “A sudden cut would be a dangerous signal of American retreat to our enemies and may hinder IDF preparedness.”