Israel faces $10 billion gap for US weapons orders beyond current aid deal

Israel will need roughly $10 billion beyond the military assistance Washington has already promised to pay for equipment it has ordered from the United States, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. The funding requirement extends beyond the current aid agreement, which expires in 2028, and presents a challenge to US President Donald Trump's stated intention to end military assistance to Israel.

The newspaper obtained a State Department document submitted to Congress detailing outstanding purchases as of April 1. Whether the total has changed since that date is unclear. Washington has committed nearly $7 billion in military assistance over the next two years, but that money will not cover all existing orders. A department letter to Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas said the remaining costs could be paid through further American assistance, Israel's budget or both. The department did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump announced his intention to end aid on Tuesday. The Jerusalem Post previously reported that the remarks appeared to surprise Israeli officials, including members of the defense establishment, despite months of bilateral discussions about gradually reducing assistance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed ending direct US military aid over a decade.

The agreement signed during the Obama administration provides about $3.3 billion annually for Israeli purchases of American military equipment. It permits Israel to order weapons against funding pledged for future years before that money arrives. Congress separately approved approximately $26 billion in additional aid in 2024 amid the Gaza war following Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack. Congressional Research Service figures put cumulative US military assistance to Israel between 1948 and May 2025 at about $174 billion, without adjusting for inflation.

US lawmakers are also pursuing legislation to place greater emphasis on defense investment and joint military technology development and production instead of grants. The proposal is expected to enter the annual defense policy bill, due to be finalized by year's end. Supporters say it would facilitate Pentagon cooperation with Israel on procurement and technology, building on projects such as Iron Dome, developed with American companies. Critics warn that deeper integration into Pentagon supply chains and programs would make future congressional efforts to reduce cooperation harder.

Joint production would not immediately resolve Israel's military requirements. The country continues to depend on American weapons supplies, including thousands of bombs delivered during recent wars, and plans to buy a squadron of 25 advanced F-35 fighter jets. Losing US assistance could require further increases in Israeli defense spending, which already represents approximately 7% of gross domestic product, a larger share than in any NATO country.

The debate coincides with declining support for Israel across both major US parties after years of fighting in Gaza and Lebanon and the joint US-Israeli campaign against Iran this year. Republicans sustained significant losses in Tuesday's congressional midterms. Vice President JD Vance wrote Wednesday on X that the Iran war and relations with Israel were among the principal reasons voters moved away from his party.

Trump argued that ending direct assistance could remove a major campaign issue for Democratic critics. He singled out Abdul El-Sayed, elected in Michigan to become the first Muslim US senator, who campaigned against unconditional aid to Israel. Any reduction would also have to account for the American legal requirement to maintain Israel's qualitative military advantage over potential adversaries.

Current and former US officials nevertheless consider an immediate cutoff unlikely. Former senior State Department official Josh Paul, who resigned during the Biden administration over support for the Gaza war, told the newspaper that existing congressional budget commitments would prevent a rapid termination. Although he supports ending assistance, Paul said there was no substantiation for an imminent halt.