NEW YORK, November 13, 2026 – A longtime maxim in Washington was that no matter how much Republicans and Democrats lashed out against each other on issues of taxation, judgeships, or health care, backing Israel was a rare exception to their acrimonious battles. This tradition did not suddenly come to an end but crumbled election by election until this month’s mid-term vote made the fissures obvious.
New Senate faces. Sharper questions. Fewer blank checks.
What would cause a change in the math of Congress to suddenly become significant for the U.S.–Israel relationship? This is because foreign policy is not made exclusively from the Oval Office; Congress controls funding for military assistance and arms transfers, and the new group of politicians represents a constituency whose perception of Israel has radically changed.
Based on the data by the Pew Research Center, cited in the report, 80% of Democratic-leaning voters now have an unfavorable view of Israel, and even traditionally pro-Israel Democrats have shown they would block certain offensive weapons sales to Israel. The grassroots movement has turned into actual seats in the Senate, with critics of Israeli policy such as Abdul El-Sayed from Michigan, Peggy Flanagan from Minnesota, and Troy Jackson from Maine securing their seats in the upper chamber.
On the other hand, there are GOP legislators and “America First” populists who have already questioned why the United States should pay for wars overseas when American voters complain about food and rent prices in the United States. Thus, this pressure creates a very complicated situation for those traditional hawks who support Israel.
This report demonstrates how these tremors in the domestic political arena affect decision-making in Jerusalem and the Middle East region. Previously, Israeli authorities relied on support from the U.S. Congress that could help smooth relations with the White House, but now the Congress evaluates the activities in question from all possible sides.
And here’s what makes this moment genuinely unpredictable: US President Donald Trump has added a big curveball to the discussion. Trump has indicated that the United States will stop paying for its $3.8 billion annual military assistance to Israel by 2026, ending the 10-year memorandum of understanding, which was set to expire only in 2028.
Nevertheless, there are certain constitutional constraints on the critics in Congress. Although the mobilized Democrats in Congress have the capability to conduct oversight hearings, to delay arms notification, and to put conditions on budgets, the President still has the ability to veto budgets and conduct foreign policy. The old institutionalists in both chambers continue to see the alliance as an essential strategic counter to regional rivals, especially in light of ongoing volatility in the region regarding Iran.
Conditioning aid critics, with reason, claim that by making public the differences between Washington and Jerusalem, the two governments are giving strength to their adversaries and making it more difficult to negotiate ceasefires or hostage situations. But pretending that there has been no change in public opinion will not suddenly change things back to the way they used to be. It isn’t hostility to ask questions about the purpose of spending billions of taxpayer dollars on high-tech weaponry when those weapons are going to Israel.
No one is claiming that the United States is going to cut off ties with its most important ally in the Middle East. Intelligence sharing, cooperation on missile defense, and cooperation diplomatically are just too important. What is ending is the era of automatic deference. For the U.S.-Israeli relationship to make it into the next decade on solid footing, both countries will have to lay that foundation in terms of accountability, not politics.
