The United States and Israel are negotiating $3.3 billion in annual military aid payments running through at least 2033, weeks after President Donald Trump announced that aid to Israel would end this year. The contradiction is the story. A pledge made on the morning of the midterm elections is already being unwound in closed-room talks.

Israeli media reported within a week of Trump's announcement that negotiations were underway to preserve some assistance under a framework extending aid to at least 2033. The sudden cutoff had taken observers by surprise and raised the question of whether a president could execute such a move unilaterally and quickly. The emerging answer appears to be: not without a deal.

What does the current framework provide?

US aid to Israel operates under a 2016 memorandum of understanding signed by former President Barack Obama. That MOU set funding levels from fiscal 2019 through 2028, totaling $38 billion. The bulk flows through Foreign Military Financing (FMF), a program that provides funds for foreign governments to spend almost exclusively on US-made weapons from American defense companies.

The new agreement under discussion envisages a $16.5 billion commitment over five years. That keeps annual FMF aid roughly stable at $3.3 billion per year — a figure notably unchanged from the arrangement Trump said he was terminating.

A separate $500 million per year funds research on missile defense systems. Defenders of that line item argue it is a mutually beneficial arrangement for both countries' defense industries.

Why is Congress resisting the cutoff?

Ynet reported that much of Congress opposes the sudden aid termination on economic grounds. The $3.3 billion in annual FMF spending effectively recycles into US defense contractors; an abrupt cutoff could cost American jobs. What looks like foreign aid on the budget line functions, in practice, as domestic defense procurement.

A senior Israeli official made the case directly to Ynet: "We are moving here from a model of aid to a model of partnership." The official added: "It is important to remember that most of the security assistance remains in America and contributes to the American economy. Cutting it would also hurt American industries and require adjustments."

The framing is convenient — but the arithmetic supports it. If most of the money never leaves the US economy, cutting it is a domestic industrial decision, not merely a foreign policy one. That is the leverage Jerusalem is quietly using.

How does Netanyahu's office frame it?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office more or less confirmed the deal in a Wednesday statement, presenting it as an accomplishment and as a gradual wind-down rather than a continuation.

"In 1996, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel would gradually end U.S. financial support of $1.2 billion," the statement reads. "He did just that."

It continued: "Thirty years later, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel is strong enough economically to gradually end military support. Today, Israel has a strong and stable economy, and Israel and the United States are making the important move from aid to partnership."

Note what the statement does not say: no end date, no reduction schedule, no dollar figure below current levels. A promise of gradual cutoff, with the gradient unspecified, can absorb a great deal of continuity.

What changes under the new deal's structure?

The emerging agreement covers five years instead of the Obama MOU's ten. That halving may signal that Washington and Jerusalem are genuinely preparing for a phased termination of aid — or it may simply buy both sides an exit from an awkward political moment. A shorter horizon cuts both ways.

What does this change for Congress?

The agreement is intended to be finalized by the end of 2026. A bilateral MOU does not require direct congressional approval, but Congress retains oversight through annual appropriations votes that fund the aid. The current Congress will vote on appropriations before handing over to the next one.

Israeli officials signaled confidence to Ynet that the deal would pass. They also flagged the longer-term risk: the appropriations bill must be renewed every year, setting up a showdown with a Democratic-dominated House and Senate next year.

Their confidence, in other words, extends one appropriations cycle at a time. For a deal meant to run to 2033, that is the structural weakness — and the reason the word "partnership" is doing so much work in every official statement.