Republican Lawmaker Says Netanyahu Backed His Bid to End U.S. Military Aid to Israel
Republican Congressman Marlin Stutzman of Indiana says he is working to end the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel, and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu privately backed the idea in a conversation last month. In an interview with N12, Stutzman said Netanyahu told him the move was something he himself had long wanted to pursue. The article was published on June 14, 2026.
Stutzman says his resolution is meant to lead to a new memorandum of understanding between the two countries that would replace aid with a trade-based and security-based relationship, alongside stronger private-sector ties. He argues the change would cut U.S. spending and, in his words, show that Israel is independent and that the two countries have a mature relationship. “It is important that Israel stand on its own two feet,” he said.
He also says the aid fuels anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives in the United States, and that even if ending the money would not eliminate antisemitism, it could reduce criticism from people who ask why Washington keeps funding Israel when it cannot afford it itself because of debt and deficits. Stutzman, who calls himself a “fiscal hawk,” says he puts America first and wants to reduce spending wherever possible.
The congressman says his push follows Netanyahu’s own public remarks last month on CBS, where the prime minister said he wanted to “bring it down to zero” and “start now” reducing American financial support. Stutzman compared the relationship to “children leaving home,” saying independence is healthy and that Netanyahu believes Israel can support itself. He added that the current memorandum expires in 2028, that talks are already underway among the U.S. State Department, the Israeli government and the White House, and that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has also backed a trade-based arrangement. Stutzman said he traveled to Israel before publicizing the proposal so it would not look like an anti-Israel move, but as a deepening of ties.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.