Jeffries Proposes Ending Israel’s Subsidy, Not Arms Sales

Card photograph: ARCHIVE, March 26, 2025. Hakeem Jeffries speaks at the Families Over Billionaires rally outside the U.S. Capitol. Photo: G. Edward Johnson, CC BY 4.0. Cropped for the card. Source photograph.

Hakeem Jeffries urged House Democrats on July 14 to reconsider U.S. weapons subsidies for Israel while preserving the countries’ security relationship. His letter to the caucus argued that Israel’s advanced economy could finance its own purchases. The proposed change concerned who pays for weapons, rather than an end to U.S. sales.

Jeffries coupled that position with support for an immediate process toward an independent Palestinian state, reconstruction and humanitarian aid in Gaza, and sanctions against violent West Bank settlers. He also called for Hamas to be disarmed and removed from governing Gaza. These are substantive policy positions, but they do not amount to a proposal to stop U.S. arms sales.

The letter defended cooperation on Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling, joint research and Israel’s qualitative military edge. It envisioned future arrangements resembling those with Western allies, with adherence to human-rights law. Schumer’s votes on individual arms sales show the narrower transfer decisions that would remain within that relationship.

The agreement runs through fiscal 2028

The existing military-aid memorandum was signed in 2016 but covers fiscal years 2019 through 2028. It pledges $38 billion, subject to congressional appropriation: $33 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $5 billion for missile defense. Those dates and categories are set out in the Congressional Research Service’s aid report.

Reducing grants would change the cost borne by U.S. taxpayers. Preserving sales could still put the same weapons in the same military’s hands. For Palestinians, the conditions on delivery and use remain consequential regardless of which treasury finances the purchase.

ARCHIVE, 2021. Hakeem Jeffries’s official congressional portrait. Franmarie Metzler / House Creative Services. Public domain. Source photograph.

Jeffries opposed Massie’s amendment, arguing that its breadth also endangered humanitarian and peacebuilding programs. The July 15 roll call records his no vote. Leadership did not instruct the caucus to oppose the amendment.

The split reached the leadership team

Roll Call’s July 15 reporting documented a division above the rank and file. Democratic Whip Katherine Clark voted for the restriction, as did former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Among Democrats, 103 supported the amendment, 98 opposed it and 10 voted present. The House defeated it, 104–314, with Massie the only Republican voting yes.

The amendment would have removed $3.3 billion from the proposed fiscal 2027 security-assistance account. Jeffries’s letter offered a different timetable and structure: reconsider future subsidies while continuing the security partnership. For lawmakers seeking an immediate reduction, that distinction meant a no vote on the available funding restriction.

The disagreement persisted as Democrats prepared for leadership elections. The Lever reported on October 28 that there was no organized progressive effort to field an alternative speaker candidate. Greg Casar had publicly backed working with Jeffries, while Melat Kiros and other insurgents sought concrete commitments before offering support. Committee assignments and a Medicare for All vote were among the possible concessions under discussion.

That reported bargaining was not a completed agreement or a speaker election. It showed why July’s aid dispute mattered beyond a single roll call: the party’s factions would need to negotiate the legislative agenda as well as the person holding the gavel. On Israel, Jeffries had already drawn his line between changing the subsidy and ending the arms relationship.