Opinion - Congress's priorities are clear: Israel military aid over domestic needs
In the recently passed continuing resolution, Congress once again demonstrated a willingness to prioritize military aid over critical domestic needs.
Despite broad spending cuts across government programs, provisions buried in the legislation ensure that military assistance — particularly to Israel — remains untouched and even expanded. This should concern both fiscal conservatives worried about unchecked government spending and those who advocate for a more accountable foreign policy.
Among the most striking provisions in the continuing resolution is the expansion of the War Reserve Stockpile Allies – Israel. The resolution authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer an additional $1.5 billion worth of U.S. weapons to Israel from the stockpile between 2027 and 2029. This comes at a time when lawmakers are imposing austerity measures on domestic programs, raising serious questions about where Congress' priorities lie.
Additionally, it extends $9 billion in loan guarantees to Israel through 2030, ensuring continued financial backing for a country that already receives billions in military aid annually. Unlike other areas of the budget where Congress has imposed cuts or spending caps, these guarantees effectively provide a blank check for additional transfers, with little to no public scrutiny.
As Josh Paul, co-founder of A New Policy and former State Department official who resigned over U.S. arms transfers under the Biden administration, told me: 'At a time when Congress is debating massive cuts to social services here in the U.S., and when the Trump administration claims to be looking for every possible efficiency in our government, it is a disappointment, though not a surprise, to see Congress sneak through new additional financial exposure for the taxpayer when it comes to Israel.'
However, perhaps equally as troubling, is what the continuing resolution doesn't fund. While military aid remains intact, the legislation eliminates a critical oversight mechanism: the $5 million allocated to War Crimes Accountability under the State Department's Economic Support Fund. This move sends a troubling message about the U.S. government's commitment to accountability when American weapons are used in conflict.
This is not just a matter of foreign policy; it is a question of budgetary responsibility and national priorities. As lawmakers slash funding for essential domestic programs — including housing, healthcare and education — why is foreign military aid insulated from the same scrutiny?
'By extending $9 billion in loan guarantee authority for a country whose credit rating is crumbling as a result of its own bad choices — and by authorizing the transfer of a further $1.5 billion in critical Defense Department stockpiles to the War Reserve Stockpile in Israel — the continuing resolution once again demonstrates that it is one rule — austerity — for the American people, and another rule — munificence — when it comes to the defense forces of a foreign nation,' Paul added.
Congress should take immediate steps to restore accountability measures in foreign military financing and conduct a serious reassessment of the Israel war reserve stockpile's continued expansion. At the very least, foreign military aid should not be exempt from the same budgetary discipline applied to other federal programs.
As debates over budget priorities continue, the American public deserves transparency on why cuts are made to essential programs while military aid remains sacrosanct. It is time for a serious, bipartisan conversation about U.S. foreign aid priorities — and whether they truly serve the interests of the American people.
Janet Abou-Elias is co-founder of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency and a research fellow at the Center for International Policy.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The Latest: Trump muses about regime change in Iran after U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities
Israel's military said Monday it was striking around Iran's western city of Kermanshah, as fears of a wider regional conflict loomed large after the United States inserted itself into Israel's war by attacking Iranian nuclear sites. The operation raised urgent questions about what remained of Tehran's nuclear program and how its weakened military might respond. The price of oil rose as financial markets reacted. Iran lashed out at the U.S. for crossing 'a very big red line' with its risky gambit to strike the three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs . President Donald Trump, who has warned of additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against U.S. forces, has mused about the possibility of 'regime change ″ in Iran, despite administration officials earlier indicating they wanted to restart talks with Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in an interview with CBS, said: 'Let's meet directly.' Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, said any country used by the U.S. to strike Iran 'will be a legitimate target for our armed forces,' the state-run IRNA news agency reported. Tens of thousands of American troops are based in the Middle East. Here is the latest: North Korea condemns U.S. strikes on Iran North Korea says it 'strongly condemns' the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling it an egregious violation of Iran's territorial integrity and security interests. North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday that the United States and Israel were escalating tensions in the Middle East through the use of military force, and called on the 'just-minded international community' to raise a unified voice against their 'confrontational behavior.' During his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018 and 2019, but their diplomacy collapsed over disagreements in exchanging the release of U.S.-led sanctions against North Korea and the North's steps to wind down its nuclear and missile program. Kim has since accelerated his arms development while ignoring talk offers by Washington and Seoul. He has shifted the priority of his foreign policy to Russia, sending thousands of troops and huge shipments of military equipment to fuel Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. Trump claims 'monumental damage' inflicted on Iranian nuclear sites President Donald Trump asserted on his Truth Social platform that Iran's nuclear sites sustained 'monumental damage' in the American attack, though a U.S. assessment on the strikes is still underway. 'The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' he wrote. U.S. defense officials have said they are working to determine about just how much damage the strikes did. Iran as well has not said how much damage was done in the attack, though Tehran has not offered any details so far on the strikes it has faced from Israel in its war with that country. Iran likely filled in tunnels at nuclear sites ahead of U.S. strikes An analysis of satellite photos by a nuclear nonproliferation group based in Washington shows Iran likely filled in tunnels at its nuclear site at Isfahan ahead of U.S. strikes early Sunday. The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security published satellite images taken by Airbus it assessed showed trucks dumping soil into tunnels at the site on Friday. The U.S. attack likely targeted the tunnel entries, the group said. 'At least three of the four tunnel entrances are collapsed,' it said. 'The status of the fourth one is unclear.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Business Journals
2 hours ago
- Business Journals
3 simple steps for employers to lower health care costs and ensure better employee care
It's no secret that the current health care system is unsustainable. Nearly half of Americans receive health care coverage through their employer and over the past two decades, employer-sponsored health care costs have risen by over 200%. Many businesses can no longer front the costs — and the burden is being shifted onto employees. The result? Health care has become unaffordable for many working Americans — for some employees cost shifting has made engaging care unaffordable and 40% of American adults are struggling with medical debt — a shockingly high number. Despite this astronomical rise in cost, most brokers and benefits consultants haven't changed the solutions they present to clients in decades. In our experience, only about 5-10% of brokers are offering their clients innovative alternatives and even fewer have fully embraced a different approach, leading to poor implementation and support when they do try something new. The reality is that health care operates as an inefficient market. Unlike most industries, higher costs do not necessarily equate to higher quality care — in fact, it can often be the opposite. We believe that by being proactive, transparent and strategic, employers can reverse this trend by reducing costs while ensuring their employees receive top-quality care. However, achieving transformational results demands a completely different approach. The four of us have spent years in this industry and have tailored a unique approach that enables us to achieve superior results. We've seen what works and what doesn't and the ineffective options continually peddled to employers. That's why we've joined forces to help employers to take control of their health care spend and save real money. Our approach We don't believe in a one-size-fits all health plans and we partner with HR leaders to bring their health care strategy to life while directly administering the change. This includes educating employees on what they need to know to make the most of their benefits. When you show people exactly how they can receive better care at a lower price, everyone wins. Our model is built on three pillars: education, pharmacy platform and Medicare Plus. Education: We empower members to navigate the health care system effectively and steer them towards high quality and cost-effective options. Navigating the health care system is hard and we take a hands-on approach, which helps members understand their choices and make informed decisions. This extra effort improves health outcomes while ensuring the best experience possible. According to publicly available data compiled by Image360, CT scans in Tampa, Florida, are typically billed between $4,500 and $9,700. Even after PPO discounts, health plan members and businesses still pay $2,200 to $4,800. The problem is, there's little transparency in pricing and high cost doesn't guarantee high quality. Imagine360 changes that. With Imagine360, the average cost for the same CT scan at the same facility drops to under $200. This translates to significant savings for the employee and the business. Pharmacy platform: Pharmacy spend is the fastest-growing expense when it comes to a health plan. Traditional solutions often lack transparency and instead function as profit centers. We craft innovative solutions to manage pharmacy costs, ensuring that members have access to affordable medications without compromising on quality. Medicare Plus: We provide a thoughtful alternative to conventional PPOs. This model offers robust coverage at significantly lower costs by anchoring reimbursements to fair, Medicare-based rates. The above approach collectively has proven to cut costs by nearly 25% on average. Through this approach, we've reduced the cost of health care so drastically that some clients now offer no-cost health care to all of their employees. At a time when most companies are forcing employees to pay upwards of thousands of dollars per month on health insurance premiums, our clients pick up the full cost of premiums for their employees. This difference is life-changing for many families. By adopting a three-pillar approach to health care benefits, these businesses have become highly sought-after employers in their communities. And it's not just beneficial for employees — it's advantageous for the health plan as well. When health care premiums are overpriced, only the highest utilizers enroll, which makes sense; you would only pay thousands of dollars a month in premiums if you anticipated high health care expenses. However, when coverage is affordable and well-structured, everyone participates, creating a healthier, more predictable and sustainable plan. If this sounds too good to be true, you're not alone. One employer came to us frustrated and skeptical. Every broker had pitched the same traditional solutions, none of which solved their problem. Their chief financial officer knew that if they could not control hospital claims costs, the business would be in trouble. We introduced Medicare Plus pricing as a strategic solution. We helped manage the learning curve for the first few months — but once leadership committed to the solution, the plan started working. Three years in, premiums, deductibles and copays have all dropped. Employees are getting better coverage, and the company has even added new benefits — while most of their peers are cutting back. Using an independent TPA Working with an independent third-party administrator (TPA) opens the door to a different and better playbook. Yes, it takes more work upfront — more education, communication, teamwork — but the payoff is worth it: a more flexible employee benefits solution that can lead to better care, lower costs, and long-term consistency. No more carrier swaps or yearly overhauls. We currently support 25 clients on this platform. With dedicated service teams, personalized enrollment education and long-term strategies, we help employers innovate — without impacting employee satisfaction. The result is a smoother, more positive experience. The road ahead We're all fighting the same fight: pushing back against a system that hides cost, limits choices, wastes money and is driving people to choose little or no coverage due to cost. But it doesn't have to be this way. With a three-pronged approach including employee education, pharmacy and Medicare Plus pricing, we're helping employers take back control of their health care costs. By putting people first and staying committed to value-based solutions, employers and brokers can finally break free from the old playbook — and build something better. McGriff is a Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC Company. Our solutions include commercial property and casualty, corporate bonding and surety, cyber, executive risk, management and professional liability, captives and alternative risk transfer programs, employee benefits, small business and personal lines insurance.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Democrats, and some Republicans, question Trump's unilateral attack
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least two or three years,'' Kaine noted on 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.' Advertisement He disagreed with the assertions of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed on Sunday shows that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Kaine said. Advertisement A few Republicans are also breaking with the president on the issue. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who this month introduced a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) to require congressional approval before any strike, said Sunday that there had been 'no imminent threat' to the U.S. to justify Trump's unilateral actions against Iran. The U.S. House, Massie noted, was on recess last week. If the situation in Iran was as urgent as the Trump administration has made it seem, the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington. 'Frankly, we should've debated this,' Massie told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'Instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers and saying, 'Oh, well, the president's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority.'' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Saturday also questioned the legality of Trump's attacks, saying on social media, 'it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' As news of the strikes broke Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), who has also opposed U.S. intervention in Iran, posted on X that 'this is not our fight.' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) called on the Senate to enforce the War Powers Act - the measure that would reaffirm Congress's right to declare war. Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to bring the act to a vote on the floor 'immediately.' Schumer said Saturday that confronting Iran's 'ruthless campaign of terror' requires 'strategic clarity.' Trump, he said, must be held accountable by Congress. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' he said. Advertisement But Trump's defenders pointed to other authority in the Constitution, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pointing to Article II, which allows the president some war powers. 'You can't have 535 commander in chiefs,' Graham said, referring to the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Graham, in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, argued that while Congress has declared war only a handful of times in U.S. history, and has not since World War II, other presidents have launched military operations without congressional authorization. In 2011, for example, President Barack Obama ordered a military intervention in Libya without lawmakers' approval. In other instances, Congress has given the president the power to order limited military attacks by passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AMUF. Some point out that the 2002 authorization, which gave the president the authority to use armed forces against 'the continuing threat posed by Iraq,' is still active, despite efforts by some lawmakers in recent years to rescind the authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the attack soon after the U.S. planes left Iranian airspace. Various lawmakers also argued that Trump should not have bombarded Iranian nuclear facilities because U.S. intelligence did not show that the country was at risk of an Iranian attack. 'You don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis - that is, that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb, and we simply don't have the intelligence or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Advertisement The top two Republicans in Congress - House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) and Thune - were quick to praise what they said was Trump's decisiveness even though the president made the decision to attack Iran without Congress's input. Both Thune and Johnson were briefed ahead of the strike, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation. Johnson said Trump's attack should serve as a 'clear reminder to our adversaries and allies' that Trump 'means what he says.' 'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity,' Johnson said. Other lawmakers warned about the strikes snowballing into a prolonged conflict, as Iran has asserted that it reserved 'all options' to act in self-defense. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), who served in the Marines, warned the nation should not be 'dragged into another endless war in the Middle East.' 'I would know. I saw close friends die next to me serving as a Marine in a high-combat unit in Iraq,' he said in a statement. 'Each of these deaths was needless.' A few House Democrats called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wrote on X. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' But Schiff - who served as impeachment manager during Trump's first impeachment trial - told CNN that congressional Republicans have made it clear that they have a 'high bar' for impeachment processes against Trump. Advertisement 'The better remedy, frankly, is - if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever - to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action,' he said. At least one Senate Democrat, however, openly applauded Trump's actions on Saturday night. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump],' Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) said. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Marianna Sotomayor, Amy B Wang and Niha Masih contributed to this report.
