US midterms: Not even Trump's Israel aid stunt could rescue the Republicans

US midterm elections happen halfway through a president’s four-year term. They are important because voters can change the balance of power without choosing a new president. The article describes contests for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and governorships.

Voters choose all 435 House members every two years. They also choose roughly one-third of the Senate, whose six-year terms are staggered. Governors are elected in many states during midterm cycles, though not every state holds a gubernatorial election at the same time.

The article shows how broad these elections are. Democrats gained control of both congressional chambers, flipped at least seven Republican-held Senate seats, and won major governorships. In Texas, a Democrat became governor for the first time in more than three decades. These results can determine which party controls national lawmaking and state governments.

On 3 November, Election Day, Donald Trump announced that the United States would end its annual military aid to Israel at the end of the year. He described the aid as roughly $4bn and argued that funding Israel had become a bad talking point for Republicans.

Trump made the announcement during an appearance on Fox & Friends. He referred to Abdul El-Sayed, who later became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate, and complained that Republicans were facing political attacks over Israel. The timing made the announcement look closely connected to the midterm campaign.

The article presents the declaration as a last-minute effort to rescue Republican candidates for the House, Senate, and governorships. It also notes that the president could not simply cancel the package alone. Congress appropriates the aid each year, while the existing package comes from a longer agreement.

The announcement did not help Republicans win the midterms. The article describes the result as closer to a blue tsunami than a blue wave. Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress and won important state-level contests.

At least seven Republican-held Senate seats changed hands. Democrats also won key governorships, including in Texas. There, a Democrat became governor for the first time in more than three decades. These results showed that the announcement did not overcome the election’s wider political forces.

The article gives two main reasons. Voters were focused on more than Israel, including the economy, the war on Iran, democracy, immigration, and racism. Many also recognised the aid declaration as a stunt. Its legal and financial limits made it less convincing as a major policy change, especially because Congress controls annual appropriations.

The current annual package is $3.8bn, although Trump described it as $4bn. That figure covers only one part of America’s military support for Israel. The article stresses that the wider relationship includes additional assistance and military cooperation.

Brown University’s Costs of War project estimated that Washington provided $21.7bn in military aid to Israel during the two years after 7 October 2023. It also estimated that the United States spent up to another $12bn on military operations in the wider Middle East. Those figures show why cancelling the annual package would not end broader support.

The article also points to the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Its Section 219 would create a United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, including joint training and information sharing. The proposed cooperation could deepen military ties even while political arguments focus on the annual aid package.

The legal power to approve annual military aid belongs to Congress. The article explicitly states that Congress, not the president, appropriates the money each year. A presidential announcement cannot by itself rewrite that process.

Israel’s current package is tied to a 10-year, $38bn memorandum of understanding signed under Barack Obama in 2016. The agreement provides $3.8bn annually and is scheduled to run through 2028. Congress still makes the yearly appropriations that fund the package.

This division explains why Trump’s Election Day declaration was vulnerable as policy. He could announce an intended change, but Congress controlled the money. The article also notes that wider US military support extends beyond the annual package, including proposed cooperation involving joint training, information sharing, and jointly developed technologies. Cancelling one package would therefore not automatically end broader military ties.

Israel’s current aid package comes from a 10-year, $38bn memorandum of understanding. Barack Obama signed it in 2016. The agreement set annual military aid at $3.8bn and established the framework for the payments.

The package is not simply a presidential gift that one administration can switch off. Congress appropriates the money each year, even though the memorandum sets the broader commitment. This distinction matters because Trump announced an aid cutoff without having sole control over the funding process.

The agreement is scheduled to run to 2028. During that period, debates over Israel policy can still affect yearly appropriations and wider cooperation. The article also describes a proposed 2027 defense bill provision that would deepen US-Israel military links through joint exercises, information sharing, and cooperation on jointly developed technologies.

Separation of powers divides control of public money between the executive and legislative branches. The president leads foreign policy and can announce intended changes, but Congress controls annual appropriations. That means taxpayer-funded foreign aid generally depends on congressional approval rather than presidential will alone.

Israel’s aid illustrates the limit clearly. The current package is $3.8bn a year under a 10-year memorandum of understanding signed in 2016. Yet Congress, not the president, appropriates the money each year. Trump’s Election Day announcement therefore could not independently cancel the funding.

The arrangement creates checks on sudden policy changes. A president may try to influence Congress or use an announcement for political purposes, but the legislature controls the funding mechanism. The article also shows that aid is only one part of the relationship: proposed defense legislation would deepen military cooperation through training, information sharing, and technology links.