Many Americans let out a deep exhale last month as the Trump administration resumed military aid to Ukraine, following a pause that compromised the country’s ability to defend itself against Russia.
However, the turbulence and quid-pro-quo transactionality with which policy toward the nascent democracy has been conducted— and the uncertainty that still underpins it— has revealed an unsettling truth: no nation can assume that it will remain an exception to the ideology of “America First.”
For Ukraine, American support seemed guaranteed. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum promised security assurances after Ukraine surrendered the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal to Russia. The 2021 U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership reiterated and extended this commitment, and even Trump’s first administration provided military aid.
When Russia attacked in 2022, Congress voted by a huge majority to appropriate billions of dollars to help Kyiv defend itself. Yet, Ukraine has never been a treaty ally— America has no legal obligation to defend it. And these seemingly unshakeable commitments have proved surprisingly fragile.
Israel too, despite long-standing bipartisan commitment to its security, is not a treaty ally. Though Trump has historically been a staunch public supporter, the past months have shown that the Trump administration is more than willing to upend precedent, policy, conventional wisdom and long-lived relationships to secure a “better deal” for America.
Key appointees question Israel relationship
This should be a chilling prospect for supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly considering recent developments in the White House and the world of MAGA academia.
On the personnel level, many commentators have noted the increase in the neo-isolationist presence. For example, the State Department’s undersecretary of public affairs Darren Beattie previously called Vladimir Putin “greater than NATO.” And, post-October 7th, when Palestinians led by Hamas invaded Israel from Gaza, murdering 1,200 civilians and taking 251 more hostage, he asserted that “there needs to be a… reevaluation of the public principle of justification for Israel as a state.”
Elbridge Colby, recently confirmed as undersecretary of defense for policy, is well known for his focus on China, one which led him to refuse to state that Russia invaded Ukraine, and to maintain that the United States should limit presence in and engagement with the Middle East.
Both men have direct reporting channels to the secretary of state. Similarly, Michael DeMino, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, urged pressure to prevent Israeli retaliation after Iran’s 2024 ballistic missile attack, advised against bombing the Houthis and has called for a drastic reduction of U.S. presence in the region as it serves no “vital interest.”
The administration has embraced such individuals, who believe “America First” does not align with a continued strengthening of the U.S.-Israel relationship or with enduring American primacy on the world stage.
The administration is also notably devoid of many of the traditional Republican voices that pushed back against this tide in Trump’s first term. This shift came into stark contrast immediately on Jan. 21. with the abrupt firing of Brian Hook, who led the State Department transition team and was expected to serve as a senior diplomat after working under Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo from 2017-2020.
Trouble brewing in conservative think tanks
The scholarship that has underpinned much of Trump’s foreign policy is also pivoting— the Heritage Foundation recently published a special report that advocates phasing out military aid to Israel entirely, and instead making the nation a “security partner.”
Much like the proposed Ukrainian mineral deal, this framework would require Israel to significantly increase purchases of U.S. equipment in the coming decades, while extricating America from many of its current regional commitments.
Making such a dramatic recommendation during the war against Hamas is itself a statement that intimates growing disillusionment. In the same vein, the conservative Cato Institute published an article in 2024 simply titled, “Israel Is a Strategic Liability for the United States,” which was, unsurprisingly, even less generous in its assessment of the relationship.
As key sources of ideas for many members of the Trump administration, the conservative academic shift away from global engagement portends a fundamental realignment of U.S. foreign policy priorities that could leave Israel vulnerable, much like it did Ukraine.
The current upheaval in the executive branch and the world of MAGA academia is placing strain on previously steadfast Republican support for the Jewish state. In the context of the rapid reversal of support for Kyiv— which was initially a point of bipartisan agreement— it is clear that past promises will not predict future decisions.
With negotiations for the 2029 U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, a deal outlining long-term U.S. military aid to Israel, likely to begin next year, the growing schism spells trouble— neo-isolationists will be throwing their weight around to advocate for a decrease in aid and attention.
For Republican supporters of U.S.-Israel ties, the unsettling developments in Ukraine war negotiations should serve as a wake-up call: under Trump 2.0, no relationship, no matter how ironclad it may seem, is safe.
