Trump’s transactional worldview, often dismissed by foreign policy elites as crude pragmatism, may ironically prove more constraining for Israeli ambitions than the idealistic liberal internationalism it replaced. The businessman-turned-president understands leverage, and Israel’s position—while still formidable—is no longer the unassailable strategic asset it once appeared to American policymakers.
The Gaza conflict and its aftermath have exposed the costs of unlimited backing for Israeli military operations. American public opinion, particularly among younger voters and minorities who form crucial parts of the Republican coalition Trump is trying to expand, has grown increasingly skeptical of blank-check support for any foreign nation, including Israel. This isn’t antisemitism; it’s America First logic applied consistently.
Trump justifiably takes credit for the Abraham Accords, but their very success may now limit his options. The normalization agreements with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan were predicated on the promise of Israeli restraint regarding Palestinian territories and a gradual movement toward a two-state solution. The current Israeli government’s maximalist positions threaten to unravel these carefully constructed relationships, potentially forcing Trump to choose between his Middle Eastern legacy and his domestic political ally Netanyahu.
The Saudis, in particular, have made clear that their participation in expanded normalization depends on meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood—a position that has only hardened since October 7th. Trump, ever the dealmaker, understands that losing Saudi Arabia means losing the grand bargain that could reshape the entire region.
Perhaps most significantly, Trump’s focus on economic nationalism and reducing foreign commitments creates structural tension with Israel’s expectations. The $3.8 billion annual military aid package, while politically untouchable in Washington, represents exactly the kind of foreign spending that Trump’s base questions. More importantly, America’s pivot toward great power competition with China requires concentrating resources and attention on the Indo-Pacific, not endless Middle Eastern entanglements.
Israel’s utility as a strategic partner is increasingly questioned not by anti-Israel voices, but by hardheaded realists who note that American interests in the region—energy security, counterterrorism, great power competition—can often be better served through relationships with Arab states that don’t carry the same political baggage.
Trump’s personal relationship with Netanyahu adds another layer of complexity. Both men share a transactional approach to politics and a tendency toward dramatic gestures, but they also share oversized egos and a reluctance to appear subordinate to foreign leaders. Netanyahu’s survival instincts, honed through decades of Israeli politics, may clash with Trump’s own need to appear in control of his foreign policy.
The Israeli prime minister’s legal troubles and domestic political pressures create additional complications. A leader fighting for his political life at home is poorly positioned to make the compromises that Trump’s broader Middle Eastern strategy may require.
None of this suggests that Trump will abandon Israel or fundamentally alter the special relationship. But it does suggest that the second Trump administration may be more willing to impose conditions, demand reciprocity, and pursue policies that serve broader American interests even when they conflict with immediate Israeli preferences.
The irony is that this more conditional approach may ultimately serve Israel’s long-term interests better than unconditional support that enables short-term policies with catastrophic long-term consequences. True friends, after all, sometimes say no.
Trump’s genius—and his curse—has always been his ability to see past conventional wisdom to underlying power dynamics. Applied to Israel-Palestine, this could mean abandoning the comfortable myths that have guided American policy for decades in favor of hard truths about what actually works in the real world.
Whether this produces breakthrough diplomacy or dangerous instability remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the second Trump term will not simply be a continuation of the first. The Middle East has changed, America has changed, and even Donald Trump has changed. The only question is whether our policies will change with them.