America Can Fund Israel. Why Can’t It House Its Own People?

Summary

America Can Fund Israel. Why Can't It House Its Own People?. Washington has spent decades treating Israel's security as a central American interest in the ...

Full Content

Washington has spent decades treating Israel's security as a central American interest in the Middle East. But there is another crisis unfolding much closer to home: hundreds of thousands of Americans without a permanent place to live. That raises a question politicians in Washington rarely want to answer directly: why does the United States continue committing billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel while Americans are sleeping in shelters, cars and on the streets? This is not an argument against the existence of Israel. It is not an argument in support of Hamas. And it is not an argument that American foreign aid is somehow the sole reason homelessness exists. It is an argument about priorities. Billions for a Strategic Ally The U.S.-Israel security relationship is one of the most established alliances in American foreign policy. Under a 2016 memorandum of understanding, the United States committed, subject to congressional appropriations, $3.3 billion annually in Foreign Military Financing and another $500 million annually for joint missile-defense programs during fiscal years 2019 through 2028. Supporters of that assistance say it protects a key American ally and strengthens Israel's ability to defend itself against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and other threats. Those concerns are real. The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack killed more than 1,200 people and resulted in the taking of more than 240 hostages, according to congressional records. Israel has faced serious security threats for decades. But an alliance should not place a foreign government's military needs beyond democratic scrutiny. The American taxpayer is ultimately paying for these policies. And taxpayers have a right to ask whether those resources could be producing greater benefits elsewhere. Meanwhile, Nearly 750,000 People Are Homeless According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 745,652 people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2025. More than 266,000 were experiencing unsheltered homelessness, meaning they were living in places not intended for human habitation. Behind those numbers are people. Families who cannot afford rent. Workers whose wages cannot keep up with housing costs. Veterans. People struggling with addiction. People dealing with mental-health challenges. People who lost their homes after an economic crisis. People sleeping in vehicles because there is nowhere else to go. America is one of the richest countries on Earth. Yet homelessness remains a reality in virtually every major American city. That contradiction should be uncomfortable. This Is Not Simply a Money Problem It would be dishonest to pretend that cutting military assistance to Israel would suddenly end homelessness. It would not. Homelessness is complicated. Housing shortages, rents, wages, mental health, addiction, domestic violence, disability and economic instability all contribute to the crisis. But funding still matters. The federal government itself announced nearly $3.6 billion in Continuum of Care funding in 2025 to support communities addressing homelessness. The question is whether America should be doing more. If Washington can find billions of dollars for overseas military commitments, why can't it show the same urgency toward housing Americans? The False Choice There is an understandable tendency to frame this debate as a choice between supporting Israel and abandoning it. But foreign policy does not have to be that simple. America can maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. It can cooperate on intelligence. It can support defensive missile systems. It can recognize Israel's right to protect its population. And Washington can still decide that some forms of military assistance should be reduced, conditioned or redirected toward domestic priorities. That is not abandoning an ally. It is exercising oversight. What Would Redirecting the Money Actually Do? This is where the debate needs to become more serious. Instead of simply saying "stop funding Israel," Congress should ask what specific alternatives could produce measurable results. Would additional money build permanent supportive housing? Would it expand rental assistance? Would it fund mental-health treatment? Would it help veterans? Would it prevent families from becoming homeless before they reach the street? Would it expand affordable housing construction? Those are questions policymakers could answer with actual budgets and performance measurements. The debate should be about outcomes. Not slogans. Israel's Security Still Matters A credible argument must acknowledge the other side. Israel faces genuine security threats. Hamas has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians. The hostage crisis following October 7 was devastating. Israel has legitimate security concerns that cannot simply be dismissed. But recognizing those realities does not mean every form of American military assistance must continue indefinitely or without conditions. The United States routinely reviews its relationships with foreign governments. It should be able to review this one too. Congress could demand greater transparency over weapons transfers. It could strengthen oversight. It could prioritize defensive assistance. It could place conditions on certain forms of military aid. There is a difference between supporting Israel's security and giving Israel an open-ended military commitment. The Question Americans Should Be Asking For decades, American politicians have debated how much the United States should spend defending allies abroad. But there is another question that deserves equal attention: What does America owe the people living inside its own borders? A government that can mobilize billions for wars overseas should also be capable of mobilizing serious resources to ensure that its own citizens are not sleeping on sidewalks. That does not mean abandoning America's allies. It means recognizing that American security is not only about missiles, aircraft and military alliances. Security also means having a home. It means being able to afford rent. It means knowing that losing a job will not put your family on the street. It means having access to treatment when addiction or mental illness threatens your ability to remain housed. Those are national-security issues too. Washington Needs to Reconsider Its Priorities The United States does not have to choose between being engaged in the world and taking care of Americans at home. But Washington does have to decide how much money it is willing to spend on each. That decision deserves a public debate that is honest about the numbers and the trade-offs. If billions of dollars can be committed to supporting Israel's military capabilities, Americans should be able to ask why billions more cannot be mobilized to confront homelessness. The answer cannot simply be that the two issues are unrelated. Government budgets are made up of choices. Every major expenditure reflects a priority. And when hundreds of thousands of Americans are without stable housing, housing Americans should be treated as a national priority—not an afterthought. America can support its allies. America can defend its interests abroad. But it should not lose sight of the people living on its own streets. Before Washington asks what more America can do for the world, perhaps it should also ask what more America can do for Americans.

Frequently Asked Questions