Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:02]
A
At dsw, we ask the important questions like what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an rsvp. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today and let us surprise you.
- [00:30]
B
It doesn't have to be about, well, if you, if you do something that we don't like, we're going to take your allowance away. I don't think that's a grown up relationship. I think a real kind of how
- [00:39]
A
it works and that is sort of how it works.
- [00:42]
B
I don't, I don't know that it does. I mean, it doesn't have to. I mean it really is whoever has
- [00:47]
A
the purse, what's the best makes the choice. I mean that's, that's why we are one of the most powerful countries in the world. Welcome back to the Tara Palmieri Show. Here's a shocker. One of Congress's most pro Israel members has introduced an agreement to end the 3.8 billion doll billion in US military aid that we send to Israel annually. I know what you're thinking. After the Iran war, that's probably a popular idea. But if you're like me, you're probably also wondering if it's really in Israel's interest. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually backs the idea, saying Israel has to stand on its own two feet. I want to draw down to zero
- [01:29]
B
the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have because we receive $3.8 billion a year. And I think that it's time that we wean ourselves from the remaining military support.
- [01:47]
A
So I wanted to understand what's really happening here. Is this a genuine effort to reduce America's financial commitment to Israel, or does this proposal simply shift the relationship into channels that are less obvious to the public? I press Congressman Marlon Sutzman, who introduced the agreement on whether ending aid actually means ending support or whether taxpayers could still be on the hook in ways Americans don't see. Take a listen to our conversation, Congressman Stutzman. Tell me, how did you come up with this idea?
- [02:22]
B
Well, first of all, Tara, great to be with you. You know, this is something that we've talked about for quite some time and watching as our relationship developed with not only Israel but also other allies around the world on how do we move forward? You know, President Trump has talked a lot about NATO, you know, of course, pulling their weight and, you know, contributing the defense funds to. From their side of the field, from their side of the ledger. But, you know, Israel has been such a strong partner and an ally, and it kind of sounds, you know, counterintuitive to what we're talking about in supporting Israel. But actually, Israel is saying, you know what? We are strong. We want to move our relationship from a phase of receiving funds directly from the United States government, from the taxpayer of the United States to let's have a trade partnership, let's have a defense agreement. We want to stand on our own two feet and work together. And I think that says a lot about a friend when they're willing to do that. And as a budget hawk and as a defense hawk, if we can make our money go further in other ways, let's do that. And so this has been something that we've talked about for probably about a year now and wanted to be sure that it's right for everybody. And ultimately, this is one that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the ambassadors to Israel, of course, Mike Huckabee has mentioned this as well, as well as Ambassador Leiter saying this is the next step for a strong relationship between the United States and Israel.
- [04:02]
A
Yeah. You know, Netanyahu sent a letter to you calling this my plan. Before you introduce this, how much of the resolution came from you and how much of it came from him?
- [04:14]
B
Well, I mean, the resolution is drafted by us. One of the things that Prime Minister Netanyahu did was go on 60 Minutes here in the United States and said that he wants to start phasing out this $3.8 billion supplemental annually. And so while his plan, our plan, the ultimate goal here is to move to. To a relationship that doesn't include supplementals, and that it just simply is a trade agreement, defense agreement between our two countries, and that we stand together against totalitarianism, we stand against dictatorships, we stand against the evil. And so that's why this is an important step for our country as well as for Israel. But for me here in the House of Representatives, I see this as my job to build support to. To move that direction. And I found a lot of bipartisan support on the resolution so far.
- [05:13]
A
Right. Some critics say, though, that, you know, the fact that the legislation uses references, a letter from a foreign prime minister, and the legislation is being introduced, you know, with his backing, that it sets a troubling precedent. What do you think about their concern
- [05:33]
B
Again, whenever there's two sides that agree with the same objective, I think that people should just take it. I mean, this is what a lot of people say would be a very simple agreement. If both sides agree, then what's the issue? As a taxpayer here in the United States, I want to be sure, as a member of the Budget Committee and making sure that our taxpayer dollars are used wisely. If there's an opportunity to save money, we should. A lot of my constituents, it's not that they don't want to send money to Israel. They're tired of foreign aid that goes to countries who don't like us. Here's a country that does like us. We have the Israel is the strongest ally that we have in the world. I would argue, you know, even more so than any of the European countries anymore, because European countries have shown that they're not going to fight alongside the United States to defeat the Iranian effort to develop a nuclear bomb. And here they even say these European countries say that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. So, you know, I know a lot of people are trying to find like there's some sort of conspiracy behind this, but it's just not there. It's just simply that's how strong, you know, we are as a country in defeating totalitarianism and how strong our relationship is with Israel. And the fact that they want to do this on their own rather than looking dependent on the United States. You know, Israel has grown to almost 10 million people in the state of Israel. As well as an economy that's growing, it has the second most startups of any country in the world besides the United States, and they're approaching a trillion dollars in their gdp. So, you know, there's a lot of people that just want to hate on Israel, to hate on Israel. And if they think that there's going to they're going to find some sort of conspiracy behind this resolution, they're going to be sorely mistaken.
- [07:28]
A
Is that part of the reason why you introduced this as well? Because of growing anti Semitism?
- [07:33]
B
No. I mean, if it would stop anti Semitism, absolutely. But I don't know that it actually limits it. But I do hope that maybe there's some young conservatives out there that see the Republican Party as you know, we're spending this money to other countries. And outside of Israel, the Doge team that Elon Musk led said right at the beginning of President Trump's second administration did a remarkable job of identifying funds that were being wasted by the taxpayer. We see the same thing happening here in our own country where like states like Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz is wasting taxpayer dollars, California, New York, other states are taking advantage of the American taxpayer. And I think that this is a responsible step by both Israel and the United States to say, look, we don't need those funds anymore. We can find other ways to support one another and we don't want to look like we're dependent on the United States is what I'm hearing from Israel. And so when Israel sets the, I
- [08:36]
A
mean, they really, they really don't have to be. I mean, they are approaching a $1 trillion GDP.
- [08:44]
B
Yeah, they're a growing nation. I mean, the 3.8 trillion, I'm sorry, the 3.8 billion that the United States, that we send to Israel, most of that even comes back to the United States to buy weapons that from our, from our country themselves. But I think that's what, you know, our goal here is to say we need to spend less money as Americans because we have a national deficit and debt and Israel is willing to stand on their own feet and they're not asking, they don't have their handout. So if there's anybody that's being a true friend here and saying, look, thanks for your help, you've been helpful to us, we don't need the 3.8 billion, that's Israel. I wish other countries and other, some states here in the United States would do the same thing by saying we're going to stop taking all this money from the taxpayer and you know, and just basically using it in wasteful ways.
- [09:34]
A
One thing I love about this show's sponsor, Ground News, is that it lets you compare how different outlets cover the exact same story side by side. Take California's proposed billionaire tax, a measure that's so controversial that even some Democrats, including Governor Gavin Newsom, are opposing it. On Ground News, I can instantly see how outlets across the political spectrum are framing it along with the publications political leaning, factuality and ownership. For example, the New York Post, which Ground News rates as right leaning and with mixed factuality they ran this headline, California's raid on the rich passes major milestone as hated Billionaire tax qualifies for ballot. Meanwhile, the fs, which Ground News rates as left leaning and with high factuality, framed it this way. Billionaire tax petition signatures confirmed and coalition forms to battle against the ballot measure. Same story, two very different angles. That's why I use Ground News. It helps me see just not what the news is, but how it's being presented and who's presenting it. It lets you compare Side by side coverage. See media bias and factuality ratings from all over the world. Go to ground news.com to get 40% off the unlimited access vantage plan, which is the one that I use to work on this show and unlock worldwide perspectives on today's biggest news stories. But you can only get this by using my link. So you go to ground news.com Tara T A R A for 40% off. That's ground news.com Tara yeah, I mean a lot of countries would like to have a deeper trade relationship with the United States and ultimately that is up to President Trump. Right? I mean, although Congress should sign some sort of law to make that happen. Right? Now what you've put forward is a memorandum of understanding, right? So it's not a law yet. Have you discussed this with the White House, with Speaker Johnson, with, with speaker, you know, with Leader Thune? I mean, have you, have any of them endorsed this yet? Is this going to become a law?
- [11:44]
B
Yeah, well, so the, the current MoU with Israel expires next year. And so then we would go into another 10 year MOU. And so that's, this is laying the groundwork and saying we can redraft. You know, this could look different for the next 10 year MoU with Israel and Speaker Johnson. I've had conversations with them. You know, I'll let them speak for themselves whether they support it or not. But I've had great reception and people that are very open to this idea and moving ahead with a different sort of agreement. Now look, this is not just specifically related to Israel. There's other countries that we have as strong allies as well, and if we can help them grow. One of the things that President Trump is doing and has done so well is that not only does he lead with the focus of peace, but he also leads with prosperity as part of that focus. And if we can help other countries grow and be self dependent rather than leaning on the United States for whatever assistance. I mean, look at, look at South America. There's countries in South America that are now voting their leaders in that favor conservative politics, that they are supporters of President Trump or President Trump has supported them. So our group of allies has shifted to what, away from Europe and towards other countries in South America, the Gulf States, the Middle East. And this is, I think, exciting for us because we want people of like mind who want to treat people with, you know, dignity and with respect, grow their economies rather than just leaching onto the United States.
- [13:27]
A
So, you know, if we're giving up aid to Israel, what kind of leverage do we have when we are dealing with Israel? You know, particularly in the conflict in Gaza. You know, how, how do money is always leverage if we don't, if we're not using that anymore. Have we just given up the pressure point completely?
- [13:47]
B
Well, I don't think that should be looked at like that. In fact, I think that's the wrong way to look at the relationship with Israel that we're going to give you money so therefore you need to do what we say. I think that the common values is what is important here. The common values.
- [14:01]
A
What about when they're breaching our common values, for example?
- [14:05]
B
Well then, then, then the relationship looks different. There's a conversation and between friends, I mean it doesn't have to be about, well, if you, if you do something that we don't like, we're going to take your allowance away. I don't think that's a grown up relationship. I think a real kind of how
- [14:19]
A
it works and that is sort of how it works.
- [14:22]
B
I don't, I don't know that it does. I mean it doesn't have to. I mean it really is whoever has
- [14:26]
A
the purse, what's the best, makes the choice. I mean that's why we are one of the most powerful countries in the world.
- [14:33]
B
It can sure help. But I don't think that's the case when look at European countries. I mean they're doing what they choose to do. Even though we're the ones that are supplementing NATO. I mean we're the ones that are always going to bat for countries and their security around the world. I mean whether it's, they also offer
- [14:50]
A
like pivotal air bases all over the
- [14:52]
B
world that we use barely and not when they don't, they don't let us land there.
- [14:57]
A
So, so I lived in Europe. Like every country has multiple NATO bases there.
- [15:03]
B
Yes, they do. But, but again, when we're fighting officers, when we're, they were, when we're fighting Iran, they don't even let us use those air bases.
- [15:10]
A
I mean they went into Afghanistan. They were, I've been into Afghanistan. Most of the guys there are NATO officer. Are NATO.
- [15:17]
B
They are, Sure. I was in Afghanistan as well. I know, I talked to them and saw their efforts there as well. But the United States is by far the strongest nation in the world because we have the strongest economy, we have the strongest military. And if countries want to be friends with the United States, we're happy to develop those relationships. There's small countries like Slovakia that they have a lot of common values with the United States. But then you have countries like China and Russia, they have different values. And so there's a difference there. So I think the common values is what really separates the United States from some of these other countries because they're dictatorships. And Israel is not a dictatorship. It's a, it's a democracy. And other countries that pursue those same ideals and values I think are going to find a friend in the United States almost every day of the week.
- [16:08]
A
Okay. So on the flip side, some pro Israel Republicans, and I would put you in that camp, they worry that, that putting aid on the table invites progressive Democrats and America First Republicans to agree on cutting it entirely. That includes even what you're proposing, which I do want to get into into the show, because this isn't like, you know, no aid to Israel. You are talking about, in fact, bringing them even closer in ways that couldn't actually be, that aren't public. But we'll talk about that next. But are you concerned about that, that like this, this creates an opportunity to just cut the relationship off altogether?
- [16:44]
B
No, that's not the intention at all. In fact, I mean, I, you know, I even shared that with those in Israel. I went to see Prime Minister Netanyahu. And this is not a swipe at Israel. This is simply a growing, maturing relationship between two democratic countries that have very similar values that want to see, you know, peace and prosperity. And that's what's happening. You know, of course, here in the United States, our economy is growing. We're, we're the largest economy in the world by far, far. But here you have a small country like Israel in the Middle east that's being attacked almost daily from one side or the other that continues to grow. I think that, you know, look at some of the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the uae, others that have, you know, their authoritarian governments, but their economies are growing. They're starting to step up as well and say we want to defeat this ideology coming out of Iran that is shooting rockets at them and, you know, trying to do damage to them during this time. So there's different ways that the United States can partner and build coalitions around the world. I mean, look at the America, the Abraham Accords. That's another piece that President Trump has led on that says, you know what, let's, let's build bridges between countries and not the types of bridges where it's just going one way. It needs to be good for both countries. And that's the difference that President Trump has done compared to other Democrat presidents and Even some Republican presidents where it seems like it's a one way street where the United States is being taken advantage of. And that's why I'm tired of countries taking advantage of the United States, specifically NATO. Countries that haven't been stepping up to the plate.
- [18:28]
A
Okay, so critics say this isn't ending aid. In fact it's just burying it inside of the Pentagon. Procurement and classified co production of weapons between two countries which the public, including Congress can't see or debate because basically this suggests that Israel and the US can get together and create classified weapons together. So that's not really reducing the relationship, it's just changing its.
- [18:56]
B
But that's not true though. Yeah, that's not true.
- [18:58]
A
It potentially makes it more permanent. I mean, I mean if that's, if that's what this memorandum of understanding is, is suggesting, those are the words in it that they would co produce a lot of countries weapons.
- [19:11]
B
A lot of countries have partnerships with the United States. I mean, you know, look at the, you know the, the F35. We sell F35s to other countries around the world.
- [19:20]
A
We sell them, but do we cope with them?
- [19:23]
B
Well, you have to, you have to have a partnership with those countries. You know, we produce the F35.
- [19:30]
A
We do. I mean.
- [19:32]
B
Correct. And so we have a partnership with other countries.
- [19:35]
A
This is different.
- [19:36]
B
Training them how to use them.
- [19:37]
A
This is, let's create them inside of our Pentagon together. This isn't like selling them to you.
- [19:42]
B
So you're like saying the Israelis would be here working in the Pentagon.
- [19:46]
A
Well, it sounds like that from the language.
- [19:49]
B
No, I mean that's, that's not possible.
- [19:51]
A
I mean co production of weapons. What does that mean?
- [19:56]
B
It means that, you know, there's just like the Iron Dome was developed in Israel, but it was also developed with the United States partnerships as well. So that we're actually going to use Golden Dome as a way to protect the United States, similar to what Israel does with Iron Dome. So there's technology that is shared between countries. But again, you know, we are an independent country. We make decisions that are best for the United States. And Israel is going to make decisions that is best for Israel as well. And I think that's a healthy relationship.
- [20:31]
A
Okay, so the Futures act would integrate Israeli technology into the US Military systems. This sounds like, this is what you are also suggesting is something like Pegasus on the table. Just for those of you who don't know what Pegasus is, it's a highly advanced system developed by an Israeli firm that can secretly and remotely infiltrate phones without Even you don't even have to click on any anything. You don't have to. It's not even like you don't accept a text. They just can enter your phone. And it's something that the FBI tested and then banned federal agencies from using due to security risks and human rights concerns.
- [21:09]
B
I mean, again, I'm not part of the Futures Act. That's not my resolution. So that's another Congressman's resolution. You know, my, my efforts here are to move the supplemental 3.8 billion away from the taxpayer, paying that towards Israel. And Israel is saying, look, we're willing to forego that. But in place, we would have a defense agreement, we would have a trade agreement that would be beneficial to both of our countries. I think that too many times people are looking for a conspiracy somehow that we're going to integrate the military. That's ridiculous.
- [21:47]
A
I'm just reading.
- [21:48]
B
What we are going to do is we're going to be sure that our militaries can communicate. That's an important piece, which is whether it's Great Britain, whether it's France, whether it's Germany, anytime that we are going into battle together as countries, we want to be sure that we can communicate. And if that's what they think is integrating militaries, I think that's a little bit of a stretch.
- [22:07]
A
I mean, the wording of the memo of memo of Understanding, it says that you would replace the existing 3.8 billion with in direct military aid with a framework of joint defense cooperation, co development and mutual investment.
- [22:27]
B
Yes. And then I think that, I think that's totally fair. And we do that with other countries. I mean, we have.
- [22:32]
A
So you're saying like Pegasus is off the table, like that's not going to happen?
- [22:36]
B
No, I mean the, our resolution is, is a high level, it's a broad language and so there will be more details to be worked out. But there are countries that we do work with that, you know, we do co investment on projects, we do develop new capabilities together, depending on what the issue is. You know, thankfully here in the United States we're not being attacked from the north or from the south. We're not being attacked on a daily basis. You know, our concern is the cost of living in Israel. Their concern is, you know, not necessarily the cost of living, but just survival from rocket attacks, whether it's from Iran or the Houthis or an attack from Hamas. Their reality is very different than ours. And so by working with the country like Israel, who is being under attack frequently, we can develop systems to not only to defend themselves, but defend ourselves from a potential attack down the road. We want to make sure that we have the strongest military to deter any sort of attack on the United States and keep the American people safe.
- [23:41]
A
Yeah, I mean, I just think there's obviously a concern that this framework, which is very broad, doesn't end up giving Israel more money, just less visibly because you're shifting it from the State Department to the Pentagon. Essentially.
- [23:54]
B
I think that comes. I honestly think that anybody that's saying that simply doesn't know it's more of an anti Israel perspective. And that's what they want to try to place a seed of doubt in the American people's minds. I think that we should just take the victory and say, you know what, we're not going to continue giving Israel 3.8 billion.
- [24:16]
A
Yeah, but the devil's in the details. Like, you know, that's the truth.
- [24:19]
B
And that can change from administration to administration. And that's why I think it's important to have a strong independent relationship. But at the same time, we're focused on the common values that the United States has and that Israel has and other countries as well. I mean, this is not just Israel as well. I mean, we can have other countries that also want to stand for freedom and. But you know, we don't see China wanting to do that. We only see China wanting to steal our technology.
- [24:47]
A
That was another episode of the Tara Palmieri Show. Thank you so much for tuning in. As always, you can support this show by hitting the subscribe button like follow. Leave your comments and thoughts. Tell everyone about this. You see the QR code, go to tarapaumarie.com, sign up for my newsletter, the Red Letter. If you become a paid subscriber, you get my exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. And it's a way to support independent journalism. No shadowy funders. Me working directly for you. I want to thank my producer Abby Baker. I want to thank James Sussin who's doing the editing. Adam Stewart on the graphics. Dan Rosen and Nicole Staple, my managers. See you again soon. This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The samemonday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes, the same Monday combination.