40% · $1.52B
Affordable housing & repairs
Support housing-construction grants, preservation of existing affordable homes, weatherization or repairs for eligible households.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE / 1946–2025
How much aid has gone to Israel?
About$175BCumulative U.S. aid obligations, 1946–2025, in nominal dollars, including missile defense. CRS May 2025 report.
FY2024$12.5BCRS total for bilateral aid and missile defense in the fiscal year.
FY2025$3.8BCRS FY2025 total including $500M missile defense. ForeignAssistance.gov country obligations separately report about $3.30B.
Different databases count different programs, time periods and accounting stages. The long-term CRS figure is not the amount spent in 2025. Older nominal dollars are not inflation-adjusted. Missile-defense support may be excluded from the ForeignAssistance.gov country figure. These values cannot simply be added together.
FY2025 / OFFICIAL FOREIGNASSISTANCE.GOV
Other countries, same reporting year.
Selected fiscal-year 2025 obligations reported by ForeignAssistance.gov. This is an illustrative comparison, not the totality of aid to all nations and not necessarily cash paid directly to foreign governments.
*Israel figure excludes some missile-defense programs included in the CRS table above. 2026 country reports remain partially reported. Ukraine data · Israel data · Jordan data.
A PUBLIC-BUDGET THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
What else could federal dollars support at home?
This comparison uses $3.8 billion, the Congressional Research Service's estimate of U.S. assistance obligations for Israel in fiscal 2025. It is a hypothetical budget reallocation, not a claim that these dollars remain unspent, could be recalled, or would automatically become available to domestic programs. Obligations can fund U.S.-made goods and services, and Congress would have to change how money is appropriated. CRS foreign aid data ↗
Illustrative one-year allocation$3.8BFY2025 Israel-related obligations, not lifetime total
Historic U.S. assistance obligations~$175B1946–2025, nominal; not a presently available account
25% · $950M
Roads, bridges & water systems
Contribute to infrastructure projects, including bridge rehabilitation and drinking-water system upgrades.
20% · $760M
Schools & workforce development
Support classroom facilities, career and technical education, apprenticeship programs and community colleges.
15% · $570M
Community health & family services
Contribute to clinics, maternal health, rural-care access and local family-support services.
How to read this: These dollar amounts are exact arithmetic shares of $3.8 billion, not government program cost estimates or promised outcomes. Project results would depend on eligibility, state matching, procurement, location and future operating costs. The four shares add to 100%; the programs are examples, not a proposed enacted budget.
Argument for prioritizing domestic investment
Critics of overseas spending argue that housing costs, aging infrastructure and access to health services create unmet needs at home. They ask whether some appropriations would deliver greater direct benefits if redirected to domestic programs.
Arguments for some foreign assistance
Supporters contend that foreign assistance can advance U.S. security, humanitarian goals, diplomacy, and domestic defense-sector employment. Some aid is not a cash transfer abroad, so the economic and budget consequences of redirecting it depend on the program.
Useful sources: Congressional Research Service: Israel aid · Federal Highway Administration: bridge costs · GAO: infrastructure grant spending · U.S. foreign assistance data.
BUDGET CHOICES
Should more money remain at home?
Domestic-first argument
Critics of foreign aid contend that federal resources could instead support housing affordability, families, infrastructure, veterans and public health. They question the accountability and long-term costs of overseas commitments. This is a policy position, not an established conclusion that all foreign assistance has no U.S. benefit.
Arguments for assistance
Supporters argue that certain foreign assistance programs help protect U.S. security partnerships, respond to humanitarian crises, and reduce the risk of wider conflicts. Some aid buys goods or services from U.S. suppliers, so overseas obligations do not always mean dollars are physically transferred out of the country.
Budget reality
Changing foreign aid would require appropriations decisions and could affect existing commitments. Potential domestic savings are not automatically earmarked for families; Congress would need to decide how any funds are used. Figures for military sales, appropriations, obligations, and outlays must stay separate.
HISTORICAL RECORD / U.S. INTERVENTIONS
Wars, spending and long-term consequences.
Afghanistan
The U.S. intervention expanded into a long military and reconstruction project. Brown University estimated over $2 trillion in Afghanistan-war costs from 2001 to 2019, using its broad budget methodology. SIGAR documented reconstruction spending, oversight weaknesses and lessons learned. Critics cite mission expansion and the fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government; supporters cite counterterrorism and initial security objectives.
SIGAR records ↗Iraq
The 2003 invasion and long aftermath involved major military, reconstruction and veteran costs. Brown University estimates over $2.89 trillion spent or obligated for Iraq and Syria combined through 2023, including future veterans’ care; that is not a figure for Iraq alone. GAO documented reconstruction funding and oversight difficulties. Critics question intelligence assumptions and consequences; supporters emphasized security and removal of Saddam Hussein.
GAO Iraq funding report ↗Wider war costs
Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates roughly $8 trillion in U.S. post-9/11 war costs and future obligations through FY2022. This combines military operations, added defense spending, homeland security, interest and long-term veteran care. It is a broad research estimate, not a single foreign-aid budget line.
Costs of War methodology ↗FOUNDER'S PERSPECTIVE / OPINION
Why I want America’s priorities debated.
My view is that American families and communities deserve serious attention whenever Washington commits billions overseas. I want the public to question whether each foreign aid package or military operation serves the country's interests and whether the same funding could address needs at home.
This perspective is a reason for asking hard budget questions, not a substitute for examining security, humanitarian, economic or diplomatic arguments in each case. The sourced figures above are separate from this opinion.
Read the founder’s statement →Domestic possibilities I want discussed: affordable housing, roads and bridges, better-funded schools, rural healthcare and other supports for families. I would like candidates to explain what measurable results these investments could achieve and how to pay for them. That is my viewpoint, not a conclusion established by the foreign-assistance data.