The Second Big Objection and Why It’s Irrelevant Under a Pro-Israel White House
When you float the idea of a US–Israel national security technology fund, the second objection comes quickly after the intelligence stereotype: “Now is not the time. Israel is too unpopular. Look at Gaza, look at the protests, look at the global headlines.”
It’s meant to sound like hard-headed political reality. In truth, it’s irrelevant especially given who currently sits in the Oval Office.
Popularity Is Not a Strategic Metric
Foreign policy isn’t high school. The United States doesn’t choose its strategic partners based on how they’re polling in Europe or on Twitter. If it did, we wouldn’t have deep alliances with half the world’s most important security partners. The real question is: Does this partnership advance US strategic interests?
By that measure, Israel has been one of the most consistently valuable allies the United States has ever had. It delivers unmatched dual-use technology, battle-tested innovation, and world-class intelligence cooperation that has directly saved American lives. None of that is negated by an unpopular war or a hostile news cycle.
This White House Is Pro-Israel to Its Core
That reality matters more than anything else. Under the current administration, the US–Israel alliance are policy priorities. The current president has already demonstrated, in his first term and now again in his second, that he is willing to take actions in support of Israel that previous administrations only talked about. Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moving the US embassy, affirming Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, brokering normalization agreements with Arab states: none of these were small gestures. They were irreversible shifts in America’s geopolitical position.
That same instinct is alive in the current term. Defense cooperation is accelerating, military aid packages continue without hesitation, and there is clear political space for joint initiatives. If anything, a US–Israel tech fund fits perfectly into the broader pattern: tightening operational cooperation, hardening supply chains, and ensuring that the US and Israel share the most advanced capabilities before anyone else.
Political Cover Enables Bureaucratic Speed
The best-designed strategic initiative can still die in the bureaucracy if it lacks top-level backing. But when the White House is committed to a partnership, things move. Under the current administration, security-related agreements with Israel are not controversial inside the executive branch, they are expected. That means the interagency friction that often slows binational projects is dramatically reduced.
A technology fund launched in this environment wouldn’t have to fight for air inside Washington. It could be approved, funded, and operational faster than under any administration less inclined to view Israel as a core partner.
Popularity Cycles, Strategic Value Endures
This isn’t the first time Israel has faced global criticism. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, after the Lebanon operations in the 1980s, after previous Gaza conflicts the international opinion swung hard against Israel, only to stabilize later. Through every cycle, US–Israel security cooperation not only continued, it often deepened.
The lesson is clear: political weather changes, but the underlying strategic value doesn’t. A tech fund that strengthens both nations’ security is exactly the sort of initiative that should be built to outlast momentary public sentiment.
The Cost of Letting Perception Dictate Policy
If Washington were to let Israel’s perceived unpopularity derail this kind of project, the only real winners would be America’s adversaries. China, Russia, and others are not sitting out because of bad press, they’re actively courting Israeli startups with capital and market access. The United States can’t afford to forfeit this space over concerns that won’t matter in a year but could cost it critical capabilities for a generation.
The Window Is Open
The combination of strategic necessity, a White House predisposed to support Israel, and an urgent technology race against adversaries makes this the right time for a US–Israel national security tech fund. Under an administration that sees Israel not as a problem to be managed but as a partner to be empowered, the politics align, the bureaucracy aligns, and the mission aligns.
The fund should be built now: bilaterally governed, mission-driven, and designed to deliver operational advantage. We must do it while the political capital exists, and to do it without delay. Waiting for “a better moment” would be an unforced error. The moment is here.
