There is little doubt that the controversial “America First” doctrine championed by U.S. President Donald Trump is having a profound impact on the nature of U.S.–Israeli relations. In recent years, what was once portrayed as a “sacred alliance” has increasingly come to resemble a transactional relationship, driven by interests and practical considerations more than ever before.

Today, the U.S.–Israeli alliance is undergoing significant restructuring and fundamental transformation. What was once considered a bipartisan consensus among both Democrats and Republicans in favor of unconditional, ideologically driven support for Israel is increasingly taking the form of a pragmatic, transactional relationship based largely on calculations of American interests and direct benefits. This shift is becoming evident in the positions of a growing number of American politicians, upending the traditional influence of lobbying groups, most notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

This trajectory was underscored by remarks from Vice President JD Vance during an interview with Blaze TV, in which he argued that criticizing the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or any Israeli government, should not be equated with antisemitism. He warned against treating every criticism of Israeli policy as an antisemitic act, arguing that “when everything is antisemitism, then nothing really is.” The statement came as a surprise, given that it was made by a Republican vice president from a party long known for its close alignment with Israel and its readiness to vigorously defend it.

Vance also spoke about America’s allies, placing Israel in the same category as traditional partners such as France and the United Kingdom, whose interests may or may not align with those of Washington. For the first time, a Republican vice president appeared to place Israel on the same footing as other U.S. allies rather than treating it as a uniquely privileged partner. While describing these countries as valuable allies, he emphasized that “that does not mean our interests will always be identical.”

Vance also warned Israeli ministers who have publicly criticized the White House that they need to “wake up to the reality of the situation.” He added: “If I were a member of the Israeli cabinet, I probably wouldn’t be attacking the only powerful ally I have left in the entire world.”

These remarks came alongside a series of sharp statements by Donald Trump, who declared: “Without me, Israel probably wouldn’t exist today… If I weren’t around, there would be no Israel right now.” Prior to his current term, Trump had also warned Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was losing global public support and that it needed to bring its military operations to an end quickly.

The shift is also reflected in domestic political debates. In April, Democratic congressional candidate Dorothy McAuliffe conducted a public opinion poll that included what was described as “a question rarely asked in Democratic primary races until just two years ago”: whether the United States should halt arms sales to Israel. According to The Washington Post, the survey illustrated how the U.S.–Israeli alliance has rapidly evolved from a bipartisan point of consensus into a divisive issue generating debate and disagreement within both major political parties.

Has the U.S.–Israeli relationship entered a phase of foreign-policy “transactionalism”? A study titled The Rise of Transactionalism in International Relations defines the transactional approach to foreign policy as one that favors bilateral relationships over multilateral ones, prioritizes short-term gains over long-term strategic vision, adopts a view in which all gains are relative, and reciprocity is largely absent, and rejects policymaking based on values or principles.

Today, the U.S. administration increasingly approaches foreign policy through a lens of strict self-interest. If Israeli war objectives are seen as conflicting with regional stability or with American economic interests, Washington appears willing to publicly pressure and oppose Benjamin Netanyahu. Such a stance challenges the longstanding perception of an exceptionally close and unbreakable alliance between the two countries.

The central question, then, is how this shift affects the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. And how is it shaping American public opinion toward Israel?

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Recently, Zohran Mamdani described the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as “monsters,” accusing the organization of spending “millions of dollars from questionable sources” in order to “divide us and sow conflict among us.” He also argued that AIPAC fears democracy and opposes efforts to “end the genocide and Netanyahu’s wars.”

Shifts in U.S. policy toward Israel have coincided with a more assertive role by AIPAC in funding and supporting pro-Israel candidates, while working to marginalize candidates who oppose Israel or are less enthusiastic about supporting it. However, this approach has increasingly generated negative repercussions within American society.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, AIPAC now faces a reality in which its longstanding bet on Donald Trump and the Republican Party is no longer producing the same results. Critics argue that the organization is now reaping the consequences of the deep polarization it helped foster around Israel in American politics.

The article points to AIPAC’s response following the latest U.S.–Iran negotiations, which Haaretz described as “so moderate as to be almost comical” when compared with the intense opposition the organization expressed toward the nuclear agreement negotiated by Barack Obama in 2015. According to Haaretz, AIPAC’s reluctance to publicly criticize Trump illustrates the difficult position the organization now finds itself in.

A key source of AIPAC’s influence has long been its ability to enforce a rigid binary framework: either one is with Israel, or one is against it and, by extension, accused of antisemitism. Candidates who strayed from this line were often politically punished. Yet when a Republican vice president publicly states that the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu are legitimate subjects of criticism, AIPAC’s ability to portray critics of those policies as extremists is significantly weakened.

The Impact on American Public Opinion

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69% last year and 53% in 2022.

The survey also found that younger Democrats are more likely than older Democrats to express strongly negative views of Israel. Among Democrats under the age of 50, 47% reported having a very unfavorable opinion of Israel, compared with 39% among those aged 50 and older.

By contrast, among Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents, those with favorable views of Israel still outnumber those with unfavorable views, by 58% to 41%. Nevertheless, the share of Republicans expressing unfavorable views has increased slightly since last year, driven largely by younger voters. Today, 57% of Republicans aged 18 to 49 hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 50% a year ago.

At the same time, the survey indicates that an overwhelming majority of Republicans aged 50 and above continue to view Israel favorably.

There is little doubt that the statements made by President Donald Trump at the G7 summit, as well as in subsequent interviews, together with the remarks of Vice President JD Vance, represent a historic departure from the way American presidents have traditionally spoken about Israel.

It is increasingly clear that the current U.S. administration views foreign policy through a lens of strict pragmatism and national interest. If Israel’s military objectives come into conflict with American economic interests, the United States appears prepared to confront Benjamin Netanyahu publicly, thereby dispelling the longstanding perception of a perfectly aligned and seamless alliance between the two countries.