With last week’s election of several far-left Democrats who have expressed strong anti-Israel views, lawmakers and experts are expressing concern that the incoming 120th Congress will have a destabilizing effect on U.S. national security by alienating key allies in the Middle East.

Likely as a nod to growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Republican Party, President Trump announced on the morning of Election Day that by the end of the year, the U.S. would no longer be providing military aid to Israel. Under a current 10-year memorandum of understanding (which is set to expire at the end of 2028), the U.S. pays the Jewish state $3.8 billion per year in military assistance. He went on to say that “we’ll help Israel if they need it,” noting that Israel can still purchase weapons from the U.S.

But analysts like National Review’s editorial board say it would be shortsighted to cut off aid to the U.S.’s strongest ally in the volatile Middle East. “While Israel is certainly prosperous enough to absorb an aid cutoff, it should be noted that the current arrangement provides a lot of advantages to the U.S. for a relatively cheap price,” they argued Monday. “Nearly all of the aid is paid back by Israel to American defense contractors. And as part of the agreement, Israel shares its technological tweaks to U.S. military equipment. By working together on anti-missile technology, the U.S. is able to improve its own missile-defense capabilities and benefit from Israel’s regular stress-testing of these systems. Reproducing this R&D and real-world experience would be difficult, if not impossible, even at a much higher cost.”

What’s more, NRO contends, “[C]utting off aid and making Israel less dependent on the U.S. financially would reduce the leverage any future president has over Israeli actions.”

Nevertheless, newly elected Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members like Darializa Avila Chevalier, who will represent New York’s 13th Congressional District, insist that cutting off aid to Israel is not enough. “We need to end U.S. taxpayer funding for Israel’s war crimes, a full arms embargo, and the Palestinian right of return,” she posted on X last week.

Other incoming congressmen with strong anti-Israel views include DSA member Melat Kiros, who will represent Colorado’s 1st Congressional District. Kiros characterized Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, in which 1,200 Israelis were massacred, as the “inevitable consequence of apartheid” and “decades of occupation.” In addition, Chris Rabb, a DSA-endorsed candidate who will represent Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District, is a supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and campaigned with the anti-Semitic influencer Hasan Piker. Other newly elected congressmen include DSA member Claire Valdez (New York’s 7th Congressional District) and Democrat Adam Hamawy (New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District), both of whom have close associations with anti-Semitic groups.

GOP congressmen like Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), who serves as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, say that there will be “a lot of friction” with Middle East foreign policy when the Democrats take the helm in the 120th Congress.

“[T]hey’re already talking about defunding and using the appropriations process to constrain the president and his execution of foreign policy,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins during “This Week on Capitol Hill” over the weekend. “… [I]t’ll be interesting to see how that takes shape, but I am not looking forward to it. I think the danger is for the Democrats that there is a real tendency for them to overreach, and when they do, I think [it] will be costly for them. On the other hand, if the president is pragmatic, if they’re pragmatic, maybe we can see some positives here. But, you know, in the early assessment here, it does not look good just based on some of the candidates that have actually been elected and the really hardcore lurch to the left.”

Crawford went on to argue that the degree to which the anti-Israel extremist wing of Congress will be allowed to hold sway will be determined by the incoming speaker, Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

“This is going to really depend on whether or not somebody like Hakeem Jeffries can try to modulate the tone,” he observed. “The current tone suggests it’s going to be really, really difficult, and that portends potential disaster from a national security perspective. On the other hand, Hakeem Jeffries has never been, at least in my observation, anyone who would be considered a socialist. … [H]e’s got a big enough majority that he can proceed without [the socialists]. … So it depends on whether they want to govern or if they want to govern to make a statement.”

Crawford further contended that there are still more problems ahead in the Senate, where avowed Muslim and vocal Israel antagonist Abdul El-Sayed will likely be a loud and influential voice. “[El-Sayed] is clearly anti-Semitic and has no interest in having any kind of relationship with Israel, not [only] saying we should curtail spending and support for Israel, but even blocking their ability to purchase U.S. weapons systems. … That’s an untenable position,” he emphasized. “But that’s what Democrat leadership is going to have to work with. … [T]hat doesn’t bode well for our relationship with Israel.”

As for Republicans, Crawford acknowledged that there are also some nuances within the party regarding Israel that will need to be navigated going forward.

“[Some Republicans] are questioning why [we are] continuing to support Israel at the level that we’re supporting them,” he noted. “It’s a little bit of a different perspective. … But I haven’t heard anybody on the Republican side suggest that we should execute an all-out block from [Israel] acquiring military hardware from the United States. … [El-Sayed] is going to vote from that perspective. That’s going to be the problem and the difficulty in maintaining any kind of continuity with our relationship with Israel as we understand it now. And that doesn’t mean that the relationship can’t evolve and change based on Israel’s own ability to defend itself and their ability to fund itself. … But we should never just flat out issue a ‘no more arms sales under any conditions’ and sever the relationship with Israel. I think that would be highly problematic.”