Israel’s decision to pour about $110 billion into a fully independent arms industry is not just a defense policy shift. It is a direct and unintended consequence of U.S. political pressure, crystallized when the Biden administration withheld or delayed key weapons while Israel was fighting what it described as a seven front war, and amplified by the isolationist and America First wing of U.S. politics. The costs of that shift are only beginning to register in Washington.

For years, critics of U.S. military aid to Israel argued that cutting or conditioning weapons transfers would force restraint, reduce foreign entanglements and better serve American interests. Instead, those pressures have accelerated the rise of a powerful new competitor to the U.S. defense industry and weakened one of Washington’s most effective tools of influence.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the move bluntly. Israel will no longer allow its battlefield readiness to hinge on foreign political debates. Supply chains that can be delayed, conditioned or frozen during wartime are no longer acceptable. The solution, he said, is domestic production at scale.

The stakes are high because U.S. military aid to Israel was never simply about generosity or alliance symbolism. It was industrial policy.

Roughly $3.5 billion to $3.8 billion a year flowed to Israel under a long standing agreement, with about 75% of that money required to be spent on American defense companies. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and their suppliers benefited from guaranteed demand, predictable production runs and a rare advantage few countries provide. Israel fights real wars with advanced weapons, generating combat data that no test range can replicate.

The F 35 is the clearest example. It did not become the dominant fifth generation fighter because of air shows or marketing campaigns. It became dominant because Israel flew it repeatedly in real combat, against real threats and under real conditions. That exposure translated into billions of dollars in downstream exports for U.S. manufacturers.

Political pressure from previous U.S. administration is disrupting that model. Ammunition deliveries slowed. Export approvals became politicized. Public debates over embargoes and conditions spilled into active conflicts. From Israel’s perspective, the message was unmistakable. Even weapons already paid for could be used as leverage.

The economic reality made the response inevitable. Israel’s GDP is about $550 billion. U.S. military aid represents roughly 0.7% of that output. Small in macroeconomic terms, but decisive at the margin where modern wars are won or lost. Precision guided munitions, interceptors, spare parts and surge capacity sit exactly at that margin.

When a country of Israel’s size concludes that a fraction of a percent of GDP can function as a veto over its military operations, the rational response is to remove the chokepoint. That is what the $110 billion plan is designed to do.

For the America First or American only crowd, the outcome is the opposite of what was intended.

Israel is not reducing defense spending. It is increasing it. Israel is not buying fewer weapons. It is building factories. Israel is not stepping back from exports. It is expanding them. Israel is not staying inside U.S. supply chains. It is preparing to compete with them.

Europe has already made its choice. Germany’s Arrow 3 deal, now valued at about $6.5 billion, is the largest defense export in Israeli history. More than half of Israel’s arms exports now go to Europe, driven by demand created by Russia’s war in Ukraine. Missile defense, drones, radar and air defense systems that once complemented U.S. offerings are increasingly alternatives to them.

Every Arrow interceptor built in Israel is one not built in the United States. Every radar, drone or precision weapon sold by Israel to Europe or Asia is a contract U.S. firms no longer win by default.The irony is difficult to miss. Isolationists sought less foreign entanglement and fewer aid dollars overseas. What their pressure helped produce is a stronger, more independent Israeli defense sector that will compete directly with American firms for decades, potentially costing thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs and billions of dollars in exports.

Washington is not losing Israel as an ally. But it is losing something far more subtle and far more valuable. It is losing exclusive leverage.

Aid once bought influence, integration and alignment. Conditionality broke that bargain. Israel’s conclusion is straightforward. Allies matter, but supply chains matter more. Once trust in guaranteed resupply is broken, it does not return cheaply.

That is why $110 billion is being spent. Not to defy Washington, but to ensure that American domestic politics can never again determine how Israel fights its wars.

BRUSSELS Vs. WASHINGTON: EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas denounced U.S. visa bans on five Europeans in a pointed X post, calling the action "unacceptable" and an attack on EU sovereignty that undermines shared values like freedom of expression and fair digital regulation. 

Her response to the European Commission's statement highlights the core U.S.-EU clash over censorship: Washington views the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) as extraterritorial pressure on American platforms to suppress free speech, while Kallas insists it is vital for combating disinformation and protecting users.

On Dec. 23, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the bans under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, targeting individuals accused of coercing U.S. tech firms like X to censor or demonetize American viewpoints. Rubio labeled them "radical activists and weaponized NGOs" advancing a "censorship-industrial complex," expanding a May 2025 Trump administration policy. Former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, who enforced DSA fines against platforms during the 2024 U.S. elections, called it a "witch hunt." The other four targets, unnamed for privacy reasons, are linked to NGOs such as Global Witness involved in EU-funded disinformation monitoring.

French President Emmanuel Macron described the bans as "coercion and intimidation" and an "authoritarian attack," suggesting retaliation like barring Elon Musk from Europe (LOL). The U.S., however, sees the EU as authoritarian and simply says they are calling their bluff.

The European Commission demanded clarifications and warned of "swift and decisive" responses, including reciprocal measures. 

The DSA requires platforms to moderate content, curb hate speech and prevent election interference, which EU officials defend as essential for market sovereignty and user safety. U.S. critics argue it forces American companies to silence viewpoints, amounting to censorship despite similar U.S. moderation practices. With Western European travel to the U.S. already down 20% in 2025, the rift risks broader trade tensions, tech cooperation and NATO cohesion amid challenges like Ukraine and China.

The tension boils down to regulation versus free speech: the EU sees DSA as security, but many question when it crosses into suppression. Absent direct calls to violence or illegal action, there is no justification for softly closing citizens' ears to other views.

Crime rates across the United States fell sharply in 2025, marking one of the most significant year over year drops in recent history, according to preliminary data from the RealTime Crime Index. One issue though…Nobody is talking about it!

Analysts and officials point to aggressive enforcement measures, including mass arrests and deportations of convicted criminals, as key factors in the downturn, underscoring a policy shift toward preventing recidivism by keeping offenders off the streets.

The data, compiled from reports by 570 law enforcement agencies covering January through October, shows double digit declines in several major categories compared to the same period in 2024. Murder rates plummeted by 19.8%, potentially the largest single-year drop on record, as noted by crime statistics analyst Jeff Asher. Other violent and property crimes followed suit, reflecting a broad-based reduction.

We shared the chart, created by Axios Visuals on X and it gained widespread attention after quickly drawing responses from high profile figures, including Elon Musk, the world's richest individual and CEO of X, and even the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Musk, replying to the post: "Removing murderers from the streets works wonders!" 

The DHS, in a quoted repost of the same sentiment said:

"Here at DHS we’ve been operating by this radical idea that removing murderers from our country would bring down the murder rate. Who could have guessed it would work?" 

The agency has repeatedly credited its operations, such as targeted arrests of illegal immigrants with criminal records, for contributing to the declines. 

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in congressional testimony earlier this month, emphasized the department's focus on "eliminating transnational organized crime in our communities" through initiatives like Operation Midway Blitz, which led to over 1,500 arrests in Illinois alone, including individuals convicted of serious offenses. The agency has highlighted efforts to deport "the worst of the worst" criminal non-citizens, claiming these actions have directly reduced violent crime in major cities. 

However, not all stakeholders agree on the causes. Local leaders in cities like Chicago have pushed back against DHS claims, arguing that crime reductions were already underway before federal interventions and attributing improvements to community programs and local policing strategies. A WBEZ analysis, for instance, contradicted assertions that DHS operations were solely responsible for drops in the Windy City.

Nationwide, the trend extends beyond urban centers. In Washington, D.C., violent crime hit a 30 year low, with a 35% decrease from 2023 levels, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The DHS's 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment also noted related progress, such as a more than 10% decline in overdose deaths, tied to crackdowns on fentanyl trafficking networks. 

Experts caution that the data is preliminary and could be revised, but the overarching message from proponents is clear: policies that prioritize incarceration and removal of repeat offenders, rather than quick releases, yield tangible results in public safety. As one DHS official put it in a July statement, these efforts are "removing the worst of the worst from American communities." 

Whether this downward trajectory continues into 2026 remains uncertain, amid ongoing debates over immigration enforcement and criminal justice reform. 

For now, the 2025 figures provide a glimmer of hope for a safer America, fueled by a no tolerance approach to radical leftist “release criminals back to the street-ism”. Though with radical Islam on the rise, coupled with “free speech” rallies which just end up being parades for terrorism, we will see how this goes.