USA no longer puts Israel above all? Politico described a new crisis in the relations between Trump and Netanyahu

A new formula is emerging in US-Israel relations, which until recently seemed almost impossible for the right-wing Israeli camp: even under Donald Trump, Israel is no longer guaranteed to remain an ‘exception’ in American foreign policy.

This is the conclusion drawn from a Politico article published on June 27, 2026, under the headline “Israel’s Vance problem is bigger than JD Vance.” The authors of the article — Felicia Schwartz, Alex Gangitano, and Dasha Burns — cite numerous sources, including American and Israeli officials, as well as people familiar with the relations between the two governments. The key point of the article: Israel’s problem is not only with US Vice President JD Vance, but with a deeper change in Washington’s logic.

According to Politico, Israel expected that the America First doctrine in Trump’s second presidential term would have a special exception for Israel. But now, as sources say, Washington is increasingly operating on a different principle: if Israel’s interests and the interests of the US administration diverge, the American side is not obliged to automatically choose the Israeli line.

For Israel, this is a painful signal. In Jerusalem, it was customary to believe that under Trump, relations with the US would be not just close, but almost unconditional. However, recent weeks have shown: support may remain, but its political cost and conditions are changing.

What exactly did Politico write

According to Politico, there is a growing understanding in Israeli political circles that Israel’s status as a US ally is no longer placed above other foreign policy tasks of Washington. One Israeli political adviser explained it this way: Israel expected that it could remain an exception to everything America does in foreign policy for four years, but such logic could not continue indefinitely.

The meaning of this phrase is more important than the quote itself. It’s not about breaking the alliance or the US ‘abandoning’ Israel. It’s about something else: Israel can no longer be sure that any clash of interests will be resolved in its favor.

That is why the Politico article sounds alarming for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. If earlier many in Israel hoped that Trump would provide full support before future political developments, now, according to sources, such automatism is not yet present. One interlocutor familiar with the relations between the two governments said directly: Netanyahu expected full support from Trump before the elections, but so far this has not happened.

For the Israeli audience, this is an especially important moment. НАновости — Новости Израиля has repeatedly noted that Israel-US relations cannot be assessed only by public statements of friendship. Sometimes real politics is seen not in compliments, but in where Washington begins to set boundaries.

Why Vance became a symbol of the new approach

The figure of JD Vance found itself at the center of the crisis after his statement on June 18, 2026. At a White House briefing, he sharply warned Israeli critics of the US-Iran agreement. According to Axios, Vance said that Donald Trump is the only head of state in the world who currently treats Israel with sympathy, and that the Israeli cabinet should not attack the only strong ally Israel still has.

Le Monde also separately analyzed this speech and called it a stern warning to Israel. The French publication emphasized that Vance’s words came against the backdrop of criticism from Israeli right-wing politicians towards the American line on Iran.

At first glance, this could be seen as Vance’s personal harshness. But Politico offers another angle: Vance is not a deviation from the course, but its manifestation. He says out loud what part of the Trump administration already considers political reality.

According to information close to the vice president’s team, Vance’s rhetoric reflects a change in public sentiment in the US, including among young Republicans. This is fundamental: if earlier the pro-Israel position within the Republican Party was considered almost mandatory, now among part of the right-wing electorate the question is increasingly being asked — why should the interests of another country determine American policy?

It is here that the slogan America First begins to work not only against Ukraine, Europe, or international organizations, but also against traditional expectations of Israel.

The Iran deal as a point of contention

The main background of the current crisis is the American line on Iran. On June 17, 2026, the US and Iran reached a preliminary agreement, around which tension immediately arose between Washington and Jerusalem. Reuters writes that the Trump administration tried to defend this agreement, while in Israel it caused alarm and criticism.

For Netanyahu, Iran is not an ordinary diplomatic topic. His political biography has been built for decades around warnings about the nuclear threat, pressure on Washington, and attempts to persuade American presidents to act tougher. Therefore, any US deal with Iran is perceived in Israel not only as a foreign policy step but also as a test of Netanyahu’s influence on the American system.

Reuters on June 24, 2026, wrote that the new US-Iran deal could become a political blow to Netanyahu. According to analysts and diplomats, he risks being not the architect of the American line, but its hostage: Washington is playing its own game, and Israel is forced to react.

Against this background, Vance’s statements take on an even harsher meaning. He is not just asking Israeli ministers to be more careful with their words. He is effectively saying: if Israel interferes with the American deal, Washington may reconsider the level of support.

This does not mean an immediate cessation of military aid. But it does mean the emergence of a new lever of pressure.

Why this is important for Israel

For Israel, the alliance with the US is not a diplomatic luxury, but part of the national security system. American military aid, political protection in international institutions, arms supplies, diplomatic cover, and influence on regional players have been critically important elements of Israeli strategy for decades.

But the new American logic sounds different: support for Israel remains as long as it does not interfere with major US interests.

In this sense, Politico captures not just a conflict between Vance and Israeli ministers. The publication describes a deeper shift: Israel is facing the fact that its alliance with the US is becoming less emotional, less ideological, and more transactional.

That is, Washington can say: we support you, but not at any cost. We are your ally, but not your automatic tool. We take into account Israel’s security, but we are not obliged to subordinate all American policy in the Middle East to it.

For Netanyahu’s government, this is especially dangerous because its internal legitimacy largely rests on the image of a leader who knows how to talk to American power better than anyone else. If this image weakens, the problem becomes not only diplomatic but also political.

Within the Republican Party, attitudes towards Israel are changing

One of the most important elements of this story is the change in the American right-wing audience. Support for Israel in the US has been strong for decades among both Democrats and Republicans, although its forms differed. But in recent years, both parties have been experiencing internal splits.

Among Democrats, criticism of Israel has intensified on the left flank. Among Republicans, the influence of a camp that does not want new wars, new commitments, and new foreign policy expenses is growing. For this group, Israel remains an ally, but not necessarily an ally for whom the US should take any risk.

Reuters on June 26, 2026, separately wrote about the difference in tones between Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Vance spoke more harshly about how Israel’s actions could undermine US peace efforts, while Rubio emphasized Israel’s right to self-defense more strongly. The White House officially denied any split and claimed that the entire administration was acting within Trump’s line.

For Israel, this means that even within the Trump administration, there is no single simple intonation. There is support for Israel, but there is also irritation. There is a traditional Republican pro-Israel reflex, but there is also a new policy of restraint.

Netanyahu found himself in a difficult trap

Netanyahu needs Trump. But Trump does not necessarily need Netanyahu to the same extent.

This is the new asymmetry. The Israeli prime minister is interested in demonstrating full support from the White House, especially if political turbulence lies ahead within Israel. Trump, on the other hand, is interested in presenting himself as a president who ends wars, makes deals, and forces allies to take American conditions into account.

If Netanyahu criticizes the Iran deal too sharply, he risks irritating the White House. If he remains silent, he risks receiving criticism from the right within Israel. If he continues military actions that Washington considers harmful to its diplomacy, he may face even more open pressure.

That is why the phrase from the Politico source that ‘the worst is yet to come’ sounds not like emotional dramatization, but like a political forecast.

What this means for the Israeli audience

For readers in Israel, this story is important not only as another episode in the Trump-Netanyahu relationship. It shows that Israel is entering a period where familiar guarantees are becoming less obvious.

The US remains Israel’s main ally. This has not changed in one week and has not disappeared after one statement by Vance. But the quality of this connection is changing. Support will increasingly depend on how much Israel’s actions align with the American plan for the region.

If the US wants a deal with Iran, it will be harder for Israel to torpedo it.
If the US wants stabilization in Lebanon, it will be harder for Israel to explain continued strikes solely with internal security logic.
If Trump wants to show American voters that he is not dragging the country into new wars, Israeli expectations may become a political burden for him.

НАновости — Новости Израиля believes that the main question now is: can Israel maintain a strategic alliance with the US if Washington stops perceiving Israeli interests as an automatic extension of American ones?

The answer is not yet clear.

But it is already evident that the era of simple formulas is ending. The phrase ‘Trump will support Israel’ no longer explains the whole picture. It needs to be added: he will support — if it does not contradict his deal, his electorate, his understanding of America First, and his desire to show that he is in control of the situation.

Conclusion

The Politico article is important not because it reports a personal conflict between Vance and Israel. Its significance is deeper: it captures the moment when in American politics, Israel ceases to be an unconditional exception.

For Netanyahu, this is a diplomatic risk.
For the Israeli right-wing camp, it is an ideological blow.
For Washington, it is an attempt to regain control over the Middle East agenda.
For Israel, it is a reminder that even the closest ally can at some point say: first US interests, then everything else.

This is the new reality described by Politico: Israel’s problem with Vance is not just a problem with Vance. It is a problem with America, which increasingly demands that allies adapt to it, not the other way around.