The Canard That Welfare for Israel Benefits the U.S. Economy

In a New York Post article, dated April 25, 2026, Joseph Epstein trots out the tired old canard that U.S. welfare for Israel (i.e., foreign aid) is really for America's benefit. He makes the claim (which I've been hearing for decades) that "Most of that $3.8 billion must be spent on American-made military equipment. That’s not charity — it’s a subsidy for our own defense industrial base."

It's a bizarre argument coming from any alleged conservative.

Following Epstein's logic, all domestic welfare (including Food Stamps, DEI and BLM grants, and even money for illegal migrants) really benefits all Americans, because that money "subsidizes" (Epstein's word) American grocery stores, restaurants, retailers, movie theaters, landlords and medical providers.

Following Epstein's logic, we should expand all welfare programs (foreign and domestic), so more money will "subsidize" American businesses.

But every true conservative and libertarian knows this is a bogus argument. If we eliminated all welfare programs (including welfare for Israel), that money would remain with American taxpayers, who would also spend that money in the U.S. But instead of the goods and services going to welfare recipients (foreign and domestic), they would instead benefit the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place.

In either case, American businesses are "subsidized" by consumers. The difference is whether that "subsidy" buys goods and services for welfare recipients (foreign and domestic) or for American taxpayers.

Epstein's argument flows either from his stupidity or his dishonesty. And I doubt that Epstein is stupid.

And that's without raising additional points, such as that Israel is an extremely wealthy nation that could easily afford to pay for its own defense.

=========