Abdul el Sayed, who recently won the Democratic nomination in Michigan, has appeared in hundreds of television interviews and campaign events delivering a simple message: America’s domestic policies are broken, and ending aid to Israel is the way to fix them.
This reductive argument has become a defining feature of many progressive campaigns within the Democratic Party, and, unfortunately, it appears to be resonating with voters. The appeal is obvious. El Sayed promises to improve education, healthcare, and other public services without raising taxes or requiring any tangible sacrifice from Americans. Speaking from a position of authority as a Senate candidate, he is effectively offering voters a free lunch — both figuratively and, in many cases, literally.
Anyone who reviews el Sayed’s media appearances will notice how deliberate he is in framing his message. He consistently returns to the same set of key words and themes: education, healthcare, children, Gaza, weapons, genocide, and similar talking points. By doing so, he often succeeds in steering interviews toward emotionally charged debates over foreign policy and military assistance, leaving little or no time for journalists to examine whether his proposed solution would meaningfully address the domestic problems he highlights — even under the most charitable interpretation.
More perplexing is the apparent reluctance of interviewers to ask el Sayed to show his work. A Senate candidate should be expected to demonstrate at least a basic understanding of the federal budget and the policymaking processes surrounding foreign affairs and national security. Yet his central claims are rarely subjected to meaningful scrutiny.
Breaking down el Sayed’s arguments raises several straightforward but important questions that voters deserve to hear addressed.
The scale of America’s social spending compared with the foreign assistance budget
Combined federal, state, and local spending on major social insurance, social welfare, and education programs in the United States now exceeds $5 trillion annually. By comparison, the enacted fiscal 2026 foreign assistance budget is approximately $50 billion.
This comparison raises an important question. El Sayed appears to argue that redirecting roughly 1% of current social spending would substantially improve America’s education and social programs. Yet he largely ignores a more fundamental issue: persistent inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement within many domestic programs. If the government already spends more than $15,000 annually for every U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident on these programs, why has that level of spending not produced the outcomes he seeks? And how would a 1% increase magically solve the problems?
What is actually included in the foreign assistance budget?
El Sayed also appears to misunderstand — or at least misrepresent — what the foreign assistance budget actually funds and how it affects American interests.
More than half of the foreign assistance budget supports economic development, disaster relief, and global health initiatives. These programs address humanitarian crises while also helping contain threats that affect the U.S. Among them is the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has been credited with saving more than 26 million lives since its creation and has played a central role in combating the global HIV epidemic.
Like virtually every government program, foreign assistance is not immune to waste or inefficiency. However, the Trump administration’s recent budget reductions have increasingly prioritized programs that provide measurable strategic or humanitarian benefits while advancing American interests.
What about military assistance to Israel?
Out of an annual federal budget of roughly $5.52 trillion, the $3.3 billion allocated annually to Israel through Foreign Military Financing receives a remarkably disproportionate share of political and media attention.
It is important to understand what FMF actually is. Rather than functioning as unrestricted cash assistance, FMF generally operates as credit that recipient countries use to purchase U.S.-manufactured defense equipment and systems.
For accuracy, Congress increased this funding by approximately $500 million for fiscal 2027. The additional funding will support joint missile-defense research, combining American technological capabilities with Israeli operational experience. This cooperation will greatly strengthen the U.S.’s ability to respond to increasingly sophisticated missile and drone threats posed by adversaries.
El Sayed portrays military assistance to Israel as unnecessary and wasteful. Yet decisions regarding FMF are debated annually in Congress and involve a broad range of strategic, military, diplomatic, and political considerations. FMF is approved only when it can be clearly demonstrated that funds will better advance U.S. national security interests than alternative uses of those resources, including applying funds directly to the U.S. armed forces budget.
It is also worth remembering that military assistance to Israel originated as part of the Camp David Accords, negotiated during the administration of President Jimmy Carter — a figure admired by the progressive Left. The agreement, which established military assistance for both Egypt and Israel, helped end decades of war between the two countries. The resulting peace has contributed to greater regional stability and reduced the risk of a conflict that had severely disrupted the global economy.
El Sayed should also remember that his own family emigrated from Egypt in 1979, a year after the Camp David agreement was signed. Without the accords and the associated FMF assistance, his family could have ended as a casualty of the war instead of successful American citizens with a son running for Senate.
Ultimately, this debate is not about whether America should fix and improve its schools, healthcare system, or social programs. Those are goals shared across the political spectrum. The real question is whether voters should accept unrealistic promises that are presented as simple solutions to decades of domestic policy failures.
Senate candidates should be held to a higher standard than slogans and emotionally compelling talking points. They should be expected to explain how their proposals work, what trade-offs they require, and whether the numbers actually add up. If el Sayed believes that eliminating some foreign assistance will materially transform American domestic policy, he should be asked to demonstrate that claim with evidence rather than rhetoric. The story of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his staggering failures over the few months of his tenure should make the average voter more weary and increasingly inquisitive when faced by this type of diction.
WITH ABDUL EL SAYED WIN, MICHIGAN DEMOCRATS FALL TO THE MAMDANI LEFT
Foreign aid has always been politically attractive to criticize because it is highly visible yet represents a very small share of federal spending. Promising to cut it allows candidates to signal fiscal responsibility or moral conviction without actually confronting the politically difficult reforms required to address Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, housing costs, or state-level governance.
The U.S. can and should debate its foreign policy, including its relationship with Israel. But those debates should be grounded in facts, strategic analysis, and honest accounting — not slogans and falsehoods. Democracies depend on voters demanding more than compelling narratives. And every proposal carries costs, trade-offs, and unintended consequences. Fiscal policy deserves the same standard of evidence that Americans expect in medicine: diagnoses should be accurate, prescriptions should be supported by evidence, and treatments should be proportional to the disease. Voters deserve a discussion that reflects the complexity of governing, not one that offers snake oil as medicine.
Hazem Alghabra, born in Damascus, Syria, is the founder and president of Frontiers Consultants, a Washington, D.C.-based consultancy firm that provides public relations and crisis management solutions with a focus on the Middle East and the United States. Prior to starting his firm, Alghabra held multiple positions with the U.S. State Department including senior adviser for public affairs at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Alghabra provides daily insight and analysis as a commentator on a vast array of television stations including i24, Keshet, Alarabyia, Sky News, BBC, and Alsharq-Bloomberg.