At the recent Christians United for Israel Summit, Sen. Ted Cruz doubled down on a long-debated issue, defending the over $3 billion the United States sends to Israel annually as “actually a bargain” for American national security.

Senator Ted Cruz’s recent remarks on U.S. financial aid to Israel have once again highlighted concerns about the influence of pro-Israel politicians on American policy, which some argue undermines U.S. interests and sovereignty.

In a dramatic assertion, Cruz justified the substantial U.S. aid to Israel by emphasizing the benefits of gaining access to high-level intelligence from Mossad. “The three billion dollars the United States sends to Israel each year is actually a bargain,” Cruz stated, arguing that the intelligence America receives in return is invaluable. He elaborated that building a comparable intelligence service in the U.S. would cost tens of billions of dollars, emphasizing the economic advantage of the current arrangement.

Cruz confidently endorsed the partnership, suggesting that Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Israel and Mossad for their contributions to U.S. security, which he claims have saved numerous American lives.

However, Cruz’s rationale has been met with skepticism from those who feel that unwavering support for foreign interests might not align with American priorities. Critics argue that such alliances lead to an unbalanced influence over U.S. foreign and domestic policies, which can be costly and lack accountability.

Public commentator Myron Gaines, responding on the social media platform X, voiced his criticism, stating, “We wouldn’t need their ‘top level intelligence’ if they weren’t involved in conflicts and creating false narratives throughout the Middle East.” This sentiment reflects a broader public unease regarding foreign influence on American policy.

Cruz left little doubt about his view of the partnership, instructing Americans that “every American should thank Israel and Mossad for the protection and intelligence they provide, which has saved countless American lives.”

But while Cruz’s premise attempts to cloak the gargantuan aid package in a veil of pragmatic security logic, it is precisely that unwavering loyalty to foreign powers that many Americans have grown weary of. The unholy alliance epitomized by Cruz’s statement fuels an expensive and unaccountable Zionist influence over American foreign and domestic policy.

Commentator Myron Gaines, responding sharply to Cruz on X, echoed public skepticism: “We wouldn’t need their “top level intelligence” if they weren’t starting wars and false flagging all over the middle east.”

It is difficult to overlook how repeatedly the United States has enabled wars and interventions that do not serve American national interests but instead prioritize Israeli strategic objectives, often at the expense of ordinary Americans and regional stability.

Cruz’s rhetoric conveniently sidesteps these realities while urging gratitude toward an intelligence agency known for its covert operations across the Middle East—missions that have often exacerbated regional chaos and endangered U.S. credibility.

This sentiment is especially grating to those who believe that American policy should prioritize protecting its own citizens over indulging foreign intelligence agendas. While Cruz emphasizes the cost-effectiveness of the arrangement, he neglects to mention the broader geopolitical costs, including endless conflicts, billions spent on foreign wars, and the growing threat of backlash due to perceived U.S. favoritism.

At a time when the American public increasingly demands accountability and realignment of priorities, Cruz’s speech exemplifies the problem: politicians beholden to domestic pro-Israel lobbies whose narrow focus undermines America’s broader strategic interests.

Cruz and other Zionist-aligned lawmakers continue to push narratives that frame massive aid and intelligence sharing as indispensable, while critical voices warning against this imbalance remain marginalized or vilified.

The real question Americans should ask is: Why are their tax dollars spent to fund foreign intelligence services whose missions may not always align with America’s security? And why are politicians like Cruz so resolute in defending this imbalance, while ignoring the voices calling for a more independent, America-first foreign policy?