When Malcolm X wrote Zionist Logic in 1964, he wasn’t just describing a foreign agenda—he was identifying a political formula. He showed how governments use morality to mask control, and how emotions can be redirected to serve the interests of power. Six decades later, that same formula defines America’s spending priorities and the quiet compliance of its political class.

Read: Malcolm X’s Warning Has Come Full Circle

Every year, Congress approves $3.8 billion in guaranteed military aid to Israel, with emergency packages pushing the total above $8.3 billion. This staggering amount is not debated; it’s treated as automatic—a “special relationship” written into law. Meanwhile, Black communities at home are told that funding for housing, healthcare, or education must fit “within the budget.” The stark contrast in these figures is a clear manifestation of the injustice: complete generosity abroad, conditional charity at home.

In 2024, the Biden administration announced $1.3 billion in funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. While meaningful, that figure equals barely one-sixth of what Israel receives annually from American taxpayers. Washington can find unlimited resources for foreign defense, but must negotiate every dollar aimed at domestic equity.

The results of those trade-offs are visible everywhere. The impact on Black communities is profound and urgent. Median Black household wealth remains one-tenth that of white households. Black homeownership has not increased since 1968. Public schools in majority-Black districts receive $23 billion less each year than those in white districts. Health outcomes, business ownership, and infrastructure all follow the same trend: permanent shortage, predictable neglect.

The imbalance is not just economic—it’s political, and it should concern us all. The Congressional Black Caucus, once the moral conscience of Capitol Hill, now operates within the same donor framework as the rest of Washington. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) proudly advertises its partnerships with CBC members, boasting that 26 of its endorsed Black lawmakers advanced to general elections in 2024. The symbolism is powerful: the organization that defends Israel’s interests abroad now claims influence over the very caucus created to protect Black interests at home.

Federal Election Commission data tell the rest of the story. According to OpenSecrets.org, several leading Black lawmakers have received significant contributions from pro-Israel donors during the 2023–2024 election cycle:

Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), House Democratic Leader — roughly $866,550 from pro-Israel sources, including AIPAC PAC funds.

Gregory Meeks (NY-05), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has received about $510,000 in pro-Israel industry donations.

Shontel Brown (OH-11) — more than $120,000, her top funding source.

Wesley Bell (MO) — over $8.5 million in outside support from AIPAC-affiliated groups during his successful primary challenge against Cori Bush.

None of this violates campaign laws, but it raises a critical question: how can representatives fight for reparations, urban renewal, or wealth-building in their districts if their campaign survival depends on donors with foreign-policy priorities?

Allegations About AIPAC Oversight

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed during a live broadcast that lawmakers who accept contributions from AIPAC “have an AIPAC handler” who must be consulted before voting on key issues or legislation. AIPAC publicly denied her statement, calling it false and inflammatory. However, the intensity of that exchange shows how deep public skepticism about money and influence in Washington has become—and how easily perceptions of control can erode trust in representation.

The silence surrounding H.R. 40—the long-standing reparations study bill—is the clearest indicator of how donor incentives shape domestic policy. Some members support it symbolically, but few fight for it substantively. When Congress can move $8 billion for Israel in weeks but cannot move a single reparations proposal in decades, the message is unmistakable.

Israel’s citizens enjoy universal healthcare, low-cost college, and robust family benefits. American taxpayers, including those in Black neighborhoods, help sustain that system through foreign aid. Meanwhile, millions of Americans—many of them the descendants of enslaved people—still lack healthcare, affordable education, and safe housing. This is not about envy or ideology. It’s about priority.

Historical Context: The Missed Moment for Domestic Repair

When Barack Obama took office in 2009, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress for the first two years of his presidency. During that time, there was no vote on H.R. 40—the House bill to establish a commission to study proposals for reparations for African Americans—despite the bill having been introduced repeatedly since 1989.

In 2016, near the end of Obama’s second term, his administration signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding with Israel, committing the United States to providing $3.8 billion in annual military assistance from 2019 through 2028. That agreement, confirmed by the State Department and the Congressional Research Service, represents roughly $38 billion over the decade, later supplemented by additional emergency aid that has raised the annual total toward $8 billion in some years.

The point is not about personality but about policy. Even with unified party control and unprecedented political capital, Washington again chose to institutionalize foreign commitments while domestic repair for Black America remained a discussion, not a decision.

Economic Comparison: What $8.3 Billion a Year Really Means

At $8.3 billion a year, the U.S. will send roughly $83 billion to Israel over the next decade. To put this in perspective, that amount equals the federal budget for higher-education grants and aid in a single year. It could fund a ten-year national home-repair and wealth-restoration initiative for Black families in historically red-lined neighborhoods—1.5 million homes at $50,000 each. It could underwrite tuition-free education at every HBCU for 10 years or provide $25,000 business start-up grants to more than 3 million Black entrepreneurs.

Economists who model a comprehensive federal reparations program estimate long-term costs between $10 trillion and $14 trillion, spread over decades. Eighty-three billion would not complete that task, but it would represent a meaningful down payment—proof that the resources exist when the political will does.

Policy follows incentives, not promises. Donors reward global alignment, not local accountability. As a result, Black America receives moral recognition for its struggles and the need for justice, but it experiences material neglect in the form of underfunded schools, lack of affordable housing, and limited access to healthcare. The Congressional Black Caucus, formed initially to challenge power, now mirrors the structure it was created to confront. Its members hold press conferences on justice but vote in silence on the budgets that deny it.

The logic is economic before it is moral. Money defines commitment. The billions that leave this country every year prove that the United States has the capacity to repair what it broke—but not the political will. Every dollar spent abroad without accountability is a dollar taken from the communities that built this nation’s wealth and still wait for repair.

Until elected officials prioritize outcomes over access, and until policy is measured by the progress it delivers—not the donors it satisfies—Black Americans will continue to get pennies while billions go overseas. The evidence isn’t hidden; it’s printed in every federal budget.

Malcolm X recognized the illusion of partnership between the oppressed and the powerful. Today, that illusion is maintained by money, not by words. The next chapter of Black political maturity will require not only consciousness but courage—the courage to break financial dependence and legislate for results.

Source link