Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trade And Foreign Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public testimony split over Maryland Israel Development Center grant; supporters cite jobs, critics cite military ties
Summary
Multiple witnesses at the appropriations subcommittee hearing urged opposite outcomes on a $300,000 Commerce grant to the Maryland Israel Development Center: trade and community groups said the MIDC helps attract Israeli companies and jobs, while activists and impacted residents urged ending state funding because some beneficiary companies have
A large panel of public witnesses at the Education and Economic Development Subcommittee hearing debated whether the state should continue an annual Commerce grant supporting the Maryland Israel Development Center (MIDC).
Supporters: jobs and trade promotion. David Spear, executive director of the MIDC, told the panel the organization has helped attract Israeli companies that have created jobs and economic activity in Maryland and that the MIDC provides matchmaking and export support without charging the companies fees. “Over the years, the return on investment includes these companies contributing hundreds of millions of dollars directly to Marylanders in the form of job creation and economic growth,” Spear said. Sarah Mirsky McGee of the Baltimore Jewish Council and other business witnesses echoed the view that the partnership supports life‑science and technology companies and that the MIDC’s work benefits Maryland employers and workers.
Critics: military ties and human‑rights objections. Dozens of other speakers asked the committee to end state funding for MIDC, saying tax dollars should not support an entity that helps Israeli companies, some of which produce defense or surveillance equipment used by the Israeli military. Liz Cabrera Holtz and Jonathan Rockind, representing Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said a significant portion of MIDC‑assisted businesses operate in the weapons, security or defense sectors and that continued funding implicates Maryland tax dollars in human rights harms. Aisha Dede, Susan Karen of Peace Action Montgomery and other speakers described civilian deaths in Gaza and called for state policy that avoids supporting companies with military ties.
How advocates framed the question. Supporters framed MIDC funding as standard economic development activity that helps foreign direct investment and trade ties, and they asked the committee to treat MIDC grants the same way as other international trade partnerships. Opponents argued the state should not give special treatment or grants to an organization that actively assists firms with military or surveillance applications, citing specific company names raised during testimony.
Officials’ remarks and fiscal context. Testimony in support of MIDC noted a Commerce allocation (some witnesses referenced $300,000) and said the MIDC’s roster of Maryland business partners increased to over 40 companies. Opponents noted the state’s budget constraints and urged redirecting funds to social priorities such as education, housing and mental health services.
What comes next: The appropriations committee will consider the Commerce budget and related grants as part of its FY26 deliberations; testimony on MIDC will be part of the public record the committee uses when weighing whether to continue or modify the grant.
