A quiet but significant battle is unfolding inside Congress over whether the United States should deepen its formal defense ties with Israel — and a growing group of senators wants to stop it. The fight centers on annual legislation that few Americans typically follow closely, but whose outcomes shape how the U.S. military operates and who it partners with for decades to come.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is leading the charge, rallying a dozen Senate colleagues to push back against specific provisions tucked inside both the House and Senate versions of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — the sweeping annual legislation that sets military policy and spending priorities for the country.
Van Hollen, joined by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and eight other colleagues, sent a formal letter to House and Senate leadership Tuesday calling for the removal of two specific sections of the bill.
What the Provisions Would Do
The targeted sections are Section 219 of the House bill — dubbed the United States-Israel Defense Cooperation Initiative — and Section 1217 of the Senate version, known as the Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security (FUTURES) Act. Both would expand formal cooperation between the two countries on weapons technology, covering areas like artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and chemical and biological weapons development.
The senators also flagged a related provision in the fiscal 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act that would increase intelligence-sharing with Israel, aimed at helping the country “maintain its qualitative military edge” and “deter and counter destabilizing activities by the Government of Iran and Iran-aligned state and nonstate actors that threaten Israel, United States forces, and regional partners.”
Critics argue these provisions represent more than routine alliance-building. They say the proposed framework would shift U.S.-Israel military support from a traditional foreign aid model — previously managed by the State Department — to a commercial partnership overseen by the Pentagon, locking in long-term commitments that could limit future U.S. flexibility.
The letter warns that the legislation “would constrain the administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect U.S. national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region.”
Van Hollen’s office confirmed the senator’s intentions, stating:
“The Senator is working with his colleagues to remove these provisions and will determine next steps should they remain in. The Senator will continue to push to remove these provisions and push to protect the United States’ ability to act independently and in line with U.S. national security interests.”
The Broader Context
U.S. government support for Israel has drawn increasing scrutiny over the past three years. Israel’s war in Gaza has killed at least 74,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran beginning February 28 have drawn the United States into a conflict that is growing increasingly unpopular at home, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.
President Donald Trump has promised to end outright military aid to Israel, which has historically flowed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The current MOU is set to expire in 2028 and provides billions in financing for Israel to purchase U.S.-made weapons over a 10-year period.
The U.S. and Israel already have established defense cooperation. Israeli contractor Rafael Systems and Raytheon jointly developed the David’s Sling missile interceptor system. But critics say the new framework would go further — reducing oversight of weapons transfers, potentially exposing sensitive U.S. technology, and offering limited tangible benefit to the American side of the partnership.
Where the NDAA Stands
The NDAA is considered a “must-pass” bill in Congress, but this year’s version has faced a rocky path. The more than $1 trillion price tag has fueled Democratic resistance. The House’s version narrowly passed in July, while Senate Democrats blocked that chamber’s version the same month over objections tied to the ongoing Iran war.
Opposition to the Israel defense cooperation provisions has also surfaced in the House. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) attempted to strip the United States-Israel Defense Cooperation Initiative from the bill during committee debate but was unsuccessful. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) also publicly opposed the measure, making the pushback bipartisan, even if the effort ultimately fell short in committee.
Comments are closed.