Some lawmakers are pushing to phase out massive U.S. military aid to Israel that has been the norm for decades. But a provision in the annual defense policy bill, which awaits action in the Senate, could draw the U.S. and Israeli militaries even closer.
The U.S. currently provides $3.8 billion a year in military funding to Israel as part of a memorandum of understanding, which is set to expire in 2028. Amid growing public opposition to sending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to Israel, which has faced global criticism for its bombardment of Gaza and operations in Lebanon, some lawmakers have proposed drawing down the amount of direct aid to Israel.
But lawmakers are also weighing a proposal, as part of the $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act, that would create a more integrated defense-technology and industrial partnership between the U.S. and Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly supported a transition from direct aid to defense partnership, and pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has backed the NDAA initiative. Proponents of the measure argue that it would be more mutually beneficial, accelerating U.S. military innovation and making defense cooperation more cost-efficient.
Critics, however, argue that the measure would embed Israeli technology more deeply within Pentagon programs and supply chains, potentially giving Israel more leverage over U.S. defense decisions. The U.S. has several defense-industrial partnerships with NATO and AUKUS allies, but opponents say the proposal would institutionalize U.S.-Israeli cooperation to an unusual degree for a country that is not a formal treaty ally. Critics also argue that potentially shifting support for Israel from annual aid, which must be voted on, to routine Pentagon programs would make U.S.-Israeli cooperation more opaque and difficult to pull back in future.
“The measure risks tethering the U.S. military to its Israeli counterpart technologically and making it difficult to uproot should conditions change,” Quincy Institute senior research fellow Steve Simon writes, adding that the initiative would transform “assistance into cooperation, thereby sheltering the security relationship from regular congressional votes and oversight.” The provisions would not remove Congress’s authority over appropriations, but critics say individual U.S.-Israeli projects could potentially be funded through the Pentagon with less congressional scrutiny.
Here’s what to know about the proposed legislation.
What’s in the measure?
The House and the Senate have included similar provisions in their versions of the NDAA. The House measure would require the Defense Secretary to designate an executive agent to accelerate U.S.-Israeli cooperation on defense technology. Cooperation would include bilateral research, development and co-production of weapons and technology in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and other fields.
The Senate measure would similarly require the Defense Secretary, in consultation with Israel’s defense minister, to create a bilateral defense technology initiative that accelerates joint research, procurement and production of military technologies.
Neither provision would create a joint military command, transfer control of troops, or independently authorize military aid.
The provisions are based on the U.S.-Israel FUTURES Act, bipartisan bills that were introduced earlier this year in the Senate by Sens. Ted Budd (R, N.C.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D, N.Y.) and in the House by Reps. Ronny Jackson (R, Texas) and Don Davis (D, N.C.). The standalone bills, which have not been passed, proposed establishing a bilateral defense-technology initiative between the U.S. and Israel.
“This legislation secures America’s competitive edge in defense technology,” Jackson said in a February statement about the FUTURES Act.
The Senate is also considering another bill, the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act, that would expand intelligence sharing with Israel on terrorism, cyberthreats, missile threats, and more, with the exception of areas of specific national security concern. It would also expand intelligence cooperation with signatories of the Abraham Accords, a set of agreements that normalized several Arab nations’ relations with the state of Israel.
The U.S. already has extensive defense partnerships with Israel. Washington provided billions of dollars to support Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system, and components have been co-produced in the U.S. since 2014. David’s Sling—another Israeli air defense system—was jointly developed by the U.S. and Israel and produced through a partnership between American and Israeli defense companies.
The U.S. has also coordinated closely with Israel in joint strikes, including on Iran on Feb. 28, which launched the now five-month-long war.
What’s behind the proposal?
The U.S. has sent billions of dollars of defense funding to Israel every year for decades as part of successive memorandums of understanding. Israel has historically been the largest recipient of U.S. security assistance since its creation in 1948.
But lawmakers appear to be turning to the provisions as a means of transitioning away from that model and toward what proponents, including Netanyahu, describe as a mutually beneficial defense partnership. The NDAA legislation does not currently reduce Israel’s existing assistance.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R, Ind.) has led a separate but similar effort to phase out direct aid and deepen defense cooperation. Stutzman introduced a nonbinding House resolution in June to end direct aid over a 10-year span and instead move towards “mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment.” Stutzman, who is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, said the proposal would shift U.S. policy “from the current status quo of giving military aid to Israel to creating a trade relationship where we can help each other militarily and economically.” Netanyahu has backed Stutzman’s proposal, writing in a letter to Stutzman that “the time has now arrived for us to move from aid recipient to partner.”
Netanyahu told 60 Minutes in May that he wants to “draw down to zero” U.S. financial support of Israel.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also said in June that the next U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding “ends aid & will be based on trade.” Huckabee has been in talks with Israeli officials on creating a new security cooperation framework to replace the existing memorandum of understanding, Israel’s Defense Ministry said.
That push has come amid a widening split in the Democratic Party over unconditional military support for Israel. On July 15, 27 House Democrats issued a joint statement opposing another $3.3 billion in direct military financing for Israel. That same day, 103 House Democrats voted for an amendment, authored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R, Ky.), to the annual State Department appropriations bill to eliminate the funding for Israel, although the measure ultimately failed 104-314.
Opposition has also grown among a smaller group of “America First” Republicans, especially as the mounting cost of the war against Iran has fueled concerns about U.S. commitments overseas.
What do critics say?
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D, Md.) has been one of the most outspoken critics of the proposal, telling the New York Times this week that it could give the Israeli government leverage over U.S. weapons systems and military technology. Van Hollen said the existing missile defense co-production agreements should serve as a “cautionary tale” of how such partnerships could impact U.S. defense decisions. Israel has repeatedly blocked the U.S. from transferring two U.S.-owned Iron Dome batteries to Ukraine, citing the risk that Russia could obtain the weapons and pass them to Iran.
Van Hollen has frequently criticized the massive U.S. financial and military support—long backed by the Democratic Party—for Israel. In May, he wrote in the Times, “The Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values.”
Five Democrats, including Van Hollen, and Independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, signed a letter in July objecting to the “provisions that mandate enhanced defense and intelligence cooperation with the government of Israel at a time when the Netanyahu coalition continues to undermine U.S. interests and values.”
The group of lawmakers also warned that they expect the separate intelligence bill to be attached to the NDAA, potentially compelling Trump to deepen the intelligence relationship with Israel.
The integration of Israeli technology in U.S. defense supply chains could also make it costlier and less efficient for the U.S. to unwind the partnership if the two countries’ interests diverged, Simon, the Quincy Institute research fellow, argues.
Other critics argue that the measure would increase Israel’s political influence in the U.S. “It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S.,” Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, writes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, N.Y.) has also criticized the proposal, warning that the provision would “merge parts of our military with the IDF.”
“This amendment is an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Proponents of the provisions rejected Ocasio-Cortez’s characterization, arguing that the proposal does not merge the two militaries but increases joint investment and research.
Nevertheless, opposition to the provisions has continued to grow among lawmakers of both parties. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Calif.) introduced a bipartisan amendment to remove the provisions in June, but the House Rules Committee twice denied it a floor vote.
The House subsequently passed the NDAA with the provision intact on July 22. But the broader defense package, which is historically considered must-pass legislation, faces an uphill battle in the Senate. All but six voting House Democrats voted against it, and Senate Democrats blocked a July 14 motion to begin the debate. A new motion to begin considering the Senate bill was made on July 27, but the Senate has not yet voted to take it up.
