Buried in the defense bill: The US-Israel provision dividing Washington

They’re fighting about Israel again in Washington. What else is new?

Tucked deep inside Congress’ annual defense authorization bill this week is a provision that has generated fierce debate.

The debate centers on what’s known as the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. It’s included in both the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The House and Senate approach the issue somewhat differently, and the proposal has produced one of Washington’s most unusual political coalitions. The legislation would direct the Pentagon to expand cooperation with Israel in areas such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, missile defense, cybersecurity, biotechnology, defense manufacturing, research and development, and defense supply chains.

Supporters argue that Israel has become one of America’s most innovative military technology partners and that closer collaboration benefits U.S. national security as much as Israel’s.

They stress that this isn’t about giving Israel more military aid and that the provision inside the bill doesn’t create a joint military command or transfer operational control over U.S. forces. They say instead that by partnering with Israel, American troops will have access to cutting-edge battlefield technologies. In short, they say this is simply a commonsense effort.

Critics say hold on a minute. They complain this is a step toward permanently institutionalizing U.S.-Israel defense cooperation in ways Congress has never done before. Essentially, they argue that Congress is creating a permanent Pentagon bureaucracy whose mission would be to continually deepen military cooperation with Israel regardless of which administration occupies the White House. The critics say closely intertwining with Israel is a bridge too far.

It should be noted that the House version – at least at this point – is more restrained. It directs the Secretary of Defense to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation.

It also softens some of the original language by referring to the “potential integration” of Israeli technologies into American defense programs. It wouldn’t be automatic integration. In addition, the language is softer, stating that a list of coordinated activities with Israel “may” be pursued rather than “shall” be pursued.

The Senate version appears broader at this point and seems to be a more formal bilateral framework for long-term defense technology cooperation.  Normally, Israel divides Republicans and Democrats. This time, the fault line is different.

On one side are many traditional national security Republicans, pro-Israel Democrats (a dwindling group to be sure) and organizations like AIPAC. 
On the other side is a growing coalition of far-left, anti-Israel Democrats and the non-interventionist anti-Israel wing of the "America First" movement that is represented in Congress.

This side argues that Congress should not require deeper ties with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government at a time when there is a growing chorus of criticism directed at Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. 

So far, there’s been an attempt to strip the provision out of the underlying bill on the House side. Anti-Israel Republican Rep. Thomas Massie joined anti-Israel Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna in introducing an amendment to remove the provision, but the amendment was blocked before reaching the House floor, so the language currently remains in the bill.

Massie’s objections, however, come from a very different place than those of progressive Democrats. His concerns reflect the growing America First, non-interventionist wing of the Republican Party, which argues the United States should avoid permanently embedding itself in the military affairs of any foreign nation – even close allies. This contingent believes this is not traditional defense cooperation but rather an expansion of military integration. 

The progressive left echoes some of the sentiment of the America First Right, but they also worry about tying America more closely to Netanyahu’s government.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has not publicly commented in detail on the specific NDAA provisions now under debate in Congress, but his broader view of the U.S.-Israel security relationship has been consistent. While he has strongly advocated for expanding strategic cooperation between the two countries, Netanyahu has also argued in recent years that Israel should gradually reduce its dependence on American military aid.

Following the October 7 attacks, he reiterated that Israel ultimately must be able to defend itself by itself, and has suggested that as Israel’s economy and defense industry continue to grow, the country should work toward greater self-sufficiency rather than relying indefinitely on U.S. assistance.

What this current debate over the measure shows is that Israel is not going to escape close scrutiny by those in Congress. While the majority still supports Israel, the growing faction of far-left Democrats and woke right America-first conservatives create a substantial problem for Israel. It comes at the worst possible time.