Pro-Israel voices win out, kill bill to stop US-Israel military integration

Rep. Khanna took the 'America First' approach against Section 224, but he was outnumbered by those who played down its dangers and implications

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Jun 04, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-israel-military-congress/?mc_cid=0b390e72a4&mc_eid=944feb3e1c

A House committee summarily struck down an amendment to strip a measure from the massive annual defense policy bill that would provide Israel “a higher level of military-industrial integration" with the U.S. than Washington has "with any other country in the world.”

Pro-Israel voices on the House Armed Services Committee argued that reports about Section 224 — that Congress was trying to integrate U.S. and Israeli military systems as a way to entrench aid without proper oversight — were disingenuous and wrong.

In fact, members claimed that these were “existing initiatives” and that Section 224 “actually improves oversight and accountability of these programs by designating a single official responsible for them,” according to Chairman Mike Rogers, (R-Ala.)

Not quite true, said the Quincy Institute’s Ben Freeman, who broke the initial story of Section 224 for RS last week. “Members of Congress supporting the proposal laid out caricatures of critiques against Section 224. And when they did actually talk about the provision itself they spread half-truths and outright inaccuracies about how far this provision will go to integrate the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors.”

According to Freeman, as reported in these pages, Section 224 would lay the groundwork for:

…bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.

Critically, it would shift the annual $3.8 billion the U.S. now gives Israel (a 10-year memorandum of understanding soon up for renewal) to these programs and partnerships, i.e. “co-production” and other “fusion” deep inside Pentagon procurement and acquisitions process, where sunlight is rare and often fleeting. A perfect solution — which is, by the way, endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — given the dwindling American support for Israel’s wars and U.S. military assistance for them.

In his remarks on Section 224, Khanna spoke vociferously against what he saw as a blank check at a time when a majority of Americans say they do not want to send more military aid to Israel.

“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do. The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do,” he charged.

“I am for Team America. I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country,” Khanna said. “We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”

Unfortunately for Khanna, the majority on the committee did not agree. According to several members, not only is Israel the only friend we have in the region, it helped us create new technologies and capabilities, and we would only benefit from the deeper military ties.

“This is a win-win relationship. We have Silicon Valley, Israel has Tel Aviv, and it's like Silicon Valley number two. We have gained so much technology advantages from our partnership with Israel, and vice versa,” declared Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb). “They gain as well, and this is what we're trying to do, is create that synergy. They support our foreign policy, they've been the most supportive of us in the U.N. They're the only democracy in Middle East, and so I'll oppose the amendment.”

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) warned that American national security would be at risk if such synergy didn't occur. After “the bad actors” of the world go after Israel they will then “exercise their free will against us," he charged.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) took the line that the reports about Section 224 were overblown. “It's not a new framework at all. We have three existing programs right now where we do military cooperation with Israel to develop technologies. Those programs already exist," he said.

"This amendment ... suggests some other areas where maybe we should look at opportunities, and as the chairman noted, we had somebody now appointed to coordinate those programs.”

He said he, too, was “frustrated with Netanyahu’s leadership” and Israel's support for a “war with Iran that has strengthened Iran and weakened our position,” but he disagrees that Section 224 “is Congress just bowing to what Netanyahu wants — this is to our benefit.” In fact, such sharing should occur with Ukraine, too, he added.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) was the only other member who spoke out in favor of Khanna’s amendment, pointing out that current laws prohibit transfers of weapons to countries committing war crimes and violating international law, but Section 224 makes no such provisions, and takes oversight away, despite what some of her colleagues were arguing on Thursday.

She raised the issue of Israeli-owned Pegasus spyware, which was blacklisted for its use against Americans. “Two administrations from both parties left it on that list, and that same company is right now trying to buy its way into the American market, fusing our defense and technology sectors together permanently,” she said.

A proposal “with no conditions in the exact area where we have already been burned (Section 224) is reckless on its own terms, and it would do it through a must-pass bill with almost no oversight and with none of the human rights conditions that govern the rest of security assistance," Jacobs added.

Next steps: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) says he will work with Khanna to strip the language from the final House NDAA. If the parade of voices that insist Israel must have this relationship with the U.S. military is any indication, it will be a hard road ahead.