Congress Is Quietly Moving to Integrate the U.S. and Israeli Militaries

By: Said Arikat

June 12, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C- Buried deep within the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a provision that could fundamentally reshape the military relationship between the United States and Israel.

Section 224, titled the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, seeks to synchronize defense research, development, testing, production, and industrial cooperation between the two countries. Supporters describe it as a logical extension of an already close alliance. Critics see something far more consequential: a framework that could further entrench Israeli influence over U.S. foreign and defense policy.

As Responsible Statecraft’s Ben Freeman noted, the initiative could leave the American political system even more vulnerable to the priorities of an Israeli government that has repeatedly sought to draw Washington deeper into Middle Eastern conflicts.

Opposition quickly emerged in Congress. Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced an amendment to remove the provision, arguing that Americans are tired of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dictating U.S. policy choices. His effort failed in the House Armed Services Committee.

Progressive lawmakers echoed those concerns. Senator Bernie Sanders argued that Americans do not want additional military support for Israel, while Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) pledged to introduce an amendment striking the measure altogether.

Former State Department official Josh Paul, who resigned over the Biden administration’s Gaza policy and later co-founded the political action committee A New Policy, warned that the proposal extends beyond technology sharing.

“This integration of the U.S. and Israeli defense industrial bases would expose our most sensitive technologies to a country with a documented history of industrial espionage,” Paul argued. More importantly, he said, it could give Israel leverage over U.S. foreign policy by creating American dependence on Israeli supply chains.

The NDAA provision did not emerge in isolation. Earlier this year, lawmakers introduced the bipartisan United States-Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security (FUTURES) Act of 2026. The legislation would authorize $150 million annually for joint military technology development.

Supporters, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), describe the initiative as a long-term investment in shared security interests. The effort has also been championed by pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Yet the legislation coincides with a broader effort by Israel to redefine its security relationship with Washington.

The current ten-year memorandum of understanding governing U.S. military assistance to Israel expires in 2028. At the same time, discussions are reportedly underway between the Trump administration and Israel’s Defense Ministry regarding a new security framework.

For months, Netanyahu has publicly argued that Israel should eventually move beyond direct U.S. military assistance. In a recent interview with 60 Minutes, he said he wanted to reduce the financial component of U.S.-Israeli military cooperation to zero, allowing Israel to purchase weapons independently rather than relying on American aid.

At first glance, the proposal appears to lessen Israel’s dependence on Washington. In reality, critics argue that it merely changes the mechanism of support.

On June 3, Representatives Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ) introduced a resolution endorsing Netanyahu’s vision of transitioning the relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. The measure praised Israel’s military contributions and framed the partnership as a model for the future.

According to The Washington Post, Netanyahu personally approved the initiative before it reached the House floor and openly praised its direction. He later reinforced his support in a public letter.

Analysts argue that Section 224 should be viewed within this larger strategic shift. Rather than ending American subsidization of Israel’s military sector, they contend, it would transform aid into a more integrated system of co-production and joint development.

“Netanyahu’s proposal will not end taxpayer support for Israel,” said Josh Ruebner, policy director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding according to Mondoweiss. “It will increase it.”

Instead of American taxpayers financing weapons transfers to Israel, Ruebner argues, they could end up funding Pentagon purchases of Israeli weapons and technologies. Such an arrangement would likely increase revenues for Israeli defense companies while further intertwining the two countries’ military-industrial sectors.

The broader vision behind this transformation has become increasingly explicit. In a recent Guardian article, analysts Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick highlighted a report titled Israel 2048: A Blueprint for a Rising Asymmetric Geopolitical Power.

The report imagines an unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military integration as part of a global struggle against Russia, China, and what it portrays as a broader ideological coalition threatening Western dominance.

Clifton and Lustick argue that the document envisions Israel not merely as a regional ally but as a dominant Middle Eastern power capable of conducting preventive wars against rivals and serving as Washington’s principal strategic partner in preserving a U.S.-led international order.

They contend that such ambitions reveal the influence of well-funded ideological networks and think tanks that have long sought to align American and Israeli strategic interests.

One of the report’s co-authors is David Wurmser, a longtime neoconservative strategist who previously advised Vice President Dick Cheney and former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Wurmser also helped draft the 1996 “Clean Break” report, which advocated abandoning the Oslo peace process, removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and containing Syria militarily. The report was originally prepared for Netanyahu during his first term as prime minister.

Israel’s search for a new strategic framework may also reflect changing political realities inside the United States.

Public support for Israel has declined significantly in recent years. An April Pew survey found that 60 percent of Americans now hold unfavorable views of Israel, including roughly eight in ten Democrats. Skepticism is also rising among younger Republicans. According to the same poll, 57 percent of Republicans under 50 view Israel unfavorably, up from 50 percent a year earlier.

Those trends help explain why Israeli officials have reportedly explored new long-term security arrangements tailored to an increasingly skeptical American public and an evolving “America First” political environment.

“It is clear that public opinion in the United States has undergone a transformation when it comes to perceptions of Israel,” Paul observed. “Even Israel’s strongest supporters recognize that the era of the blank check may not be sustainable indefinitely.”

Whether Section 224 ultimately survives the legislative process or not, the debate surrounding it reveals a larger reality: the issue is no longer simply the size of U.S. aid to Israel. It is the effort to institutionalize a far deeper military, industrial, and strategic integration—one that could shape American foreign policy long after the current aid framework expires.