The U.S. House Armed Services Committee has approved a proposal that would substantially expand military and defense-industrial cooperation between the U.S. and Israel, rejecting an effort by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers to remove the measure from the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Critics argue the proposal would deepen U.S. commitments to Israel without sufficient congressional oversight or accountability.
At the center of the debate is Section 224 of the NDAA, a provision that would create a Pentagon position responsible for coordinating U.S.-Israel defense cooperation and accelerating joint research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial collaboration across a broad range of military technologies.
The House Armed Services Committee approved the broader NDAA following a marathon session that concluded after midnight on June 5 (Friday). The legislation authorizes approximately $1.15 trillion in defense spending for Israel.
What Section 224 would do
Section 224 would formalize and expand cooperation between the American and Israeli defense sectors in areas including missile defense, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, autonomous systems, quantum technologies, biotechnology, joint training exercises, and collaboration involving government agencies, private companies, and academic institutions.
RELATED: Trump Says Iran Agrees to No Nuclear Weapons as US–Iran Talks Advance
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Critics argue that the measure goes far beyond existing military cooperation. Ben Freeman of the Quincy Institute, who first highlighted the provision’s scope, said the proposal would establish a framework 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.”
Freeman has also warned that provisions related to “network integration” and “data fusion” could eventually result in unprecedented levels of information sharing between the two militaries.
Supporters, however, contend that the proposal largely builds upon programs that already exist. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) argued that Section 224 is based on “existing initiatives” and “actually improves oversight and accountability of these programs by designating a single official responsible for them.”
Khanna’s opposition
Khanna emerged as the leading opponent of the measure, framing his criticism around congressional authority and U.S. sovereignty rather than solely around Israel policy. “The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do,” Khanna said during committee debate.
He further argued, “I am for Team America. I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that’s what Donald Trump ran on.” Khanna was referring in part to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s support for a new framework that would move the U.S.-Israel relationship “from aid recipient to partner” through expanded defense cooperation.
Addressing lawmakers from across the political spectrum, Khanna said, “Everyone in America, whether you’re a Republican, an independent or a Democrat, says that we need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country.”
He also argued that any future military assistance or arms sales should continue to be subject to direct congressional votes rather than becoming embedded within long-term defense partnerships.
Broad committee support
Despite Khanna’s objections, the amendment attracted little support. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) described the proposal as mutually beneficial, arguing that both countries gain from technological cooperation. “This is a win-win relationship. We have Silicon Valley, Israel has Tel Aviv, and it’s like Silicon Valley number two,” Bacon said, adding, “We have gained so much technology advantages from our partnership with Israel, and vice versa.”
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s top Democrat, acknowledged disagreements with Netanyahu’s leadership but nevertheless defended the proposal. “I do not like his leadership of Israel or where he is going,” Smith said.
However, Smith argued that Israel’s military experience has generated technologies from which the U.S. has benefited. “They have faced drone attacks and missile attacks. They have had to develop new technologies, technologies that we’ve benefitted from,” he said.
Smith also disputed claims that Section 224 represents a dramatic departure from current policy, noting, “We have three existing programs right now where we do military cooperation with Israel to develop technologies. Those programs already exist.”
Human rights and oversight concerns
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) was the only committee member besides Khanna to speak in favor of removing Section 224. Jacobs argued that the proposal lacks safeguard rails commonly applied to other security assistance programs and could weaken congressional oversight. “The United States should have the same standards for Israel as we do for everyone else,” she said.
She also pointed to concerns involving Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group, which has been blacklisted by the U.S. government over allegations of misuse.
Critics argue that the proposal contains no explicit restrictions addressing allegations of human rights violations or violations of international law. “If any other country in the world had been credibly accused of violating U.S. and international law again and again … we would not be moving to deepen and permanently expand our military ties with them,” Jacobs said.
Privacy advocates have also pointed to companies such as Palantir, whose data-analysis platforms are used by U.S. government agencies and have also been deployed in support of Israeli military operations, as examples of how advanced surveillance and predictive-analysis technologies can become deeply embedded in national security systems.
Critics argue that the company’s technology enables large-scale surveillance, predictive targeting, and data fusion capabilities that can facilitate human rights abuses. They also point to Palantir’s work with U.S. immigration authorities, arguing that its tools have played a key role in ICE deportation operations and other forms of state surveillance.
What comes next
The committee’s vote does not guarantee that Section 224 will become law. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has indicated that he intends to work with Khanna to remove the provision as the NDAA advances through Congress. However, the overwhelming opposition to Khanna’s amendment in committee suggests that supporters of deeper U.S.-Israel military cooperation continue to enjoy broad bipartisan backing, potentially making efforts to strip the language from the final bill an uphill battle.
The debate highlights a growing divide in Washington over the future of U.S.-Israel relations. While supporters view deeper military integration as a strategic partnership that strengthens American security and technological capabilities, opponents warn that it could further entrench U.S. support for Israel while reducing transparency and congressional control.
As the NDAA moves toward floor consideration, Section 224 is likely to remain one of the most closely watched and contested provisions in the bill. Whether those efforts gain traction in the Senate could determine how far Congress is willing to go in formalizing what some critics have described as an unprecedented level of military and technological integration between the two countries.
