Why Congress Wants a Closer U.S.-Israel Defense Partnership

For decades, the United States has supported Israel’s security by providing billions of dollars a year in military blockistance and by working with its close partner on intelligence, missile defense and weapons development.

Now, with U.S. political support for sending military funding to Israel dropping off sharply, Congress is considering phasing out the financial commitment and instead undertaking a far more integrated defense and technology partnership built around legally mandated defense industrial cooperation between the two nations.

Both the House and Senate have included such a proposal in the annual defense policy bill, laying the groundwork for melding U.S. and Israeli defense and intelligence capabilities in profound ways that some critics find alarming.

President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are pushing for the shift, which comes as lawmakers on the right and left have grown increasingly hostile to sending taxpayer dollars to Israel’s military.

Supporters argue the move would benefit the United States, allowing it to capitalize on Israel’s defense and intelligence innovations. They say it would elevate the U.S.-Israel relationship from one of donor and recipient to a strategic partnership.

But some lawmakers fear that such deep ties could blur the lines between supporting an ally and effectively allowing Israel’s military to become intertwined with the Pentagon in ways that could be dangerous and difficult to unwind.

Here is how it would work.

What would the legislation do?

The United States and Israel already partner to produce defense technologies, such as the Iron Dome and David’s Sling air defense systems, with contractors including Raytheon and Rafael Advanced Defense System. The links were on display in the days following the Feb. 28 joint strikes against Iran.

The defense policy bill, which pblocked the House last month and is awaiting action in the Senate, would enshrine those partnerships in law.

The House measure would create an office in the Defense Department that would be legally required to facilitate cooperation between the United States and Israel. It would oversee the development of new weapons and technology, as well as the testing and rollout of new capabilities.

A separate intelligence bill that is expected to be merged with the defense legislation would call on the president and the director of national intelligence to “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the government of Israel,” except when doing so could risk U.S. national security or expose sophisticated “intelligence sources and methods.”

Proponents envision a broad collaboration on emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, missile defense and cybersecurity.

The language traces back to a bipartisan bill introduced this year by Senators Ted Budd, Republican of North Carolina, and Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York. In the House, it was introduced by Representatives Ronny Jackson, Republican of Texas, and Don Davis, Democrat of North Carolina.

Separately, Representative Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican aligned with Mr. Trump’s “America First” stance, has introduced a nonbinding resolution that would call for ending the decades-old memorandum of understanding under which the United States provides billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, and for transitioning instead to “mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment” between the two nations.

Why is Congress considering this now?

The memorandum, which mandates that the United States provide $3.8 billion a year in military aid to Israel, ends in 2028, and lawmakers in both parties have said they would oppose a new deal based on billions of dollars in direct aid to Israel.

Mr. Stutzman introduced his resolution after meetings with Israeli officials, including Mr. Netanyahu, who has endorsed it. On Tuesday, the congressman described his idea as moving “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.”

Doing so would provide extraordinarily valuable support to Israel and its military and intelligence service without ***ly requiring Congress to sign off on sending a set amount of federal money to Jerusalem each year.

The idea has gained traction as the future of traditional U.S. military blockistance to Israel has become increasingly uncertain following a backlash to Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. In a striking vote last month, nearly half of House Democrats backed an amendment that would have ended U.S. aid to Israel. The proposal failed overwhelmingly, but the vote reflected growing hostility in the Democratic Party over continuing unconditional support for Israel.

Recent polling also shows a significant split among Republicans on the matter. A New York Times/Siena poll from May found that a growing portion of younger conservative voters find aid to Israel increasingly unacceptable. Among surveyed Republican voters between 18 and 44, 63 percent said they opposed providing additional economic and military support to Israel, while 72 percent of those 45 and over supported additional aid.

The push also stems from Mr. Netanyahu’s public campaign to appear less reliant on U.S. military aid as Mr. Trump urges allies to contribute more meaningfully to their own defense.

Why has the proposal generated controversy?

Opponents argue that the idea would give too much control over sensitive U.S. defense matters to a foreign nation.

“The U.S. government can always choose on a case-by-case basis to enter into joint production agreements,” Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in an interview. “What’s sort of jaw-dropping about this is that it mandates it.”

He added: “That gives the Israeli government a lot more control over the production and potentially deployment of U.S. weapons systems.”

Representative Thomas Mblockie of Kentucky, one of the few Republicans who has spoken out against the provision, called it “a betrayal of American sovereignty,” and said that it “tragically merges our military technology and supply chain with Israel’s.”

With Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, Mr. Mblockie attempted to strip the provision from the defense bill. But the two lawmakers were blocked by Republican leaders from bringing the matter to a vote.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, warned in a social media post that the proposed partnership would “merge parts of our military with the IDF,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces. She warned that such a move would be “an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”

That characterization goes further than the letter of the legislation. Neither the House nor the Senate bill would merge the U.S. and Israeli militaries or place troops under shared authority.

Backers have criticized such claims as misrepresentations aimed at limiting support for a critical ally in the Middle East.

“Despite bad-faith attempts from both sides of the political spectrum to misstate the facts, to denigrate our close ally and partner Israel,” the proposal “simply enables joint investment in research and development that will benefit Americans from both a fiscal and security perspective,” Mr. Budd said in a statement.

He said the provision would “impose zero limitations” on the U.S. military.

Defense industrial partnerships are a key feature of the U.S. relationship with close allies, including Britain, Australia, Canada and NATO partners. But the new proposals would establish one of the broadest such partnerships with Israel, with which the United States does not share any formal mutual defense treaty.

Mr. Van Hollen and other critics argue that the mandated joint production provision could constrain the United States militarily. He pointed to Israel’s repeated objections to transferring Iron Dome air defense batteries to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, out of concern that the weapons could fall into the hands of Russia, be delivered to Iran, then used against Israel.

“The one precedent that we have is the Iron Dome co-production agreement, where the government of Israel did exercise that authority,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “That should be a very cautionary tale.”