Israel NDAA Provision ‘Section 219’ Faces Bipartisan Blowback From House Lawmakers

U.S. House Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are seeking to remove a provision from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would significantly expand defense technology cooperation between the United States and Israel, setting up a potential fight on the House floor over the scope of military ties between the two countries.

The lawmakers are backing an amendment that would strike Section 219 of the Fiscal Year 2027 NDAA. The provision, previously designated as Section 224 before the legislation was renumbered, was submitted as an amendment to the House Rules Committee after an earlier effort to remove the language failed when the House Armed Services Committee considered the bill.

Section 219 would establish a “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” and direct the Defense Department to expand cooperation with Israel in areas including missile defense, counter-drone systems, cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, autonomous systems, directed-energy weapons, biotechnology, defense manufacturing and other emerging military technologies.

“If the provision in the NDAA to integrate/synchronize the U.S. and Israeli militaries (section 224) makes it out of committee, I’ll offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor,” Massie wrote on X, arguing that it would move beyond traditional cooperation between allies. “We are a sovereign country.”

Khanna initially opposed the measure during committee consideration and introduced an amendment to strike it from the legislation. He, too, wrote on X and said he would be offering an amendment in the committee itself to strip out Section 224. ​​​​​​

“Trump can’t kill the Massie/Khanna partnership no matter how much he posts on Truth Social,” Khanna wrote.

After that effort failed, he publicly backed Massie’s floor strategy. The House Armed Services Committee rejected Khanna’s amendment during markup of the NDAA, allowing the provision to remain in the bill as it advances toward floor consideration.

‘What is Congress Doing?’

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have publicly opposed the provision and urged Congress to remove the Israel-related provision.

Sanders argued that the measure would create an unprecedented level of military integration with Israel and deserves independent debate.

“Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing?” Sanders wrote on X. “Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally. We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget.”

Sanders, due to serving in the Senate, of course will not vote on the House amendment being advanced by Massie and Khanna. However, any Senate consideration would occur down the line should the provision remain in the NDAA after House action.

As of publication, Massie and Khanna are the lawmakers publicly identified with the amendment effort. Additional House members could support or oppose the measure when it reaches the floor, but no broader coalition has formally attached itself to the amendment.

Critics Question Israel’s Special Status

Critics argue that Section 219 would place Israel in a category of its own among U.S. allies.

While the United States maintains extensive military relationships with countries including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Australia, opponents say that Congress has not created a comparable statutory framework requiring such broad and permanent defense integration with any of those nations.

They contend that the proposal would grant Israel a uniquely privileged position within U.S. defense policy and make future administrations less able to recalibrate the relationship when American and Israeli interests diverge.

Critics also argue that Section 219 could reduce transparency because integrated research, development and operational cooperation may be harder to measure than direct military aid, arms sales or appropriations that Congress votes on separately.

Unlike military aid packages, arms sales or supplemental appropriations that typically require separate congressional consideration and produce readily identifiable funding totals, opponents contend that cooperative activities conducted under a broader integration framework may be more difficult for lawmakers and the public to track.

They argue that as defense technology projects, testing programs and joint initiatives become increasingly intertwined, it could become harder to determine the extent of U.S. support being provided through those channels.

Those concerns have grown alongside separate intelligence-sharing language in Section 622 of the 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act, which would require the president to notify Congress before certain intelligence-sharing arrangements involving Israel could be reduced or altered.

The provision states that changes must be tied to a “specific and identifiable national security concern.” Critics argue that the requirement gives Israel protections not generally written into law for other allies, whose comparable reporting requirements in other sections of the same act are often handled by cabinet officials or other executive branch personnel rather than the president himself.

Opponents also point to recent counterintelligence concerns. The Defense Intelligence Agency elevated Israel’s counterintelligence threat designation to “critical,” the agency’s highest category, as Congress considers legislation that would deepen defense ties with Israel.

According to the report, the designation reflected concerns about efforts to obtain information regarding internal U.S. deliberations. Israeli officials have denied allegations of improper intelligence collection activities.

Critics claim those concerns are not merely theoretical. They point to the Jonathan Pollard espionage case, in which a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst passed classified information to Israel as part of one of the most significant espionage cases involving an American ally. Pollard pleaded guilty in 1986 and served decades in prison before his release, and is again a public fixture.

They also cite past technology sharing disputes. The U.S. Army purchased two Iron Dome batteries from Israel but was unable to fully integrate them into its air-defense architecture because Israel did not provide the source code and other technical information necessary to connect the system with broader U.S. military networks. The Army later abandoned plans to acquire additional batteries.

The episode raises questions about reciprocity and whether a relationship that has occasionally produced disputes over technology access should be placed on a more integrated statutory footing, critics claimed.

Some foreign policy analysts further contend that the United States and Israel do not always share identical strategic objectives despite their close alliance. They point to public disagreements over ceasefire negotiations, diplomatic efforts to end regional conflicts, and broader Middle East strategy—arguing that future administrations should retain flexibility to adjust policy when American and Israeli interests diverge.

Critics warn that deeper institutional integration could make those policy adjustments more difficult.

US Sentiment, Levels of Cooperation

The lively legislative debate comes as public opinion on Israel has become increasingly divided.

Recent Gallup polling found substantial partisan and generational differences regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and the conflict in Gaza, with younger Americans expressing significantly greater skepticism toward Israeli government policies than older Americans.

However, Gallup found that support for Israel among Americans age 55 and older has also weakened, with fewer than half expressing greater sympathy for Israelis for the first time since the organization began tracking the measure in 2005.

Supporters of Section 219 argue that closer cooperation would strengthen a key U.S. ally while accelerating development of advanced military technologies.

During committee debate, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the House Armed Services Committee chair, dismissed claims that the provision would compromise American sovereignty.

“Misinformation in relation to Israel and our close partnership with them has always run rampant, and bad actors are all too happy to stoke these flames when given the opportunity,” Rogers said. “Any narrative that this legislation is somehow ceding control to another country in any way is categorically false and misleading.

“The NDAA strengthens American sovereignty and American national security first and foremost.”

The committee ultimately voted to keep the provision in the bill.

The upcoming floor debate will determine whether the House retains the provision or adopts the Massie-Khanna amendment, potentially shaping not just the FY27 NDAA but the future structure of U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation.