Will Democrats try to strip US-Israel initiative from Pentagon funding?

Washington, DC – After a commanding performance in the United States midterm elections, advocates say Democrats are uniquely positioned to strip a controversial measure from a Pentagon funding bill that would codify integration of the US and Israeli military industries.

Earlier this year, Democratic leadership had already opposed the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a sprawling $1.15 trillion package that, along with supplemental bills, includes funding for much of President Donald Trump’s military wishlist, including the “Golden Dome” missile shield and his so-called “Trump-class” battleship plan.

Top party officials, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, had attached their opposition to the Trump administration’s war with Iran and wider affordability issues facing US citizens. Advocates say the leadership must also send the message that the US-Israeli defence production integration is a non-starter.

The current Senate version of the bill, under Section 219, calls for the creation of a so-called “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” that would “expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, coordination, and industrial cooperation”.

Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, told Al Jazeera that “Democrats need to make it clear right now that their votes for the NDAA depend on substantial changes, including US-Israeli military integration and Iran war prohibition”.

Opposition to Pentagon funding has historically been politically fraught, with lawmakers wary of appearing to not support the US military. But while a version of the funding package passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in May, Democrats delayed the Senate version via a procedural vote in July.

They now face a December 11 deadline when current stopgap funding ends, meaning they would need to pass another stopgap measure or the full NDAA to maintain Pentagon funding.

Because the NDAA requires 60 votes to pass, Democrats can exercise outsized leverage in the remaining days of this congressional session, Kharrazian explained. Republicans, meanwhile, face a ticking clock before Democrats take control of both chambers of Congress in January.

“[Democrats] have the leverage to filibuster the NDAA until these provisions are stripped out and they need to commit to blocking NDAA consideration until those changes are secured,” Kharrazian said.

“An amendment vote alone is insufficient if Democrats then let the bill advance with the provisions intact.”

To be sure, Democrats, eager to show they are delivering on voter affordability concerns, have signalled they will seek some overhaul to the current NDAA and related supplemental bills. Defence industry analysts have predicted a major constriction in Pentagon funding, which also includes a stalled $360bn supplemental package.

However, it has been unclear if that would extend to the US-Israeli military development initiative.

“We must push for the development of a more realistic and sustainable approach to our national security – one that does not require a defense budget in excess of $1 trillion or one paid for with draconian cuts to critical domestic programs,” Representative Adam Smith, currently the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement shortly after the November 3 election results rolled in.

He echoed Schumer, who wrote in a July “dear colleague” letter that Republicans were seeking a Pentagon funding bill “that would dump billions more into the defense industry while long overdue investments in American communities wait”.

Smith had initially supported, but later opposed, the provision to integrate US-Israeli military development. But Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who are both seeking to retain their leadership positions in their respective chambers, have not publicly stated their positions.

Critics have long warned that the initiative would establish an opaque new avenue for the Pentagon to provide US tax-funded support to Israel via joint development ventures, while dodging congressional oversight. It would also make future policy pivots more difficult, entrenching Israeli-developed technology into US military programmes.

Some have characterised the initiative as the next phase of Washington’s decades-long military support for Israel, with both US and Israeli officials acknowledging direct military aid has become increasingly politically fraught.

“The whole point of Section 219, let’s understand, is to move the US-Israel aid relationship … further outside the purview of Congress, which is to say to sort of inoculate it from democracy,” said Matthew Duss, the executive vice president at the progressive Center for International Policy think tank. “I think Democrats and others who are opposing this measure in the NDAA are on firm ground to hold a hard line.”

“But I think it’ll be tough, especially with this leadership that remains very strongly pro-Israel,” he told Al Jazeera. “I think both Schumer and Jeffries have shown signs they recognise that their respective caucuses are in a very different place ideologically than they are on this issue.”

A growing number of senators have publicly opposed the measure. In July, Senator Chris Van Hollen joined six colleagues in rejecting the provision.

A total of 12 senators have since signed on to a new letter released earlier this week, including progressive stalwarts like Bernie Sanders and more centrist figures like Ron Wyden and Tammy Duckworth.

Hamid Bendaas, the communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, said the senators represent “a broader range of the Democratic Caucus”.

“So I think that’s a good sign that a good amount of Democrats are ready to really stand against those provisions in the NDAA,” he told Al Jazeera.

Bendaas also pointed to public opinion polls suggesting widespread opposition to US military support for Israel, fuelled by the genocide in Gaza. Both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have acknowledged that the current state of the US-Israel relationship has become politically fraught.

“I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat or a Republican who votes yes on the text that we’ve seen,” Bendaas said. “For one of the first major bills to pass post-midterms to be a bill that directs the Pentagon to send taxpayer funds to Israel, or, I should say, Israeli companies, some of which are government-owned companies … I think that’s about the worst thing that they could possibly do right now.”

In their letter, the senators wrote the provision would “expand and accelerate the US-Israel defense relationship, including technology sharing, co-production of weapons systems, and bilateral research and development across multiple domains of warfare such as biotechnology, quantum, autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, cyberwarfare, and others”, surpassing integration even with some US NATO allies.

That could, in turn, “threaten US national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology” and “create long-term dependencies by embedding Israeli technology into the US defense industrial base that could make future policy changes costly or difficult to implement”.

“To do so in this instance would be unwise,” the lawmakers wrote. “Especially as the Government of Israel continues to pursue policies in Gaza, the West Bank and other parts of the region that are inconsistent with US interests and values.”