WASHINGTON, DC – In a letter to congressional leaders, 11 Democratic senators, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, warned that proposed legislation could give Israel greater leverage over sensitive American military technology, restrict US decision-making, and undermine national security.
Twelve US senators have urged congressional leaders to remove three provisions from the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would expand defense technology cooperation and intelligence sharing between the United States and Israel. The measures could undermine American national security interests, they said.
In a letter dated Monday, the senators said the proposed provisions would deepen Washington’s technological and intelligence ties with Israel at a time when, in their view, the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere in the region are increasingly at odds with American interests.
“These provisions would constrain the administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect US national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region,” they wrote.
The letter was signed by Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Elizabeth Warren, Peter Welch, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Brian Schatz, Patty Murray, Tina Smith, Ron Wyden, Andy Kim, Tammy Duckworth, and Sanders.
It was addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the senior Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
Senators warn Israel could gain leverage over US military technology
At the center of the dispute are Section 1217 of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the defense authorization bill and Section 219 of the House-passed legislation.
According to the letter, both provisions would mandate the creation of a US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative intended to expand and accelerate bilateral defense cooperation.
The proposed initiative would cover technology sharing, joint weapons production, and bilateral research and development in several advanced military and technological fields.
These include biotechnology, quantum technology, autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, cyberwarfare, and other areas of modern warfare.
The senators said such arrangements could place sensitive American technologies increasingly within Israel’s reach and create long-term dependencies within the US defense industry.
“The agreements and projects these provisions envision threaten US national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology,” they wrote.
Citing an existing missile-defense cooperation agreement, they said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government had leveraged it to prevent American Iron Dome batteries from reaching Ukraine.
Expanding joint defense programs could give Israel additional influence over US weapons systems and constrain future American policy decisions, they added.
“If enacted, these agreements would 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,” they wrote.
US President Donald Trump could independently negotiate new agreements with Israel without Congress mandating an expansion of bilateral defense cooperation, they said.
They questioned the wisdom of sharing or jointly producing highly sensitive technologies with Israel, when Washington does not pursue comparable arrangements with many of its closest partners, they added.
Netanyahu’s push to replace military aid with ‘partnership’ draws criticism
They criticized Netanyahu’s efforts to redefine the US-Israel defense relationship, saying the proposed legislation could advance an Israeli initiative to shift bilateral cooperation away from traditional American military assistance.
They cited a letter from Netanyahu to Rep. Marlin Stutzman, who had led a resolution supporting a similar initiative.
“I was glad to receive your proposed Congressional resolution endorsing my plan to shift the framework of US-Israeli defense cooperation from aid to partnership,” Netanyahu wrote, according to the senators’ letter.
Netanyahu's position made the motivation behind the proposed changes clear, they said.
Shifting cooperation toward joint defense acquisitions, technology development, and established weapons-procurement programs could make the relationship less transparent while increasing American dependence on Israeli technology, they added.
“The intention behind this is clear: to move US security assistance governed through more traditional pathways, like foreign military financing and arms sales, to more opaque, less discernible avenues,” they wrote.
The approach would increase Israel’s leverage over Washington, they added.
The criticism came with a particularly pointed reference to Netanyahu’s statements about Iran.
Netanyahu boasted that he had been attempting to initiate a war with Iran for 40 years, they said. That war was a strategic disaster for the US and contrary to American interests.
The senators’ letter did not provide additional evidence or context for those characterizations.
Proposed intelligence-sharing provision raises separate concerns
They also sought the removal of a third measure, Section 618 of the Fiscal Year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had included in legislation intended to become part of the final NDAA.
Unlike the defense technology provisions, this measure would affect the executive branch’s discretion to limit intelligence cooperation with Israel.
Section 618 would require the executive branch to expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Israeli government, the senators said.
It would also stipulate that such sharing could not be “suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited,” they wrote.
This language could restrict a president’s ability to withhold sensitive intelligence from Israel, even when doing so might be necessary to protect US national security, they said.
“The provision would tie the president’s hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect US national security,” they wrote.
That restriction was irresponsible and especially troubling in light of recent public reports concerning Israeli counterintelligence risks, they said.
The Defense Intelligence Agency had recently raised its assessment of the counterintelligence threat from Israel to the highest level, they added.
That assertion was presented in the letter as part of their argument against the provision.
The letter concluded with a direct appeal to congressional leadership to remove all three disputed provisions during negotiations over the final defense authorization legislation.
“For all these reasons, we should not legally mandate an expansion in defense co-production or a requirement to increase intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel,” they wrote.
They specifically requested the removal of Section 1217, Section 219, and Section 618 from the final NDAA conference report.
The appeal places two central components of the US-Israel security relationship: advanced defense technology cooperation and intelligence sharing, at the center of a congressional dispute over how much authority the executive branch should retain to reassess its relationship with Israel.
Although the letter did not call for a complete termination of American defense assistance or intelligence cooperation with Israel, it challenges efforts to mandate deeper cooperation through legislation.
Such decisions should remain subject to independent American national-security assessments rather than being embedded in long-term statutory commitments, the senators said.
For Israel, the dispute concerns proposals designed to institutionalize closer military and technological cooperation with Washington.
For the senators opposing them, the question is whether those arrangements could ultimately reduce America’s freedom to make its own national-security decisions.