12 US democratic Senators Move to Curb Defense and Intelligence Ties With Israel

Who Signed the Letter?

The letter was signed by 11 Democratic senators and independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats.

The signatories are:

1. Chris Van Hollen

2. Bernie Sanders

3. Elizabeth Warren

4. Peter Welch

5. Edward Markey

6. Jeff Merkley

7. Brian Schatz

8. Patty Murray

9. Tina Smith

10. Ron Wyden

11. Andy Kim

12. Tammy Duckworth

The letter was addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and senior members of the congressional Armed Services Committees. <Cite refs={["turn483843search0","turn483843search3"]}/>

Three Provisions Targeted by the Senators

The lawmakers are demanding the removal of three sections from the proposed defense legislation.

1. Expanded defense technology cooperation

Section 1217 of the Senate version and Section 219 of the House version would establish a United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.

The proposed initiative would expand joint research, development, technology transfers and weapons production in several advanced fields, including:

• Artificial intelligence.

• Quantum technology.

• Autonomous weapons systems.

• Biotechnology.

• Cyberwarfare.

• Advanced military technologies.

The senators argue that giving Israel a greater role in developing and producing American military technologies could create strategic dependencies and give Jerusalem leverage over Washington's defense capabilities.

2. Restrictions on American weapons transfers

The senators specifically cite the existing cooperation surrounding the Iron Dome missile defense system.

They claim that Israel previously used provisions governing joint production to prevent the transfer of American Iron Dome batteries to Ukraine.

In their view, expanding similar arrangements could make it more difficult for future American administrations to decide independently how and where to deploy or transfer US military equipment.

3. Expanded intelligence sharing

The third objection concerns Section 618 of the proposed intelligence legislation.

The provision would expand intelligence cooperation with Israel and restrict the administration's ability to suspend, reduce or materially limit intelligence sharing.

The senators argue that the measure would effectively tie the president's hands, even in circumstances where limiting intelligence transfers might be considered necessary for American national security.

They also refer to what they describe as a recent increase in the Defense Intelligence Agency's assessment of counterintelligence risks associated with Israel.

These assertions are arguments presented by the senators in their letter, rather than independent findings established by the correspondence itself. <Cite refs={["turn483843search0","turn483843search1"]}/>

Netanyahu's Proposed Shift From Military Aid to Partnership

A particularly significant aspect of the letter is its criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's initiative to transform the traditional American-Israeli military assistance framework.

Netanyahu has advocated shifting the relationship from a model based primarily on American military aid toward a broader partnership involving joint defense development, procurement and technology production.

The senators quote a letter Netanyahu sent to Republican Congressman Marlin Stutzman, in which the prime minister expressed support for moving US-Israel defense cooperation "from aid to partnership."

The lawmakers argue that this transformation could make military cooperation less transparent and create long-term technological dependencies that would be difficult for Washington to reverse.

They also question whether Israel should receive access to particularly sensitive American technologies when similar arrangements are not routinely offered even to some of America's closest treaty allies.

Iran War Becomes Part of the Congressional Dispute

The senators' criticism also extends to Netanyahu's approach toward Iran.

They refer to the prime minister's statements about his longstanding efforts to confront the Iranian threat and characterize the recent war as a strategic disaster for American interests.

Their argument reflects a broader debate within Congress over whether American military involvement in the Middle East serves US national interests or increasingly exposes Washington to regional conflicts.

The letter therefore connects three issues that have become increasingly controversial in Washington: Israel's military operations, the war with Iran and the future of American defense cooperation with Jerusalem. <Cite refs={["turn483843search0","turn483843search2"]}/>

A Challenge to the Traditional Bipartisan Consensus

For decades, military and intelligence cooperation with Israel has enjoyed substantial bipartisan support in Congress.

The latest initiative illustrates the growing willingness among progressive Democrats to challenge not only American military assistance but also the institutional and technological foundations of the bilateral security relationship.

The 12 senators are not demanding an immediate termination of all US military aid to Israel. Their demand is more specific: they want Congress to reject legislation that would legally institutionalize expanded defense production and intelligence cooperation.

This distinction is important when assessing the political and practical implications of the letter.

What Happens Next?

The letter was sent during negotiations over the final version of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

The senators are asking congressional leaders to remove Sections 1217, 219 and 618 before the legislation is finalized.

Their initiative does not automatically mean that the provisions will be removed. The outcome will depend on negotiations between the House and Senate, the positions of the relevant committees and the decisions of congressional leadership.

For Israel, the dispute represents a challenge to efforts to institutionalize a deeper technological and military partnership with Washington.

For the United States, it raises a fundamental question about how far defense and intelligence cooperation with a close ally should be embedded in legislation, and how much freedom future administrations should retain to reassess that relationship.