US-Israel Defense Integration on Horizon as House Keeps Section 219 in NDAA

The House is preparing to vote on the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with Section 219 (formerly section 224) still embedded in the roughly $1.1 trillion bill.

The House approved the rule governing debate on H.R. 8800 by a 214-211 vote Tuesday, July 21. The vote allowed the chamber to proceed with the NDAA but excluded the amendment from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that would have removed Section 219.

Lawmakers will not receive a separate vote on the bipartisan amendment that sought to remove the section, a proposal to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation that has garnered strong rebukes in certain political and defense circles.

The House expects to hold a recorded vote on the complete NDAA on Wednesday.

What Section 219 Would Do

Section 219 would direct the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon “executive agent” to oversee the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. That official would coordinate bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation and industrial cooperation.

The proposal originated as the bipartisan, bicameral United States-Israel FUTURES Act, introduced in the House by Reps. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) and Don Davis (D-N.C.) with companion legislation from Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Jackson framed the proposal as a way to preserve America’s technological advantage and deliver new battlefield capabilities to service members. Davis emphasized its potential to prepare troops for evolving threats, particularly unmanned systems and electronic warfare.

Sens. Budd and Gillibrand have similarly presented the initiative as an expansion of existing work on missile defense, drones, and underground threats as a means to strengthen American military and technological capabilities.

A June 1 letter from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also appeared to claim credit for the broader policy, describing a shift from U.S. aid toward joint defense cooperation, development, production and investment as “my plan.”

The initiative would cover counter-drone systems, missile and air defense, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, autonomous systems, directed-energy weapons, advanced sensors, cybersecurity, electronic warfare, biotechnology and medical defense.

It also contemplates joint testing, production, procurement, supply-chain coordination, network connections and the incorporation of Israeli or jointly developed technology into U.S. military programs.

The House Armed Services Committee’s explanation states that the executive agent would be responsible for “synchronizing cooperative efforts” between the two countries. The statutory language would require the Pentagon to develop an implementation plan, coordinate with Israeli defense officials and report to congressional defense committees.

Votes Against the NDAA

Massie said Tuesday that the House rule passed without allowing debate or a vote on removing Section 219. He announced that he would vote against the NDAA with the provision included.

“Unfortunately, the Rule passed just now and no debate or vote was allowed on section 219, integration of US military technology and supply chains with Israel’s. The NDAA will receive a recorded vote tomorrow with section 219 in it. I’ll vote no," he wrote on X.

Khanna has also opposed the provision, arguing that the United States cannot integrate its military with Israel’s without compromising American sovereignty.

The California Democrat joined Massie in offering the amendment to strike Section 219, creating a bipartisan challenge to a provision supported by leaders of the House Armed Services Committee.

Former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said the vote "will be the most watched recorded vote in modern times."

"It will give a list of names of every Member of Congress who betrayed America, committed treason, and sold out the American people to a foreign country," Greene, who formerly represented a Georgia district, said on X.

It remains to be seen whether any other lawmakers will draw a line in the sand based on this provision.

Opposition to the Senate Version of the NDAA

The Senate version of the NDAA contains a parallel proposal. Section 1217 incorporates the United States-Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security Act of 2026, known as the FUTURES Act.

It would establish the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative to expand bilateral defense research, technology development, testing, information sharing and industrial cooperation.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has objected to the provision in the Senate NDAA. Sanders said Congress should not give Israel greater military integration than a NATO ally by placing the initiative inside the annual defense bill.

Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Peter Welch of Vermont, joined Sanders in urging senators not to advance the Senate NDAA until lawmakers could debate the Israel-related defense and intelligence provisions.

The senators argued that Democrats should not help President Donald Trump deepen ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government without a separate debate.

The lawmakers behind the FUTURES Act argue that closer cooperation with Israel would help the United States move emerging defense technology from research into military use.

Attempts to Amend or Remove the Provisions

Massie and Khanna led a bipartisan House amendment to strike Section 219.

Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii), Derek Tran (D-Calif.) and Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) joined the proposal. The rule governing debate did not make the amendment eligible for floor consideration, leaving lawmakers without a separate vote on whether to remove Section 219.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) separately submitted Amendment 1399 to strike Section 219. The Rules Committee did not make it eligible for consideration.

The committee allowed the House to consider two narrower amendments Luna submitted in June. Amendment 1393 would continue annual reports to Congress for as long as the Pentagon executive agent remains in place, while Amendment 1394 would remove the word “integration” from Section 219. Neither narrower amendment would eliminate the initiative.

Sen. Van Hollen also introduced several amendments addressing the Senate version. Senate Amendments 6140 and 6144 would strike Section 1217 from S. 4784. His alternative in Amendment 6143 would delay its implementation pending a feasibility study and briefings to the Armed Services Committees.

The Senate did not consider those amendments because they failed to advance the NDAA.

What Happens if the NDAA Passes or Fails

If the House passes H.R. 8800, Section 219 will advance as part of the House’s official NDAA position. It will not immediately become law.

The Senate must still pass its own defense authorization bill, S. 4784, which contains a similar initiative in Section 1217.

The Senate attempted to begin considering its bill July 14, but the procedural vote failed 50-46 because the motion needed 60 votes.

Senate leaders could bring the motion back, negotiate changes, or use another legislative lever to continue the NDAA process.

If both chambers eventually pass their bills, negotiators must resolve the differences between them.

Sections 219 and 1217 could survive, change or disappear during those negotiations. The House and Senate must approve identical final language before sending the NDAA to President Donald Trump, who may sign or veto it.

If the House rejects H.R. 8800, Section 219 will not advance through that bill. House leaders could revise the legislation and try again, consider a Senate-passed defense bill later, or incorporate similar language into another measure.

Since the Senate bill already contains its own version of the initiative, rejection of the House NDAA would delay the proposal but would not necessarily end it.