Two Votes on Military Aid to Israel

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider a controversial proposal, commonly known as the “Massie Amendment,” that would halt $3.3 billion in U.S. taxpayer funding to Israel.   

Proponents and opponents of that amendment have lobbied intensely.  The fury, unfortunately, has obscured many facts.  I have come to a set of conclusions that, taken together, will make nobody happy.  Nonetheless, residents deserve to have the facts clarified about these votes, and to have some transparency about my decision making.  

 Here’s what I’ve decided:  

  • We must stop having American taxpayers fund the Netanyahu government’s use of U.S. weapons in a manner that routinely kills, injures, and displaces civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.  I describe my rationale for that conclusion later in this piece, and I distinguish my opposition to the $3.3 billion funding for weapons from my support for the $500 million for purely defensive anti-missile systems, such as Iron Dome and Arrow 3.  

 

  • I will not vote for the flawed and overbroad Amendment from Thomas Massie, for reasons I describe below. That amendment will very likely fail by a wide margin. 

     

  • I will vote against the larger appropriations bill (which the Massie proposal would amend) for several reasons.  Those reasons include my opposition to U.S. taxpayer funding of $3.3 billion for Israel’s offensive weapons in that measure. My opposition to that bill also stems from my objection to its reduction to global humanitarian, health, and other critical programs.  We have a modest chance of defeating that bill, but if the GOP can overcome procedural hurdles in its own caucus to get to a vote, that bill will likely pass by a narrow margin. 

 

  • I have cosponsored several bills to halt U.S. military aid for offensive weapons to Israel, United Arab Emirates, and other nations deploying the arms in ways that violate U.S. and international law.   Like Massie’s amendment, those bills have little chance of passage in this 119th Congress, but amply demonstrate my willingness to act to end U.S. complicity in excessive civilian harm. 

 

Now, let’s clarify what’s at stake–and what’s not. 

 

Two Votes the House Will Consider This Week  

The House will consider two votes on the floor relevant to this issue.

First, the House will consider an amendment to a State Department appropriations bill, proposed by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie.  Massie’s amendment, if approved, would cut $3.3 billion of American military and other assistance proposed for Israel out of that larger appropriations bill, HR8595.  Second, the House will then vote on that larger appropriations bill, HR8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.  As the name suggests, it appropriates $47.2 billion for various national security and State Department programs globally.  

As a Democrat, I cannot propose any amendments to this bill that will realistically reach the House floor.  Through the Rules Committee, the Republican majority controls what amendments the House votes on.  I must simply cast my vote on what is put before me.

The Massie Amendment, as noted above, will fail by a wide margin, no matter how I vote.  It is a symbolic vote.   

 

The Limits of Symbolic Votes  

Of course, symbolism matters.  Symbols can unite, and symbols can divide. The Republican leadership put Rep. Massie’s amendment to a floor vote knowing that most of its own GOP caucus would oppose it, but also knowing that it would spur division among Democratic voters in anticipation of the midterm elections.  In the media and online, advocates on each side of this debate have taken the bait, accusing others of “approving genocide” by supporting aid, or of “anti-Semitism” for opposing it.  

Neither is true.         

The rhetorical bomb-throwing must stop. The vitriol does nothing to achieve peace or security in the Middle East, but it does stoke the flames of hatred, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia here at home.  That extreme rhetoric deserves condemnation.  

 

Massie’s Amendment

Symbolic or not, a binary “yea” or “nay” on Massie’s amendment represents a blunt expression of a nuanced position on this complex issue. Three reasons animate my decision to vote against the Massie Amendment.   

First, I’m not interested in supporting the bludgeon approach that Rep. Massie articulates.  If his amendment consisted wholly of its section (b), which relates to halting the $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing, I could be persuaded.  Yet the very broad language in section (a) of that amendment— providing that “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be obligated or expended for Israel” — could prohibit any expenditures to maintain a U.S. embassy in Israel, for example, putting Americans traveling abroad in peril, and undermining American diplomacy and security.  The amendment also cuts other small programs unrelated to military aid, such as a $6.5 million expenditure for scholarships for Israeli Arabs, and funding for hospitals serving both Arab and Jewish patients.

Second, since this amounts to little more than a symbolic vote, I cannot overlook the deep offense that many American Jews feel about past conduct and words of Rep. Massie, and his association with this vote.  For example, in 2022, he was the lone vote—among 435 members of the House of Representatives —against a resolution decrying anti-Semitism after the Buffalo mass shooting.  The following year, he was the only member to vote against a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist, and has made several very insensitive public comments and social media posts, including one minimizing the Holocaust.

Last week, I reached out to more than a dozen leading voices in our Jewish community to personally deliver bad news about my position on U.S. military funding to Israel.  The response I received was telling: while most didn’t agree with me on cutting military aid, several (on both sides of the issue) urged that I pick any other opportunity to do so, rather than associating myself with a deeply divisive right-wing figure like Mr. Massie.  I’m reminded of the words of Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky: leadership requires disappointing your friends at a rate they can tolerate.

I have expressed my opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel in other ways than supporting Massie’s symbolic amendment: namely, by a (more impactful and less symbolic) vote against the larger appropriations bill containing the same funding, and by my cosponsorship of other bills and public statements on the matter. 

Third, regardless of whatever we think about Netanyahu and Israel’s war cabinet, we must not conflate that opposition with our relationship with the Israeli people.  That requires articulating a new vision for sustaining America’s relationship with Israel, while avoiding complicity in Netanyahu’s horrible decisions. I attempt to do so at the end of this piece.
 

Why Halt U.S. Military Aid for Offensive Weapons in Israel  

Obviously, Israel must defend itself against terrorist attacks by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian-supported violent groups bent on its destruction.  I harbor deep concerns, however, with how Israel has done so–with American military assistance.  

I’ll leave my strongest objections for the end, and begin with several pragmatic considerations that orient my thinking: 

 

 

  • A Self-Sufficient Israel:  Israel has a $46 billion defense budget, the fourth most powerful military on the planet, and ample capability to purchase weapons.  It can also develop its own—Israel exported $19 billion in weaponry last year.  Its strong economy features a per capita GDP among the top two dozen nations on the planet.  Its technological advancement provides it with substantial military and economic advantage in the region.  As Netanyahu and several commentators have acknowledged, Israel doesn’t need the U.S. to buy its guns.

 

  • The Myth of Constraint: We must dispense with the myth that American military funding significantly constrains the actions of Israeli leadership.  Netanyahu’s litany of actions has provoked the public and private ire of virtually every U.S. President in the last three decades. I long harbored hopes–perhaps naively–that the Leahy Amendment and other legal mechanisms embedded within the Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act could prod allies’ good behavior–not just that of Israel, but also of Saudi Arabia, El Salvador, Egypt– toward greater compliance with human rights norms.  After reviewing classified and published reports, it has become apparent that these statutory tools appear ineffectual, particularly as both the State Department and Congress have abdicated their oversight responsibilities. Our aid has done little to affect the decision-making of the Israeli War Cabinet. The entire system of accountability over U.S. military aid to every recipient of military aid, moreover, requires dramatic reform.

     

  • Objections to Conduct of the War: Obviously, a central motivation in cutting U.S. military funding lies in my objections to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s use of those arms.  His wartime strategy has rendered more than three million Palestinians and Lebanese homeless and destitute in their own land.  His cabinet tolerates–and even encourages–settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, and expansion of illegal settlements.  In the Spring of 2025, he refused to allow the provision of humanitarian aid to hungry, displaced Gazans for a duration of nearly three months, against global condemnation. His embrace of the Dahiya Doctrine resulted in the excessive use, particularly early in the Gaza war, of unguided, heavy munitions in densely populated neighborhoods, killing thousands of children and other civilians. In Lebanon, the IDF killed a disturbingly large number of medics and emergency personnel, and its use of toxic airborne white phosphorus in residential areas appears inexcusable.  I can no longer persuade myself that, in a world of many unmet needs, American taxpayers should spend billions on these deeply objectionable uses of American arms by a foreign military. 

    In the final analysis, Netanyahu’s approach makes Israelis less safe, and our complicity in it makes Americans and the world less safe.  It has isolated his country diplomatically from the rest of the globe.  It has spurred recruitment of Hamas and other terrorist groups from a generation of Arab boys and young men seeing no future for themselves beyond avenging the wartime killing of their parents and family members.  It has offered no “day-after” plan, with no visible economic rebuilding that might provide a viable alternative to militancy.  Finally, it has offered a pretext for too many deranged individuals to rationalize horrific and criminal antisemitic attacks in America and around the world.  

     

  • Pulling Off the Band-Aid: Some advocates argue for the continued provision of U.S. military aid at the $3.8 billion level until the expiration of the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding in 2028, with reduced amounts thereafter.  I disagree, for several reasons.  

    President Obama’s non-binding 2016 Memorandum of Understanding has outlived any applicability to reality, three presidential administrations later. Israel’s military superiority to Hamas and Hezbollah appears unquestioned, with or without U.S. military aid for offensive weapons in 2027 and 2028. The resolution of the seemingly endless conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and West Bank has far less to do with military resources and battlefield success–where Israel has consistently prevailed–than with political will.  While a new MOU should eliminate any assurances of spending on U.S. weapons that can be used offensively, it should maintain the $500 million for anti-missile weapon systems essential to protect millions of Israelis from Iranian ballistic missiles. Netanyahu cannot use those systems in any way to harm Palestinian or Lebanese civilians. 

    Given the objections to the conduct of the war that I’ve described, it remains intolerable to simply “let it ride” for two more years.  The United States cannot continue in its complicity with the decisions of the Israeli War Cabinet–particularly where the use of U.S. munitions likely violates the Leahy Amendment and other largely toothless provisions of U.S. law–with the help of $6.6 billion in funding from the U.S. taxpayers. 

    Moreover, to whatever extent anyone believes that the MOU should commit Congress to provide $38 billion in military funding to Israel until 2028, the U.S. has provided at least $39 billion in military aid since 2019, the period covered by the MOU.  That aid includes more than $8.7 billion provided in emergency appropriations after the 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks.  

    Some reasonably assert that we should consider baseline contributions under the MOU separately from emergency appropriations. 

    Fair argument. But if we’re going to read the MOU as a legal document, then let’s also lift the hood to clarify what “obligations” arise from a non-binding MOU for which there has been no treaty, no Senate approval, and no consideration.  An MOU does not represent a hallowed, unchangeable commitment; it’s a pledge from a president that requires annual congressional appropriation.  Presidents may not–under any interpretation of Article I of the Constitution– unilaterally bind Congress to any spending commitment. If any president seeks to create a binding commitment for our nation, the Constitution provides a mechanism to do so: seek treaty ratification with support of two-thirds of the Senate. Otherwise, the MOU lacks the force of law, and Congress is not bound to follow it. Some of the advocates for strict adherence to this non-binding MOU also urged President Trump in 2017 to unilaterally withdraw from dozens of legally binding international treaties in the last decade–including a binding JCPOA from which he withdrew at Netanyahu’s urging.  They can’t have it both ways.  

     

 A New MOU, and a New Israeli-U.S. Relationship – Without Aid for Weapons

It’s past time to supplant the 2016 MOU with one that reflects an appropriate evolution of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, one that characterizes Israel as an important ally, not a supplicant.  

That MOU should reaffirm U.S. support for the Jewish nation of Israel, and its right to defend itself against terrorist violence.  It should distinguish between funding of weapons that can be used offensively against civilians, which I oppose, and a separate $500 million annual expenditure for anti-missile and aerial defense systems. (That $500 million comes from a separate Defense Department appropriations bill that is not the subject of Massie’s amendment.)  Those defensive tools–such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Iron Beam, and Arrow–protect the lives of millions of Israelis from missile attacks from Iran and its surrogates, and their development advances U.S. understanding of anti-missile systems for our own defense.  It should halt the provision of arms to the region–such as the Administration’s proposed sale of F-35s to Turkey–that could destabilize the region, and compel Israel to increase its own military spending.In arriving at a new MOU, we might consider how to transform some of the reduced funding into programs that jointly engage both nations in supporting the development of domestic police forces in Lebanon–so the Lebanese can take control of their own nation and expel Hezbollah–and the rebuilding of Gaza.  

Finally, a new relationship should make explicit the U.S. demands that Israel will commit to a real ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and a clear commitment to a “day after” plan for rebuilding both.  Further, the U.S. must unequivocally press Israel to halt illegal settlements in the West Bank, and–particularly with the victimization of Palestinian-Americans there–bring violent Israeli settlers to justice. 

 

Looking Ahead

In the months ahead–particularly if my party holds the Speaker’s gavel in January, I will continue to press to hold all of our allies accountable for their use of U.S. military assistance.

Regardless of how we expect this result to influence–or not–outcomes in the Middle East, however, we must not allow this important public debate to divide us at home.  We have seen too many examples in which inevitable disagreement has devolved into divisive and abusive rhetoric that spurs anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia.  In this 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, our “duty and interest”--in George Washington’s parting words–must remain unwaveringly devoted not to any foreign concerns, but to our common endeavor: a United States of America.