# Van Hollen and 10 senators ask leaders to strip Israel mandates from the defense bill

Eleven senators asked leaders to drop three Israel cooperation provisions. Supporters say the text authorizes no new aid. A cited Netanyahu letter concerned a separate resolution.

By 567 Politics staff · 567politics
Published: 2026-11-10T22:20:09.888219Z
Updated: 2026-11-10T22:22:09.106768Z
Canonical: https://567politics.com/news/van-hollen-senate-letter-ndaa-israel-defense-intelligence-november-2026

Cite citation_url. Preserve source links, dates and qualifications. date_modified is an edit date, not proof that every claim was rechecked. Third-party images and quoted material retain their own rights. Resolve relative links against https://567politics.com/news/van-hollen-senate-letter-ndaa-israel-defense-intelligence-november-2026.

Sen. [Chris Van Hollen](https://567politics.com/politicians/chris-van-hollen), a Maryland Democrat, said on Tuesday that he and 11 Senate colleagues had asked House and Senate leaders to strip provisions from the coming defense bill. Those provisions would require deeper U.S. defense and intelligence cooperation with Israel. Van Hollen said they included “one advanced by Netanyahu himself.” The letter he posted the same afternoon carries his signature and those of 10 other senators, 11 in total.

The letter is dated November 10. It is addressed to the Republican and Democratic leaders of both chambers and of the armed services committees. It asks them to keep three provisions out of the final Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Two of those provisions would require the Pentagon to set up a United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. The third sits in the Senate intelligence bill that is often folded into the defense bill. It would require expanded intelligence sharing with Israel. It would also say that sharing “shall not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited.”

The letter is a formal request, not a vote. No final conference text has been released. None of the addressees had issued a public reply to the November 10 letter at the time this article was reported. Supporters of the technology initiative include its House authors and groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. They say the language coordinates work that already exists, creates no joint command, and authorizes no new aid. They also dispute the claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu advanced the defense-bill provision itself.

https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/2120257528030245097

Van Hollen posted that message at 3:49 p.m. Eastern Time on November 10. He then posted a second message with a link to the [PDF of the letter](https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ndaa_conference_letter.pdf) on his Senate website. The first post quoted a July video. In that video, he had already said he would vote no on the Senate defense bill. He argued that the bill failed to restrain President Donald Trump’s war with Iran. He also said it included “a provision touted by PM Netanyahu to MANDATE more U.S. defense cooperation with Israel.”

## The posted letter has 11 signatures, not 12

Van Hollen’s post said he “led 11 of my Senate colleagues.” The letter he linked lists, besides Van Hollen, Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Peter Welch of Vermont, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Jeffrey A. Merkley of Oregon, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Patty Murray of Washington, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Andy Kim of New Jersey. Jewish Insider and some later accounts described a group of a dozen senators. They named Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois as a signatory. Duckworth’s name and signature do not appear on the three-page PDF Van Hollen posted.

The letter is addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker Mike Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It also goes to Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, that committee’s ranking member, Jack Reed, House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, and that committee’s ranking member, Adam Smith.

The group includes senators who have often been more cautious about putting conditions on the U.S.-Israel relationship. Among them are Schatz, the incoming majority whip, and Murray, who is in line to chair Appropriations, as well as Wyden and Kim. It also includes Sanders, who [said this week he will not support Schumer](https://567politics.com/news/bernie-sanders-will-not-support-chuck-schumer-democratic-leader-november-2026) for Democratic leader. Van Hollen has not ruled out a bid for that job. The letter itself does not mention the leadership contest.

## What the three provisions actually say

Section 219 of the House-passed bill, [H.R. 8800](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8800), is titled the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. It would require the secretary of defense to name a Pentagon “executive agent.” That official would “expand and accelerate” joint defense technology work, including research, testing and industrial cooperation. The agent would look for “jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies” that could be built into U.S. weapons programs. The agent would also set up frameworks for joint ventures, licensing and U.S.-based co-production with Israeli industry, and would promote joint training on technologies developed together.

The listed fields include counter-drone systems, anti-tunneling, and missile and air defense. They also include artificial intelligence, quantum and autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber defense, biotechnology and data fusion, plus “other emerging technologies as jointly agreed by the United States and Israel.” The House text requires a briefing within 180 days, yearly reports through 2030, and unclassified public updates “to the maximum extent practicable.” The section itself sets no dollar figure.

Section 1217 of the Senate Armed Services Committee bill, S. 4784, would create an initiative with the same name. The versions differ on who runs it. The House bill names an executive agent. That designation can give one Pentagon official coordinating authority over other offices in that area. The Senate committee text, as described in opened reporting and in a [J Street explainer](https://jstreet.org/resources/explainer-us-israel-defense-technology-cooperation-initiative-national-defense) of both drafts, has no executive agent. The defense secretary would set up the initiative in consultation with Israel’s defense minister. J Street opposes the provision as written. It has said that difference “could be significant” in conference.

The third item is not in either chamber’s defense bill as passed or reported. The Van Hollen letter cites Section 618 of the Senate intelligence committee’s Fiscal Year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act, “which is typically incorporated in the final NDAA.” According to the letter, that section would require the executive branch to “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel.” It would also say that such sharing “shall not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited.” This article did not independently obtain the committee’s intelligence-bill text. The letter is the source for that wording and for the section number.

The senators write that President Trump already “could choose to enter new agreements with Israel under existing law.” They add that “the executive branch does not need a congressional mandate to more deeply entrench U.S.-Israel defense cooperation.” Elias Yousif, writing in August for the [Stimson Center](https://www.stimson.org/2026/the-myths-and-real-risks-of-section-219-unpacking-the-ndaa-provision-on-us-israel-cooperative-projects/), made a similar point from a different direction. He wrote that the Arms Export Control Act and later statutes already give the executive branch broad power to pursue joint defense projects with a “friendly foreign country.” The United States has funded such work with Israel for decades, especially on missile defense. In that reading, the immediate effect of the House language would be to create a Pentagon official charged with expanding those projects. It would not create a new legal power to start them.

## The senators’ case: leverage, opacity and a disputed Netanyahu letter

The Van Hollen letter argues that the technology provisions would “constrain the Administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect U.S. national security.” It says they 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.” It says the planned agreements would hand Israel “leverage over American weapons systems and military technology.” It warns that Israeli technology could become embedded in the U.S. defense industrial base, making later policy changes “costly or difficult to implement.”

As evidence of leverage, the letter points to a 2023 dispute over Iron Dome. “This is not hypothetical,” it says. “The Netanyahu government has already leveraged its existing coproduction agreement with the United States on missile defense to block American Iron Dome batteries from reaching Ukraine, in direct opposition to U.S. national security interests.” In June 2023, Van Hollen and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, [wrote](https://www.timesofisrael.com/senators-say-israel-blocking-transfer-of-us-owned-iron-dome-batteries-to-ukraine/) that Israel was blocking the transfer of two U.S.-owned Iron Dome batteries to Ukraine. They said they were not asking Israel to send its own batteries. Under the coproduction arrangement, Israel has a veto over transfers to third countries. Netanyahu had said Israel had to be careful because systems sent to Ukraine could fall into Iranian hands. Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel called that concern baseless. A senior Israeli official told Haaretz at the time that Israel was not aware of the senators’ proposal, according to The Times of Israel. The 2023 dispute is documented. Whether it proves that a new technology initiative would give Israel similar leverage over other U.S. systems is an argument, not a proven fact.

The letter also says the United States does not “share, let alone co-produce, many of these sensitive technologies even with our closest partners, including NATO or other treaty allies.” It argues that the “intention behind this is clear.” In the senators’ account, the aim is to move security assistance out of more traditional, visible channels such as Foreign Military Financing and arms sales, and into “more opaque, less discernible avenues through defense acquisitions and programs of record.” J Street has made a closely related argument. It says that if money later flows through joint projects and Pentagon purchases, Israel’s defense industry could keep receiving U.S. funds after direct grants are reduced. It also says those arrangements would be harder to unwind than a single arms sale.

On intelligence sharing, the senators say tying the president’s hands would be “irresponsible.” They call it “especially troubling given public reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency recently raised the counterintelligence threat from Israel to its highest level.” That refers to a [June 5 NBC News report](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-raised-threat-israeli-spying-us-highest-level-sources-say-rcna348565). The report cited unnamed current and former U.S. officials as saying the agency had raised Israel’s counterintelligence threat designation to “critical.” A spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington said it was “completely false” that Israel spies on the United States or on American officials. A White House official called the story “false and sourced to someone who doesn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on.” The Pentagon declined to comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond. The letter is accurate in citing public reports. Those reports were denied by Israel and the White House, and no public DIA document has been released.

The most contested sentence in Van Hollen’s post is the claim that one of the provisions was “advanced by Netanyahu himself.” The letter is more specific. It says Netanyahu “has openly stated that such an initiative was his idea.” It then quotes a letter from Netanyahu to Rep. Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican, “who led a resolution calling for an effort similar to these provisions.” The quoted line is: “I was glad to receive your proposed Congressional resolution endorsing my plan to shift the framework of the US-Israel defense cooperation from aid to partnership.”

That Netanyahu letter is real. The quotation matches the “from aid to partnership” language Netanyahu has used elsewhere. Stutzman’s measure is a separate, nonbinding House resolution. It supports a shift away from direct aid after the current memorandum of understanding expires in 2028. In a [June interview with Responsible Statecraft](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-israel-military-cooperation/), Stutzman said he consulted Israeli officials, including Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, before introducing it. He said Netanyahu’s June 1 letter was displayed in his office. He also repeatedly distinguished that resolution from “separate legislative efforts such as the FUTURES Act and Section 224 of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.” Section 224 was the earlier House number for what became Section 219. His office said that defense-bill provision came from the office of Rep. Ronny Jackson, a Texas Republican. Stutzman called claims that his own resolution would merge the two militaries “just BS.” He also praised the broader cooperation proposals as a sign that Israel no longer needs direct financial aid.

Jackson has said he wrote the House defense-bill provision with Rep. Don Davis, a North Carolina Democrat. He addressed a similar claim during House Armed Services debate. According to a [July JINSA analysis](https://jinsa.org/jinsa_report/israel-defense-tech-is-a-boon-not-threat-to-us/), Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said Netanyahu “actually wrote to a member of Congress to put this Sec. [219] into the bill.” Jackson replied: “I actually am the author of this along with my colleague Mr. [Don] Davis [D-NC]… I never received a letter from the Prime Minister, so that’s complete misinformation.” [Jewish Insider](https://jewishinsider.com/2026/11/van-hollen-leads-push-to-remove-u-s-israel-cooperation-provisions-from-defense-funding-bill/), in its account of the Van Hollen letter, wrote that the letter “falsely links” Netanyahu’s note to Stutzman, “about an entirely separate piece of nonbinding legislation,” to the defense-bill provisions.

The fair reading is narrower than either slogan. Netanyahu did endorse a plan to recast the relationship as partnership rather than aid. That framework is part of the political context for the defense-bill language. On the available record, the document he sent to Stutzman was not a request that Section 219 be written into the defense bill. The House author of that section has said he received no such letter. Van Hollen’s post goes further than his own letter when it says one of the defense-bill provisions was “advanced by Netanyahu himself.”

The letter also says Netanyahu “boasted that he has been trying to start a war with Iran for 40 years.” It calls that war “a strategic disaster for the United States.” This article did not independently locate a matching boast in Netanyahu’s own words. Van Hollen has previously used similar language as his own accusation, not as a quotation of the prime minister.

## Supporters say the provision is not a military merger and authorizes no new aid

AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America have all argued that critics overstate what Section 219 does. In a [June 4 memo](https://www.aipac.org/memos/america-israel-defense-ndaa), AIPAC said the initiative “does not create new programs or authorize additional funding; it makes existing efforts more efficient and effective.” It said the Pentagon “retains complete authority over acquisition decisions.” It said nothing in the text authorizes “unrestricted sharing of U.S. military data.” It also said the new briefings, yearly reports and public updates “increase transparency and accountability.” AIPAC separately noted that both chamber versions of the defense bill also fund existing U.S.-Israel cooperative programs, including $500 million for missile defense. That funding is a different line from Section 219 itself.

AJC, in a [September explainer](https://www.ajc.org/news/is-the-us-merging-with-israels-military-what-the-ndaa-really-says-about-us-israel-defense), said the provision “would not merge the U.S. and Israeli militaries.” It said the text would not create a mutual defense treaty or provide new military aid. It said Congress would keep the power to amend or repeal the statute, and that future administrations would keep control over how to carry it out. JINSA quoted Rogers as saying, “Claims that this provision somehow cedes authority to a foreign government are simply ridiculous.” It quoted Smith as saying, “It’s not a new framework at all. We have three existing programs where we do military cooperation with Israel to develop technologies. … to say that this is us bowing to Israel on this is completely inaccurate.” Jackson said “integration” in the text “means integrating useful technologies into U.S. systems, programs of record, and acquisition pipelines,” not placing U.S. forces under Israeli command.

Those points are strongest against the most sweeping social-media claims. That includes Khanna’s earlier description of a provision that “integrates our military with Israel’s.” J Street wants the section out as written. It has also said the text “would not link the U.S. and Israel’s military forces, nor would it require specific joint operations in the region or place U.S. forces under Israel’s command.” Yousif wrote that the “merge” claim “is a significant overstatement.” The Van Hollen letter does not use the word “merge.” It argues for a different risk: long-term industrial and legal ties that would be hard to reverse, and a congressional mandate where the executive already has a choice.

Supporters also argue that the United States would gain from Israeli technology in areas where the U.S. military has had gaps, including counter-drone systems and directed energy. JINSA pointed to existing work on Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, to anti-tunnel cooperation, and to Israel’s Iron Beam laser. Those are arguments about military benefit. They do not settle the senators’ objection that a mandate is unnecessary if the cooperation is already allowed. They also do not settle J Street’s objection that the text attaches no conditions related to Gaza, West Bank settlements or human-rights law.

## How the bill reached a closed-door conference

The House Armed Services Committee rejected a Khanna amendment to strike the provision, then numbered Section 224, by voice vote. The House Rules Committee later kept a bipartisan Khanna-Massie amendment off the floor, as reported by Anadolu Agency and by SignalData, which reviewed the bill’s path. The House passed the $1.15 trillion bill on July 22 by 216-212, [roll call 278](https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119-2/278). Six Democrats and one independent voted yes. Two hundred five Democrats and seven Republicans voted no. Three members did not vote. That result was unusually close for an annual defense authorization bill. AJC noted, correctly, that opposition also reflected disagreements over the Trump administration’s Iran war, not only the Israel provision. The roll call was on the whole bill, not on Section 219 by itself.

```chart
type: column
title: House vote on the FY2027 defense authorization bill, July 22, 2026
note: Roll call 278. The bill passed 216-212. Three members did not vote. The vote was on the full bill, which also included Iran-war and other provisions, not on Section 219 alone.
source: [U.S. House roll call 278](https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119-2/278)
---
Party | Yea | Nay
Democrats | 6 | 205
Republicans | 209 | 7
Independent | 1 | 0
```

The Senate has not passed a bill. On July 14, a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 4784 failed 50-46, short of the 60 votes required, according to [Senate roll call 195](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1192/vote_119_2_00195.htm). Four senators did not vote: John Fetterman, Jim Justice, Mitch McConnell and Alex Padilla. Van Hollen, Schumer, Sanders, Schatz, Murray, Warren, Wyden, Merkley, Markey, Welch, Smith and Kim all voted no. Thune also voted no. That is a common leadership step that preserves the right to offer a motion to reconsider. SignalData reported that he then entered such a motion. The House-passed bill later reached the Senate, and the motion to reconsider has remained available.

That leaves the practical decision, for now, with armed services leaders negotiating a compromise text during the lame-duck session. Republicans still control both chambers until January. Democrats won majorities in the November 3 midterms and take over on January 3. A stopgap spending law expires December 11. That is the same deadline that now hangs over [U.S. military aid to Israel](https://567politics.com/news/us-israel-military-aid-democratic-congress-lame-duck-december-11-partnership-november-2026) and other unfinished business. If the defense bill slips into the new Congress, the incoming majority could rewrite it. The annual defense authorization bill has become law for 65 consecutive years. It is usually treated as must-pass legislation. That is why a provision that never received a standalone floor vote can still become law inside a larger package.

```diagram
type: timeline
title: Path of the U.S.-Israel defense technology initiative, 2026
source: [Netanyahu-Stutzman context via Responsible Statecraft](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-israel-military-cooperation/), [Senate roll call 195](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1192/vote_119_2_00195.htm), [House roll call 278](https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119-2/278), [Van Hollen letter](https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ndaa_conference_letter.pdf)
---
2026-06-01: Netanyahu writes to Rep. Marlin Stutzman endorsing a separate nonbinding “aid to partnership” resolution
2026-07-14: Senate cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 4784 fails 50-46
2026-07-22: House passes H.R. 8800, 216-212, with Section 219 in the bill
2026-11-10: Van Hollen and 10 other senators ask conference leaders to drop Sections 219, 1217 and 618
```

Khanna has been running a parallel campaign in the House. In late October, Jewish Insider reported that he and at least 30 Democrats in both chambers, including Merkley and Sanders, were collecting signatures through November 6. Their letter asked armed services leaders to strip the technology provision. If it stayed, the letter asked for yearly renewal, human-rights conditions and a counterintelligence review before technology transfers. This article did not find a published final signature list for that House letter. In a November video reported by Anadolu Agency, Khanna called getting Section 219 out “the top priority in the lame duck session.”

## A Democratic argument that will not end in conference

The letter lands in a [Democratic Party](https://567politics.com/parties/united-states/democratic) that will have the votes, starting in January, to set conditions on the U.S.-Israel relationship. The party has not agreed on what those conditions should be. Site reporting has already described [three camps](https://567politics.com/news/democrats-israel-three-camps-new-congress-settler-sanctions-arms-sales-november-2026) among Democrats: those who want to end or sharply cut aid, those who want to condition it, and those who would rather change the subject. The Van Hollen letter is closer to the second camp than to a demand that existing missile-defense or intelligence cooperation be dismantled. It asks leaders not to lock in an expansion by statute.

The same fight is playing out in public on X, where some users have said Schumer and Jeffries are too aligned with Israeli interests. Those posts are not a poll. [Several of the claims in that conversation did not check out](https://567politics.com/news/schumer-jeffries-x-users-israel-interests-leash-cartoon-november-2026). Schumer and Jeffries are addressees of the November 10 letter, not signers. Their silence so far is not an endorsement of the provisions or of the request to strip them.

J Street supported the Senate letter. Jewish Insider quoted the group as saying, “No deepening of our military relationship with Israel unless they comply with the Gaza peace agreement, end settler violence and reverse their de facto annexation of the West Bank.” IMEU Policy Project also offered support, according to the same report. In September, more than 50 rights groups, including Amnesty International USA, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Quincy Institute, [wrote](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2027-ndaa-israel) armed services leaders urging them to reject the technology provisions and “any legislation seeking to intertwine US and Israeli defense or intelligence capabilities.” Those groups go further than the Senate letter, which is limited to three sections of a conference report.

The editorial estimates on the [U.S. party spectrum](https://567politics.com/political-spectrum?country=united-states) place the Democratic Party left of center on economic policy and more clearly progressive on social questions. They are dated staff estimates, not measured scores. They also do not capture the split inside the party over Israel. The live chart can change after publication.

https://567politics.com/embed/political-spectrum?country=united-states

The immediate decision is narrower than the rhetoric around the letter. Conferees can drop all three provisions, keep a House-style executive agent, keep a Senate-style initiative without one, rewrite the intelligence language, or leave the fight for the new Congress. Until a conference report is public, no one can say which of those outcomes is in the text. The record so far shows a letter from 11 senators and a genuine dispute over how tightly the United States should write Israel into Pentagon technology and intelligence law. It also shows a Netanyahu citation that is weaker than Van Hollen’s post made it sound. Asking leaders to strike a provision is not itself a vote, and no conference text has been released.

567politics has no published Federal Election Commission funding snapshot for Van Hollen’s profile. This article does not report campaign contributions.