Chaos erupts as House passes $1.15T defense bill with Israel provision: 'Stop stoking Jew hatred'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The House passed its $1.15 trillion annual defense policy bill Wednesday after a bipartisan revolt over a provision expanding U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation.
The fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act passed 216-212, with Republicans largely supporting and Democrats mostly opposing the measure.
The annual bill, which sets Pentagon policy and typically draws broad bipartisan support, received only six Democratic votes as much of the caucus objected to Section 219 and Republican-backed amendments restricting transgender care and easing access to personal firearms on military bases.
Opposition came from a coalition of progressive Democrats and Republican skeptics of U.S. support for Israel, who accused congressional leaders of shielding the provision from scrutiny after lawmakers were denied a separate vote to remove it.
The fight erupted as support for Israel has weakened among House Democrats and some "America First" Republicans amid the war in Gaza and the widening conflict with Iran. Just one week earlier, 103 Democrats joined Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in voting to block $3.3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel.
For opponents, Section 219 would move the relationship in the opposite direction by embedding U.S.-Israel cooperation more deeply inside the Pentagon’s weapons-development and acquisition system. The provision would direct the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon "executive agent" to coordinate and accelerate bilateral defense research, testing and industrial cooperation.
Critics argued that structure would make the relationship harder for future administrations or Congresses to unwind and could shift parts of the partnership away from highly visible aid votes into less visible technology, procurement and production arrangements. Supporters said it would coordinate longstanding programs and give the United States faster access to Israeli defense technology.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y., urged lawmakers to reject the entire defense bill, arguing that the provision would "merge parts of our military with the IDF," referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
"This amendment is an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X prior to the vote, referring to Section 219. "Every member of Congress must vote NO."
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., shot back on X: "Good grief, you are either obtuse or intentionally lying. We are not merging our military with the IDF. As we do with many of our allies, we enter into cooperative agreements, share intelligence, develop technology and ammunitions, and conduct military exercises together. Stop stoking Jew hatred and do better."
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., similarly opposed both the rule governing debate and the final bill after Republican leaders denied a floor vote on his bipartisan amendment to strike the provision.
"We should not merge our military tech and supply chain with Israel’s," Massie said on X.
Beyond creating the executive agent, Section 219 would direct the Pentagon to identify jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies that could be used in U.S. weapons programs and promote joint ventures, licensing agreements and U.S.-based production partnerships with Israeli companies.
Before final passage, the House adopted two amendments from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla. One removed four uses of the word "integration," while the other extended annual reports to Congress for as long as the executive agent remains in place. The original reporting requirement would have ended in 2030.
The amendments left the initiative’s central structure and cooperative programs intact, falling short of opponents’ demand that Section 219 be removed entirely.
Massie’s amendment was backed by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, Jesús "Chuy" García of Illinois and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
Section 219 would not combine the countries’ command structures, place U.S. troops under Israeli authority or give Israel control over U.S. military operations. The United States and Israel also already cooperate extensively on defense technology, including the Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling missile-defense systems, counter-drone technology and anti-tunnel capabilities.
The provision’s principal change would be to place a designated Pentagon executive agent in charge of coordinating and expanding those efforts across the Defense Department.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said the provision would improve oversight and efficiency by assigning responsibility for existing initiatives to a single official.
"In no way does it give away command and control of our military operations, personnel or equipment," Rogers said last month.
Critics argued that the executive-agent structure would give U.S.-Israel projects a privileged path through the Pentagon and further entrench Israeli technology and companies in the American defense supply chain.
The fight threatened the broad coalition traditionally needed to pass the NDAA, one of the few major bills Congress has routinely approved with bipartisan support. Democratic opposition was also fueled by Republican amendments restricting gender-affirming medical care for troops and military dependents and transgender participation in sports at Defense Department schools.
The House voted 219-208 Tuesday to prohibit Tricare from covering certain gender-transition procedures and treatments, with five Democrats supporting the amendment and one Republican opposing it.
Lawmakers separately voted 221-203 to prohibit transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports at Defense Department schools.
The House rejected a separate attempt by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., to codify President Donald Trump’s executive order barring transgender troops from serving in the military. That amendment failed 212-217 after four Republicans joined every Democrat in opposition.
Lawmakers also narrowly approved an amendment making it easier for qualified service members and civilian Defense Department employees to receive permission to carry personal firearms on military installations . The measure passed 215-214.
An amendment that would have largely prohibited Ukraine security assistance failed, though 76 Republicans supported it. The proposal would have preserved funding only for security at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.
The underlying NDAA would authorize roughly $1.15 trillion for national defense, including pay raises ranging from 5% to 7% for service members, expanded weapons and munitions production and new investments in missile defense, autonomous systems, hypersonics and other emerging technologies.
The bill would also formally change the Department of Defense’s name to the Department of War, deeming references to the defense secretary and department in federal law to mean the secretary and Department of War.
The NDAA sets defense policy and authorizes spending levels but does not provide the money itself. Congress must separately pass defense appropriations legislation to fund the programs and priorities included in the measure.
Consideration of the legislation had been delayed for three weeks by a separate Republican fight over the SAVE America Act, Trump-backed election legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and identification to cast a ballot in federal elections.
The House approved the election measure in February, but it stalled in the Senate, where Republicans lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
Republican leaders revived the legislation through a procedure directing the House clerk to combine it with the NDAA after passage but before sending the package to the Senate. That approach allowed the House to vote on the defense and election measures separately before transmitting them as one bill.
The plan initially collapsed June 30 when 13 Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the procedural rule. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., and other holdouts later relented after Speaker Mike Johnson promised to attach the election legislation to appropriations bills and other must-pass measures.
The combined defense and election package faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Democrats blocked consideration of their chamber’s NDAA last week in protest of the Trump administration’s war with Iran.
The debate also comes as the Pentagon seeks additional money to cover the conflict and replenish U.S. weapons stockpiles. The White House has requested an $87.6 billion supplemental package, including $67.1 billion for defense needs, while House Republicans are considering additional military and intelligence funding through a party-line reconciliation package.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
126 visitors
The US House has just passed "the National Defense Authorization Act," with the "Save America Act" attached sending it to the Senate and then hopefully to President Trump's desk.
Final vote: 216-212
Seven Republicans voted against it and only six democrats voted for it.
What a fucking crock of shit. Disguised as a maneuver to protect the ballot, this is really designed to keep real voters from voting.
Anybody who tries to state otherwise is full of shit.
Who are "real voters?"
Illegal migrants?
Source: Trust Me Bro
Doesn't matter... It's dead in the Senate.
Generally , Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18, by birthright or naturalized, has the right to cast a ballot. The determination of who can vote is legislated at the state level.
It is interesting to note here that citizenship and suffrage rights have not always been locked together. At the dawn of the nation, many people who were citizens could not vote, while people who were not citizens could. It was not until 1996 that aliens were explicitly excluded from casting a ballot in federal elections.
I do not consider most migrants to be "illegal", especially in the pejorative sense that I think you are using the word.
People are people.
Unfortunately there are a great many of those people, irrespective of citizenship, place of birth or status, who are assholes.
I wish MAGA was as worried about the billions spent on elections as they were about a couple of dozen votes.
Where do you keep getting this wildly moronic idea that "illegals" are voting in any sort of substantial numbers? Even the 400 votes they found cast out of 7 million in NJ were cast by 'non-citizens', not illegal immigrants. Are there really conservatives who are so stupid they do not understand the difference between a non-citizen and an undocumented immigrant?
I am going to have to agree and disagree with this post Thomas .
I have to agree that the states have the authority to determine who can vote in their state and local elections . My state did that back right before it became a state when they allowed women to vote when the rest of the country didn't .
BUT....
when it comes to elections for federal office , such as president and on down to representation for congress, the feds as you stated stipulate they must be 18 or over and be a natural born or naturalized citizens , state allowances for instate voting do not become superior to federal requirements to vote in federal elections , supremacy clause is in effect here i think , which is federal laws trump state laws .
that would be my understanding , and the one i form my opinion on .
... from the maga oracle of truth, justice, and the american way. the convicted felon and suspected child molester, trump ...
Interesting how the "suspected child molester" has never been charged - or did you mean Biden taking showers with his teenage daughter?
gee, go figure ...
So, it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. If any of the 400 votes found that were cast over 3 years in NJ are found to have been cast in a federal election, then they should be investigated and, if found done intentionally, should be prosecuted as per the law.
So basically, your opinion as stated above, is exactly what we already have. The question then becomes, do you think there is some rational new level of security or new law that would prevent such a computer glitch potentially allowing 6,600 legal non-citizens, again, NOT illegal immigrants, that would also NOT knowingly disenfranchise eligible minority voters?
I am not sure that I understand exactly what we are in disagreement about.
My first two sentences can stand alone or together. They do not lean one upon the other for support, and both are clear statements of fact.
From the research I was doing last night and this morning to clear up my memory, citizenship was not required to vote at the beginning of the United States. States set the conditions necessary to qualify to vote.
From a lengthy conversation with ChatGPT:
From the same conversation:
At the same time as southern states were enacting Jim Crow legislation, they were also enacting more insular and restrictive citizenship and voting laws at the perception of "others" entering the country and causing "bad things" to happen.
As I said earlier, some people are assholes.
Only thing i can see that would work is national voter ID , the same thing that is being fought tooth and nail . But that is what it is .
Luckily for me i have never denied being an asshole , i was conceived one , and humans being deuteromes (sp) , that is one of the first things that develops during gestation . i was born an asshole , i just grew bigger as i aged and became more self aware and add to that set in my ways .
where i believe we disagree is in the federal ability to monitor or check voter roles when it is the duty of the state to conduct the elections when a federal seat is being voted on .
Again a national voter ID would solve that issue and the state could also still allow those they think should be able to vote in local and statewide elections .
But that is all just spit balling and the issue will continue to be an issue .
How would a 'national ID' prevent computer glitches? And 'national voter ID' is NOT what's being fought, there is no proposed universal voter registration. The voter ID laws are simply demanding certain types of ID to register to vote, and the ID that Republicans want to require does nothing to combat errors that may occur in the system or fix issues with married women having last names that don't match voter registrations.
So, with none of the voter ID laws doing ANYTHING about the NJ computer error, why should anyone be trying to use the 400 NJ votes cast erroneously to claim we need voter ID laws? Is it not obvious on the face of it that this is being used by dishonest folk who really just want to disenfranchise eligible American voters they know will vote for their political opponents? It should be because that's exactly what it is. Those who continue to refuse to accept this reality should question their own motives as to why they are so deeply entrenched in supporting a lie.
all i can say after reading that is ...wow... i can see this discussion between us is going to end up nowhere so i will just exercise my prerogative to leave you with your thoughts and opinion and leave myself to mine , because you will never get what you want from me , which i think is you want to hear your thoughts and opinions come out of MY mouth . not gonna fucking happen . so have a great rest of your weekend .
The crock of shit is post 1.1. Real voters can’t get a photo ID?
Doesn't seem to be a problem in NJ....
Wonder how many other states have had "computer glitches"?....
The whole idea that minorities or lower income people can’t get a voter ID, for whatever reason, is insulting.
Yes, just like the response that it was only 400+ votes cast illegally. While 6500+ that shouldn't have been on the rolls were.... How many elections at various levels have been decided by that many votes or less?
I agree. I also get a kick out of those lecturing others on integrity and credibility dismiss what has been discovered as insignificant, so do nothing about it.
[✘]
All I'm asking anyone on the right to do is admit what they're really pushing the voter ID laws for. Because no one in their right mind should believe it's actually about stopping 'millions of illegals' from voting. Why would anyone in their right minds believe there is widespread illegal immigrant voting in America when, after numerous Republican led investigations with Republicans winning all three branches of government, but no, someone's cheating and colluding against them.
Not trying to trick you into saying anything, just trying to point out the absurdity of the rights position on this, and it is absurd. Sorry for thinking I might reason with someone so entrenched.
If you were looking for someone on the right , you mistook me for that person.
i belong to neither left or right .
i belong to the "other " group , the one that can take in the facts / or fictions presented , and draw my own conclusions , in other words i dont trust the bros , or hoes of either party, i decide for myself . and some peanut eaters of both parties dont like those kinds of people either because they cant be assimilated into the group think mentality and are the true wild cards of politics , but they damn sure do need them come voting time .
Cute head in the sand meme though , i sense a strong feeling of micro aggressive flow since someone couldnt get what they wanted and was told so outright , heads not in the sand i simply disagree with you . i do not negotiate , nor do i compromise my beliefs , just in case that could be what some are looking for . i think its a good thing im not party to partisan or tribal politics , and really thankful im not a politician . Now stubborn asshole i would tend to agree with .
yes i am entrenched about voting , about who it pertains to and why we have the system we have and all it has cost everyone over the past 250 yrs to get there and have a vote . so forgive me for having my own understanding and beliefs about the subject and making it a hill i would die on .
i will leave with this little tidbit to think on and see if it is agreeable , im just a little curious , it is attributed to one Mark Twain ,
Loyalty to Country , always .
Loyalty to Goverment administation , only if and or when they deserve it .
a little disclosure on my part, i havent seen an administration that deserved loyalty in over 30 years .
So many members on the left love to play this card.
And none can explain exactly what this threat is. It's always general blanket statements.
Alexander Haig may not have said these exact words, but he did make references that had the same meaning:
"Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security."
Yeah, but we need three more in the region
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., shot back on X: "Good grief, you are either obtuse or intentionally lying. We are not merging our military with the IDF. As we do with many of our allies, we enter into cooperative agreements, share intelligence, develop technology and ammunitions, and conduct military exercises together. Stop stoking Jew hatred and do better."
Even Mike Lawler can see how dishonest AOC is. Of course, stoking these sort of idiotic antisemitic conspiracies is why she's a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
Trump has 2 1/2 more years. The defense budget could be 3 or 4 trillion before he's done starting wars to glorify himself.
We spend about half of what we did as a percentage of federal spending on defense as we did in 1974. Military spending is no where near the top of our budget issues.
"Yes, butt a trillion $$$ here and a trillion $$$ there and before long you're taking about some real money $$$"...
1974 was Fifty Two Years Ago!