Two United States lawmakers are mounting a bipartisan challenge to a provision within the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that aims to deepen military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie have announced their intention to remove the measure, known as Section 224, from the annual defense budget bill.

Section 224 proposes appointing an "executive agent" to oversee joint technological development and coordination between the two nations' militaries. This provision, included in the latest draft of the NDAA, has drawn criticism from lawmakers who view it as an excessive entanglement of U.S. resources and military strategy with foreign interests.

Congressman Khanna stated he would utilize his position on the House Armed Services Committee to introduce an amendment to strike Section 224. His Republican counterpart, Thomas Massie, indicated that if the bill advances from the committee, he would actively oppose it on the House floor. Massie framed the opposition as a defense of national sovereignty, asserting, "We are a sovereign country."

Khanna publicly supported Massie's stance, pledging to collaborate in opposing the section. He also criticized President Donald Trump's attacks on Massie, suggesting that political pressures would not deter their joint effort. This unlikely alliance between the progressive Khanna and the libertarian Massie has previously united them on anti-war initiatives and scrutinizing U.S. policy towards Israel, including efforts to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

The annual defense budget often contains measures favorable to Israel, but the specific technological integration outlined in Section 224 has sparked significant debate. Critics argue that this level of integration could potentially make U.S. military aid to Israel less conditional and further entangle the U.S. in the region's complex security landscape.

The provision mandates that the Secretary of Defense designate an executive agent responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts, specifically covering areas such as bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation. This formalized role is intended to streamline and enhance ongoing joint projects.

Concerns have been raised that codifying such a role could preempt future policy changes and reduce oversight on the nature and extent of U.S. military support for Israel. Lawmakers advocating for the removal of Section 224 argue for a more cautious approach to foreign military entanglements, particularly in light of growing skepticism regarding unconditional foreign aid.

The pushback highlights a growing division within Congress over the extent of U.S. commitment to its allies and the prioritization of domestic defense needs over international military partnerships. The debate over Section 224 is expected to continue as the NDAA moves through the legislative process, with its fate hinging on committee votes and floor debates.