The United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative
Aims to expand and institutionalize US-Israel defense cooperation beyond traditional foreign military aid (currently ~$3.8 billion annually).
A few readers have asked me what I think of the proposed United States—Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.
The initiative is a proposed provision of the proposed United States-Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security (FUTURES) Act — a bipartisan piece of legislation (H.R. 7540 / S. 3855) that is purportedly to expand bilateral defense technology cooperation between the U.S. and Israel.
The bill originated in the Senate, sponsored by Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) as a co-sponsor for the FUTURES Act framework.
In the House, Reps. Don Davis (D-NC) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX) subsequently integrated the initiative into the National Defense Authorization Act by the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman Mike Rogers, R-AL.
Bipartisan support for the bill exists, though it faced modest opposition, including a failed amendment by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to remove the Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.
The initiative aims to expand and institutionalize US-Israel defense cooperation beyond traditional foreign military aid (currently ~$3.8 billion annually). Key elements include:
Accelerated technology sharing, joint research and development (R&D), and co-production of weapons systems.
Collaboration across emerging domains: AI, autonomous systems, cyberwarfare, biotechnology, quantum, directed energy, and more.
“Network integration” and “data fusion” to enhance interoperability.
Designation of an executive agent in the Department of Defense to oversee deeper integration of defense industrial bases, including potential joint ventures and licensing.
Proponents claim the initiative will formally recognize Israel as a “defense peer,” enhancing mutual capabilities against shared threats, saving US costs through innovation, and shifting from one-way aid to mutual investment.
The provision does NOT create a formal command merge, place joint forces under unified command, or establish an irrevocable legal union of the two militaries. Its stated purpose is to deepen institutional and industrial integration through binding statutory authorities in the NDAA.
The stated rationale for making this cooperative arrangement a matter of law instead of discretionary aid and sharing is that a conventional alliance —such as a treaty-based alliance like NATO — can be adjusted or terminated by executive or legislative action if interests diverge.
Deeper integration—via co-production, shared supply chains, data networks, and industrial base ties—creates dependency. Unwinding it would disrupt US jobs, defense production, technological edges, and interoperability, making disengagement costlier and politically harder.
Efficiency and innovation: Joint R&D and co-production would purportedly leverage Israeli strengths in certain tech areas, benefiting US forces.
Deterrence: Permanent structural ties signal unbreakable commitment, deterring adversaries better than reversible aid.
Oversight shift: Moves elements from visible annual aid appropriations (subject to public/political scrutiny) into routine defense acquisition processes with less transparency.
Critics such as the Quincy Institute, Responsible Statecraft, Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen contend that the initiative reduces US leverage and independence, risks entanglement in Israeli ambitions and interests, with no easy off-ramps —an apt concern, given how Israel—by Marco Rubio’s admission—started the current war with Iran. Critics of the bill further contend that it erodes US sovereignty and democratic accountability compared to flexible alliances.
For my part, reviewing the Futures Act reminded me of an old joke about the American-born Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, who provided hundreds of thousands of pages of top-secret and codeword-classified materials to the Israeli Lekem intelligence agency, thereby severely compromising American intelligence operations and assets.
When it was revealed that Lekem paid Pollard money for the information, someone in US intelligence joked, “Well, at least they paid for it this time”—referring to the fact that most of the time, the Israelis were either given US intelligence or stole it with impunity.
The proposed FUTURES Act appears to be a Congressional gambit to make sure that Israel continues receiving American military and intelligence goodies, even if the majority of Americans decide it is not in their interest to continue sharing them.
The Act was introduced at a time when polling shows that a majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Israel, marking a significant shift in public opinion over the past few years. A recent Pew Research Center poll revealed that 60% of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, with negative sentiments climbing nearly 20 points since 2022.
This bill should be viewed as an act of treason and all who support it should be identified and publicized.
Israel started the current war with Iran??? WTF? Iran sponsors (pays for) Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the Hooties in Hootiland. They are all paid to attack Israel, and have attacked Israel on behest of Iran, and are funded and weaponized by Iran to do it... also, Iran fired many ballistic missiles at israel, some few hit, one destroyed the Wiseman Institute.
So, please get your facts straight.
There is enough bullshit in the world, I police my timeline carefully, and I will block this substack if this continues...