<\/p>\n
The House passed<\/span> a $1.15 trillion defense authorization bill Wednesday with a controversial provision expanding U.S.-Israel military technology cooperation intact, despite a bipartisan effort to remove it and warnings from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that the measure could compromise American sovereignty and national security.<\/p>\n The 216\u2013212 vote on the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act passed mostly along party lines after lawmakers were denied a separate vote to remove Section 219, which would create a permanent initiative to merge U.S. and Israeli defense tech.<\/p>\n \u201cCodifying the integration of our military technology and supply chains with those of any other country is dangerous,\u201d said Massie, one of seven Republicans to buck party lines and vote against the NDAA. He was joined by Reps. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma; Tim Burchett of Tennessee; Eli Crane of Arizona; Harriet Hageman of Wyoming; Anna Paulina Luna of Florida; and Chip Roy of Texas.<\/p>\n Six Democrats voted for it: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas; Don Davis of North Carolina; Jared Golden of Maine; Vicente Gonzalez of Texas; Adam Gray of California; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.<\/p>\n Section 219 would establish a United States\u2013Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative and require the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation, and industrial cooperation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Massie, who sought to remove the provision alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told The Intercept ahead of the vote that institutionalizing the relationship would create long-term national security risks.<\/p>\n Doing so with Israel would create \u201ca lopsided arrangement\u201d in which American national security is unnecessarily compromised, he added. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., similarly referred to the provision as \u201can existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy,\u201d in a statement<\/a> on social media.<\/p>\n Massie also pointed out that codifying the initiative would make it more difficult for future presidents to withdraw from the arrangement.<\/p>\n \u201cEnshrining this broad agreement and the permanent position it creates in legislation removes the flexibility of future Presidents to withdraw from such an arrangement,\u201d Massie said. He further argued that it \u201crequires a treaty to effect, not an amendment buried in a law as presented here.\u201d<\/p>\n