U.S. House Approves $1.15 Trillion NDAA with Military Cooperation Clause Despite Khanna’s Opposition

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with a $1.15 trillion defense budget, including a contentious provision to expand military ties with Israel, despite efforts by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to block it. The measure, passed after a late-night session of the House Armed Services Committee, includes Section 224, which mandates increased U.S.-Israel defense technology collaboration.

What is Section 224 of the NDAA?

Section 224 of the NDAA, introduced as part of the 2024 defense spending bill, establishes a Pentagon position to “synchronize cooperative efforts” between U.S. and Israeli defense industries. The provision aims to accelerate joint research and development in missile defense, artificial intelligence, and other technologies, with collaboration spanning government, private sector, and academic institutions. The language explicitly references a letter from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who advocated for a shift from “aid recipient to partner” in U.S.-Israel relations.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the framework builds on existing programs but formalizes a “new framework of joint defense cooperation.” However, critics argue the measure risks entrenching military ties amid ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.

Why did Khanna oppose the amendment?

Khanna, a vocal critic of U.S. support for Israel, introduced an amendment to remove Section 224, arguing it would “deepen and permanently expand” military ties with a country accused of “credibly violating U.S. and international law.” He cited concerns over Israeli military actions in Gaza, where Palestinian human rights groups report widespread civilian casualties, and in southern Lebanon, where Israeli weapons testing has drawn international scrutiny.

“Everyone in America—whether you’re a Republican, an independent, or a Democrat—says that we need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country,” Khanna stated during the committee session. His amendment received support only from Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), who called for equal standards in U.S. military partnerships.

What arguments did supporters of the provision make?

Eight committee members, including Democratic leaders, opposed Khanna’s amendment, emphasizing the strategic value of U.S.-Israel defense collaboration. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s top Democrat, acknowledged concerns about Israeli leadership but defended the partnership, stating, “Israel has faced drone attacks and missile attacks. They’ve had to develop new technologies, technologies that we’ve benefitted from.”

Supporters argued the provision would enhance U.S. access to Israeli innovations, particularly in missile defense and AI, while maintaining oversight through a dedicated Pentagon liaison. The measure also includes mechanisms to ensure “U.S. supervision of the program,” according to a committee statement.

How has the debate reflected broader U.S.-Israel relations?

The clash over Section 224 underscores long-standing tensions within Congress about U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. While both Democratic and Republican administrations have historically prioritized military cooperation with Israel, recent years have seen growing calls for accountability over alleged human rights violations. The 2024 NDAA reflects a continuation of this dual approach: formalizing defense partnerships while facing mounting pressure from progressive lawmakers.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a vocal critic of U.S. support for Israel, called the provision “a dangerous escalation” in a statement. Meanwhile, pro-Israel advocacy groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), praised the measure as a necessary step to “strengthen the security of both nations.”

What happens next?

The NDAA now moves to the full House for a vote, with passage expected given bipartisan support for the defense budget. The measure faces a more uncertain path in the Senate, where Democratic leaders have expressed mixed reactions. Critics, including some within Khanna’s own party, argue the provision risks undermining U.S. credibility on human rights, while supporters maintain it aligns with national security interests.

The debate over Section 224 is likely to intensify as the 2024 election cycle progresses, with lawmakers weighing domestic political pressures against longstanding strategic alliances.