Critics of the legislation fear that, if adopted, it would give Israel veto power over U.S. weapons systems.

In 2023, the late Republican senator Lindsey Graham led an effort to protect Ukrainian civilians from Russian attacks by supporting the transfer of Iron Dome air defense batteries from the United States to Ukraine. But he encountered an obstacle: Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister vetoed the transfer by invoking the terms of a joint-production agreement that gives Israel final say over the system’s use even though the missile batteries in question were paid for by the U.S. government.

Now, U.S. lawmakers are looking to expand that relationship beyond missile defense to encompass a range of technological areas, including bioweapons, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and directed energy systems.

The proposal, tucked into the $1.15 trillion defense policy bill passed in the House last week, has the support of Netanyahu, pro-Israel U.S. lawmakers in both parties and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobbying group. But it has come under criticism by left-leaning Democrats and some right-leaning Republicans who are waging a concerted bid to stop it in the Senate.

“It compromises our sovereignty and hurts our national security by limiting our options,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) in an interview. “The missile systems we wanted to transfer [to Ukraine] were stationed in the southwest United States and paid for by U.S. taxpayers, but Israel vetoed it.”

The debate over the bill coincides with Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington, where he sought to boost support for the war in Iran, which is increasingly unpopular among the U.S. public.

Also visiting Washington this week was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose simultaneous requests for American support have put the two U.S. allies in a zero-sum competition for resources. During Zelensky’s meeting with President Donald Trump, the U.S. president told him it would be difficult to fulfill Ukraine’s request for 300 Patriot interceptors because those munitions were being expended in the Iran war, Zelensky told Axios.

Zelensky and Netanyahu were seen having what appeared to be a stern exchange at Graham’s funeral this week though both sides declined to comment on the conversation.

The debate in Congress over the military policy bill is the latest flash point over whether Israel should continue to receive significant U.S. support despite concerns about its conduct in Gaza and treatment of Palestinians there and in the West Bank.

When asked for comment, the Israeli embassy in Washington defended the joint-production relationship and Netanyahu’s veto of the Iron Dome transfer to Ukraine, saying “the concern was that the technology could find its way to the Iranians.” The embassy noted, too, that “in lieu of Iron Dome,” Israel returned Patriot missile batteries to the U.S. so they could be sent to Ukraine instead.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among the staunchest supporters of Israel in Trump’s Cabinet, told The Washington Post that he wasn’t bothered by Israel’s ability to veto weapons exports to third countries.

“Any time you enter into co-production, we have those restrictions,” he said.

Rubio praised the idea of a closer partnership between the two defense industries, saying there is a mutual benefit if “we have a breakthrough in our system or they have a breakthrough in theirs.”

The provision is one of many issues U.S. senators are grappling with as they consider the annual defense bill, considered “must-pass” legislation because it sets a host of military policies including troop pay raises and spending limits.

The measure in the House bill creates an executive agent position inside the Defense Department to influence how the U.S. invests in the co-production of military systems beyond established areas of cooperation like missile defense.

The new areas would encompass “artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, machine learning, and autonomous systems,” “Counter-Unmanned systems,” “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defense technologies” plus several other fields, the legislation says.

The measure was forcefully opposed in the lower chamber by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), but efforts to strike the measure failed. In the Senate, several Democrats have said they will not vote on the legislation unless the measure is debated.

Leading proponents include Rep. Mike Rogers (Alabama), Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Sen. Ted Budd (R-North Carolina) and Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas). Israel advocates view the measure as a means to preserve U.S. support for Israel in the event that Congress chooses to discontinue the $3.8 billion of aid the U.S. sends to Israel every year, an increasingly contentious use of taxpayer money.

“This takes the U.S.-Israel relationship out of the annual appropriations process,” said Josh Paul, co-founder of the advocacy group A New Policy and a former State Department official who resigned during the Biden administration in protest of the war in Gaza.

Earlier this month, more than 100 House Democrats voted to end all U.S. aid to Israel, signaling a historic shift in the party’s opposition to the longtime ally. Paul said the defense bill would undermine efforts to distance Washington from Israel by promoting Israeli defense production in the United States, which could create American jobs and harden domestic support for such programs.

“Once you’re creating jobs in congressional districts around the country, you’re giving members of Congress a reason to continue the program,” Paul said.

Israel could also retain leverage over the United States because Israeli technologies would be integrated into future U.S. weapons systems, he said.

Budd’s office dismissed such criticism as hypothetical. His spokesperson, Christian McMullen, said it would impose “zero limitations on any U.S. decisions to deploy technologies developed in partnership with Israel.”

Jackson told The Post he supports the measure because it gets “jointly developed and combat-tested technology into the hands of the American warfighter faster.”

Massie said advocates of the measure overstate the benefit it would provide to the United States, which drastically outmatches Israel in technology and production capacity. “It’s a country of 10 million people,” he said in an interview with the Breaking Points podcast.

“That’s not going to help” and isn’t worth the curtailment of U.S. “sovereignty,” he said.

Van Hollen said he worries that Israel’s ability to block third-country transfers could extend to even more types of U.S. weapons if the measure were to pass.

He also questioned Israel’s claims that transferring Iron Dome to Ukraine would have risked its falling into Iranian hands, noting that such worries didn’t stop the U.S. from transferring its valuable Patriot batteries to Ukraine. “We sent all sorts of sensitive technology over there,” he said.

The controversial provision is one of many sticking points that may prevent the Senate from passing its own version of the military policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act and delaying a vote on the House bill to the late fall.

“I expect it will remain a live issue through the August recess and the midterms,” said Paul.