S-3855-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsored by Ted Budd (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would establish a formal "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative" run by the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with Israel's Minister of Defense. The initiative would accelerate joint research, development, testing, and integration of defense technologies across ten domains — including missile defense, counter-drone systems, artificial intelligence, cyber defense, and biotechnology. It would authorize $150 million per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2029 ($450 million total) and require the Secretary of Defense to submit annual reports to Congress and publish unclassified updates on a public website.
Who benefits
U.S. defense contractors and technology firms that would gain access to joint venture, licensing, and co-production partnerships with Israeli industry. Israeli defense companies that would gain pathways into U.S. procurement and acquisition systems. U.S. military branches and agencies (DARPA, Missile Defense Agency, Defense Innovation Unit) that would receive new coordination frameworks and funding. Academic and research institutions in both countries involved in collaborative R&D. U.S. workers employed in defense manufacturing, particularly in co-production arrangements. Taxpayers broadly, if jointly developed technologies reduce long-term procurement costs.
Who is hurt
U.S. defense contractors that do not partner with Israeli firms and may face increased competition for procurement contracts. Competing allied nations (e.g., UK, Australia, South Korea) whose defense industries may be disadvantaged relative to Israel in U.S. acquisition pathways. Taxpayers who bear the $450 million cost. Advocacy groups and members of the public who oppose U.S. military cooperation with Israel on policy grounds. Congressional oversight capacity is modestly reduced, as the initiative's operational details are delegated to the executive branch with classified annexes permitted.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has already produced proven, battle-tested technologies — including Iron Dome and Trophy active protection systems — that have directly enhanced U.S. military capabilities at lower cost than purely domestic development. They contend that formalizing and funding this cooperation through a structured initiative would accelerate the integration of Israeli-origin innovations in high-priority domains like counter-drone and AI, where adversaries such as China and Iran are rapidly advancing, and that the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding already established the strategic foundation this bill would build upon.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that creating a dedicated, institutionalized technology-sharing framework with a single foreign nation — outside the standard treaty process — sets a precedent that bypasses the Senate's treaty ratification role under Article II and concentrates foreign defense partnership decisions in the executive branch with limited congressional input. They contend that $450 million in dedicated funding for one bilateral relationship may distort broader defense R&D priorities, crowd out partnerships with other allies, and that the classified annex provision limits meaningful public and congressional accountability over how sensitive technologies and funds are managed.