Here are the congressmen who want to lock-in Israel’s control over the U.S.

29 October 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Ever since the start of Israel’s genocide campaign to get rid of the Gazans, Americans’ favorability toward Israel has plunged down from 58% favorable in 2022 to 44% favorable in 2026, and among Democrats it is down from 52% favorable to 30% favorable, so that if ever a Democrat again becomes President, America’s annual donations of $3.8 billion per year (by far the largest to any country — and it was $4.8 billion in 2022, and $12.5 billion in 2024, in order to expedite the slaughter) might become jeopardized. For that reason, Congress is trying to lock-in by law the U.S. Government’s continued subordination of this nation (America) to theirs (Israel). A Section was added to the 2027 bill for funding the Pentagon — the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA — its Section 219 (originally Section 224) to permanently bind America to Israel by making U.S. weapons-production dependent upon Israel’s (but not vice-versa  — it binds America to Israel but not Israel to America — Section 219 would require the Pentagon to facilitate the incorporation of Israeli military technologies into American weapons systems, but contains no corresponding requirement for Israel to incorporate American military technologies into its weapons systems).

So, I asked ChatGPT, “Can you identify the members of the U.S. Congress who are supportive of the NDAA Section that joins the militaries of Israel and the U.S.?” It went to congressional and other U.S. Government websites and finally came up with this answer:

——

On February 12, 2026, Republican Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York introduced S.3855, the United States–Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security (FUTURES) Act. Republican Congressman Ronny Jackson of Texas and Democratic Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina introduced corresponding legislation in the House. The FUTURES Act was designed to expand joint U.S.–Israeli military research, weapons development, testing, manufacturing, and cooperation in emerging military technologies. On June 16, Budd publicly announced that the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act included the FUTURES Act that he and Gillibrand had introduced. Thus, these four legislators were not merely voting for a military-spending bill containing the initiative: they had actively sponsored legislation to establish it.

Members of Congress Responsible for Advancing the U.S.–Israel Military-Cooperation Provisions of the FY2027 NDAA

I would distinguish the legislators who originated the U.S.–Israel military-cooperation initiative, those who defended its inclusion in the NDAA, and those who voted to advance or pass legislation containing it.

These are documented legislative actions. Whether they constitute wrongdoing is a separate judgment; the evidence does not establish that these members committed a crime.

1. The four original sponsors — the most important names

These four members deserve particular attention because they introduced the legislation from which the NDAA provision originated.

Member	Party	State	Documented responsibility
Ted Budd	Republican	North Carolina	Principal Senate sponsor of S. 3855, the FUTURES Act
Kirsten Gilibrand	Democrat	New York	Original Senate cosponsor of S. 3855
Ronny Jackson	Republican	Texas	Original House sponsor of the corresponding legislation
Don Davis	Democrat	North Carolina	Original Democratic House sponsor

On February 12, 2026, Budd and Gillibrand announced the United States–Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security (FUTURES) Act.

The legislation proposed expanding joint U.S.–Israeli military research, development, testing, evaluation, and defense-industrial cooperation.

Kirsten Gillibrand — particularly important

Gillibrand’s role is established by the original Senate legislation, not merely by an endorsement or a vote on a much larger bill.

She publicly stated:

“This bipartisan initiative will enable long-term collaboration on shared security goals between the United States and our vital democratic ally Israel.”

She added that the countries must strengthen their military and technological capabilities.

An important distinction: Gillibrand [like almost all Democrats] voted NO on the July 14 procedural motion concerning the Senate NDAA. That does not erase her documented sponsorship of the underlying military-cooperation initiative.

Ted Budd

Budd introduced the Senate legislation and described its purpose as expanding joint investment in emerging military technologies, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and defense manufacturing.

He subsequently voted YES [like almost all Republicans] on the July 14 motion to advance the Senate NDAA.

Ronny Jackson and Don Davis

Both publicly endorsed the original legislation.

Jackson emphasized maintaining American military technological superiority through cooperation with Israel.

Davis specifically advocated establishing the United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative and accelerating joint development of military capabilities.

Davis [though a Democrat] subsequently voted YES on final House passage of the NDAA containing Section 219.

These four are the clearest starting point for identifying responsibility for creating the initiative. Sponsorship does not, however, establish who personally drafted its text.

2. House members who advanced and defended Section 219

Beyond the four original sponsors, these members warrant particular attention.

Representative	Party	State	Role
Mike Rogers	Republican	Alabama	House Armed Services Committee chairman; advanced the NDAA containing the provision
Adam Smith	Democrat	Washington	Ranking Armed Services Committee member; defended retaining the provision
Mike Lawler	Republican	New York	Publicly defended the provision
Virginia Foxx	Republican	North Carolina	Rules Committee chair; advanced the House procedure excluding a separate vote on removal
Morgan Griffith	Republican	Virginia	Moved to approve the House procedure excluding a separate vote

Adam Smith requires the same distinction as Gillibrand: he defended the provision but [as a Democrat] subsequently voted against the entire NDAA. His final vote does not negate his earlier support for Section 219.

The House Rules Committee’s official amendment record identifies the Massie–Khanna [Republican-Democrat] proposal to remove Section 219 and confirms that it was not among the amendments permitted a separate House vote [in other words: the House Republican leadership blocked it from being voted on].

3. All 216 House members who voted to pass the NDAA containing Section 219

On July 22, 2026, the House approved H.R. 8800 [the NDAA] by 216–212.

The affirmative voters comprised 209 Republicans, six Democrats, and one independent.

The six Democrats [who voted for the NDAA] were:

Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (North Carolina), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (California), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington).

The independent was Kevin Kiley (California).

The 209 Republicans were:

Aderholt, Alford, Allen, Amodei, Arrington, Babin, Bacon, Baird, Balderson, Barr, Barrett, Baumgartner, Bean, Begich, Bentz, Bergman, Bice, Biggs (South Carolina), Bilirakis, Bost, Bresnahan, Buchanan, Burlison, Calvert, Cammack, Carey, Carter (Georgia), Carter (Texas), Ciscomani, Cline, Cloud, Clyde, Cole, Collins, Comer, Crank, Crawford, Crenshaw, Davidson, De La Cruz, DesJarlais, Diaz-Balart, Donalds, Downing, Dunn, Edwards, Ellzey, Emmer, Estes, Evans (Colorado), Ezell, Fallon, Fedorchak, Feenstra, Fine, Finstad, Fischbach, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Fleischmann, Flood, Fong, Foxx, Franklin, Fry, Fulcher, Fuller, Gallagher, Garbarino, Gill, Gimenez, Goldman (Texas), Gooden, Gosar, Graves, Griffith, Grothman, Guest, Guthrie, Hamadeh, Haridopolos, Harrigan, Harris (Maryland), Harris (North Carolina), Harshbarger, Hern, Higgins, Hill, Hinson, Houchin, Hudson, Huizenga, Hunt, Hurd, Issa, Jack, Jackson (Texas), James, Johnson (Louisiana), Johnson (South Dakota), Jordan, Joyce (Ohio), Joyce (Pennsylvania), Kean, Kelly (Mississippi), Kelly (Pennsylvania), Kennedy (Utah), Kiggans, Kim, Knott, Kustoff, LaHood, LaLota, Langworthy, Latta, Lawler, Lee (Florida), Letlow, Loudermilk, Lucas, Luttrell, Mace, Mackenzie, Malliotakis, Maloy, Mann, Mast, McCaul, McClain, McClintock, McCormick, McDowell, McGuire, Messmer, Meuser, Miller (Illinois), Miller (Ohio), Miller (West Virginia), Miller-Meeks, Mills, Moolenaar, Moore (Alabama), Moore (North Carolina), Moore (Utah), Moore (West Virginia), Moran, Murphy, Nehls, Newhouse, Norman, Nunn, Obernolte, Ogles, Onder, Owens, Palmer, Patronis, Perry, Pfluger, Reschenthaler, Rogers (Alabama), Rogers (Kentucky), Rose, Rouzer, Rulli, Rutherford, Salazar, Scalise, Schmidt, Schweikert, Scott (Austin), Self, Sessions, Shreve, Simpson, Smith (Missouri), Smith (Nebraska), Smith (New Jersey), Smucker, Spartz, Stauber, Stefanik, Steil, Steube, Strong, Stutzman, Taylor, Tenney, Thompson (Pennsylvania), Tiffany, Timmons, Turner, Valadao, Van Drew, Van Duyne, Van Epps, Van Orden, Wagner, Walberg, Weber, Webster, Westerman, Wied, Williams (Texas), Wilson (South Carolina), Wittman, Womack, Yakym, and Zinke.

This list follows the official House Clerk’s record.

Primary documentation: Official House vote — July 22, 2026

4. All 50 senators who voted to advance the Senate NDAA

On July 14, 2026, the Senate voted 50–46 on whether to proceed with S. 4784, its FY2027 NDAA.

All 50 affirmative voters were Republicans.

The 50 senators were:

Alan Armstrong (Oklahoma), Jim Banks (Indiana), John Barrasso (Wyoming), Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), John Boozman (Arkansas), Katie Britt (Alabama), Ted Budd (North Carolina), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Bill Cassidy (Louisiana), Susan Collins (Maine), John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), Kevin Cramer (North Dakota), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ted Cruz (Texas), John Curtis (Utah), Steve Daines (Montana), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Deb Fischer (Nebraska), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Bill Hagerty (Tennessee), Josh Hawley (Missouri), John Hoeven (North Dakota), Jon Husted (Ohio), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Mississippi), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), John Kennedy (Louisiana), James Lankford (Oklahoma), Mike Lee (Utah), Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming), Roger Marshall (Kansas), Dave McCormick (Pennsylvania), Ashley Moody (Florida), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Bernie Moreno (Ohio), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Kentucky), Pete Ricketts (Nebraska), Jim Risch (Idaho), Mike Rounds (South Dakota), Eric Schmitt (Missouri), Rick Scott (Florida), Tim Scott (South Carolina), Tim Sheehy (Montana), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), Tommy Tuberville (Alabama), Roger Wicker (Mississippi), and Todd Young (Indiana).

The motion failed because it required 60 affirmative votes. These 50 senators voted to advance consideration, not to enact the bill.

Primary documentation: Official Senate vote — July 14, 2026

5. The eight House members who voted to deny a separate vote on eliminating Section 219

These members approved the House Rules Committee’s July 20 proposal governing which amendments the full House could consider:

Representative	State
Virginia Foxx	North Carolina
Michelle Fischbach	Minnesota
Ralph Norman	South Carolina
Erin Houchin	Indiana
Nick Langworthy	New York
Austin Scott	Georgia
Morgan Griffith	Virginia
Brian Jack	Georgia

All eight were Republicans.

Four Democrats voted against the proposal: Jim McGovern, Mary Gay Scanlon, Joe Neguse, and Teresa Leger Fernández.

The full House subsequently approved the committee’s proposal by 214–211, thereby accepting a procedure that excluded the amendment to eliminate Section 219.

6. The most important distinction

There are three different kinds of responsibility:

Creating the initiative: Budd, Gillibrand, Jackson, and Davis are the original congressional sponsors. Their responsibility is documented directly.

Defending or protecting the provision: Rogers, Smith, and Davis publicly defended it; the eight affirmative Rules Committee voters approved procedures that prevented a separate House vote on removing it.

Approving legislation containing the provision: The 216 House YES voters approved the entire NDAA with Section 219 retained. The 50 Senate YES voters supported proceeding with consideration of the Senate bill.

Specifically on Section 219, the original sponsors and the legislators who defended its retention provide stronger evidence of direct support than the much larger final-passage and procedural voting lists.

The central finding

The U.S.–Israel military-cooperation initiative was not simply an anonymous provision buried in a defense bill.

It had four identifiable congressional sponsors, including Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Ted Budd in the Senate, and Republican Ronny Jackson and Democrat Don Davis in the House.

It was then advanced through the NDAA process, defended against efforts to eliminate it, and retained in the legislation approved by the House.

The Senate had not approved final passage as of the October 29 records examined.

I would put Gillibrand, Budd, Jackson, and Davis first; Rogers and Smith second; and the eight Rules Committee members third. The broader House and Senate voting lists document the additional legislators who supported passing or advancing legislation containing the provision.

——

MY COMMENT:

So, Those are the individuals, the 216 Representatives and the 50 Senators, who are at work to (in effect) bind America’s military to Israel’s military, and so, to make America subordinate to Israel in foreign and defense policies (even if that hasn’t long been the case). It’s to lock that in, just as the FUTURES Act was originally designed to do.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.