SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us congress
Congress, Act Now to Stop the Israeli-US Military-Industrial Merger in Its Tracks
A new House Bill provision would arguably do more to intertwine the US military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the US since its founding in 1948.
May 31, 2026
At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the US to the Israeli military more than ever before.
Buried in the House's version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the US military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the US since its founding in 1948.
Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The US and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the US military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.
If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher level of military-industrial integration than the US has with any other country in the world. To be sure, the US has worked closely with its NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence Production Action Plan. And, as the No. 1 arms dealer in the world, the US provides weapons to militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the US providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.
The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is proposing here should not be ignored.
Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It would fuse the US and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the US beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in US politics: jobs in the US. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on US soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.
The result could well be a US political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the US into military conflicts in the Middle East.
This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance. As laid out in a recent Quincy Institute brief, authored by Steven Simon, this shift from an aid model to a military integration model has troubling implications, namely:
The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.
This all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used US weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the US itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.
The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is proposing here should not be ignored. Just 30% of respondents to a New York Times-Sienna poll from mid-May believe President Donald Trump made “the right decision” to go to war with Iran, with 64% saying it was wrong. An Institute for Global Affairs poll released earlier this week dove even deeper into the American psyche when it comes to arming Israel, finding that “just 16% say the United States should keep supplying Israel with weapons without new restrictions. Thirty-eight percent want to stop supplying weapons entirely, and another 24% want weapons conditioned on how they’re used.”
Yet, mainstream leadership in both parties remains largely pro-Israel and continues to shape the base legislative text before amendments and broader congressional debate open it to the full body, as is the case with this NDAA provision.
Though slowly, tides within both parties are shifting as more and more members speak out against the growing divide between Israel’s actions and America’s interests. For example, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that, “the Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values.” On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have openly decried the Israel lobby’s corrosive influence—a stance that may have, at least partially, cost both of them their seats in Congress.
What can other members of Congress who are concerned about Israel’s destabilizing actions do right now? Stop the Israeli-US military-industrial merger in its tracks. Lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel's military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel's actions in the region.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No War With Cuba': As Pentagon Mobilizes US Forces, Dems Move to Block Illegal Trump Attack
“This administration is rushing toward another disastrous war, putting countless American and foreign lives at risk," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez. "Congress must reassert its constitutional authority."
May 28, 2026
With US military forces prepared to launch an unprovoked attack on Cuba, a group of congressional Democrats on Wednesday introduced a new war powers resolution in a bid to block President Donald Trump from launching yet another illegal war of choice.
Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, introduced the resolution, which would bar US forces from hostilities within or against Cuba without congressional authorization, as required under the 1973 War Powers Act. The measure is cosponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Joaquin Castro of Texas.
“Donald Trump's belligerent foreign policy is creating new wars and conflicts across the world. As our country is already embroiled in a new war with Iran, the president has now set his sights on regime change in Cuba,” Velázquez said in a statement. “This administration is rushing toward another disastrous war, putting countless American and foreign lives at risk. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority if the president continues down this illegal path.”
Meeks, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are hellbent on starting another war, this time with Cuba, to distract from the president’s failure in Iran, weak economy, and mass deportation of 500,000 Cubans legally in the United States."
It is the second Cuba war powers resolution introduced by lawmakers since Trump began threatening to attack and "take" the island earlier this year. Last month, senators voted 51-47—with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joining all but two of his Republican colleagues, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky—to block a war powers resolution introduced in March by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
The new resolution's introduction follows months of escalating aggression against Cuba by the Trump administration, including preparation and threats to attack, an oil blockade that critics say is causing the deaths of infants and sick people, and last week's Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment of former President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 shoot-down of planes operated by a hostile US-based counterrevolutionary group following repeated warnings that they had violated Cuban airspace.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who has falsely claimed that his parents fled communism in Cuba when they actually emigrated during an earlier US-backed dictatorship—said that the island is "in a lot of trouble."
“Having a failed state 90 miles from our shores is a threat to the national security of the United States," Rubio added.
An article published Wednesday by Politico highlighted US military preparations for various war scenarios for Cuba, including bombing, an invasion, or a mission to enforce the DOJ indictmebnt by kidnapping Castro in a manner similar to January's illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
According to Politico's Paul McLeary:
The armada in the region is slightly smaller than it was in January when the US captured Maduro. But the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group entered the Caribbean in May, along with several guided missile destroyers and cruisers that can launch precision missiles at targets onshore. An array of advanced American drones and surveillance aircraft have also circled Cuba for months, according to flight tracking sites. The USS Kearsarge amphibious ships and escorts, which carry 2,500 Marines, are off the coast of Virginia preparing for a new deployment, and could replace some ships heading home.
The surge provides a variety of military options, although the Pentagon would need additional troops for a massive ground invasion.
The Politico piece drew fierce rebuke from Havana.
"There are politicians in the United States pushing the drumbeat of war against Cuba, trying to fabricate excuses, trying to portray Cuba as a threat, and trying to push the US president to take military action, even with the understanding that military action would lead to bloodshed, mostly of Cubans, but also of Americans," Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío told The Los Angeles Times.
"The question is: How does a government convince American citizens that it is in their interest to cause death, cause destruction and suffering to a neighboring nation simply to satisfy the ambitions of a small cabal of wealthy, influential people who enjoy the ear of politicians and powerful people in Washington?" Fernández added.
Cuba has been shoring up international support amid the growing threat of US attack. On Tuesday, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez met with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who said earlier this month that “there is no military solution to be sought for Cuba."
On Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a meeting with Rodríguez at United Nations headquarters in New York that "China will continue to uphold justice and speak up for Cuba, support the Cuban people’s just cause, and contribute to Cuba’s economic development and people’s livelihood."
Also on Wednesday, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Council for Foreign and Community Relations issued a statement affirming "Cuba’s sovereign right to import and receive fuel" and condemning "the obstruction of energy supplies to Cuba, which has precipitated a grave humanitarian crisis."
"Cuba poses no threat to any nation... it stands as a peaceful and cooperative member of the international community... [and] the continued application of these unilateral coercive measures constitutes an unjustifiable violation of human rights, the principles of free trade, and the fundamental norms governing relations among sovereign states," the council stated.
If the US launches military action against Cuba, it will be the 12th country attacked during Trump’s two terms in office. The president—who has repeatedly said that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has ordered attacks on Afghanistan, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen, and has bombed dozens of boats accused without evidence of transporting drugs in international waters in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
Last week, tens of thousands of Cubans rallied in Havana to denounce the indictment of Castro and US aggression against their homeland, which dates back to the revolution that overthrew Fulgencio Batista, one in a series of dictators backed by the United States after it granted Cuba conditional independence after conquering the island along with Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam during an 1898 war against Spain waged on a dubious pretext.
Since then, the United States has tried to assassinate former Cuban President Fidel Castro, backed the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, served as a base for perpetrators of some of the hemisphere’s worst terror attacks, and even hatched a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb high above the island to convince its people that the return of Jesus Christ was nigh and the only thing standing in the way of the long-awaited “Second Coming” was Castro.
Cuba has endured this aggression and more without retaliating against the United States. Despite this, the Trump administration has responded by inflicting more and more pain upon people it claims it is trying to liberate from oppression.
“If Donald Trump and Marco Rubio are serious about a new relationship with the Cuban people," Meeks said Wednesday, "they would reverse 65 years of failed US policy toward Cuba, end the oil blockade and the humanitarian crisis it caused, and work with Congress to modify the draconian and outdated US sanctions that disproportionately harm the Cuban people.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
50 State Lawmakers Condemn $1 Billion From Taxpayers for Trump Ballroom as Families 'Squeezed' Nationwide
"Not one of your working constituents, not a nurse in Ohio, not a factory worker in Michigan, not a single mother in Arizona, will benefit from this ballroom."
May 20, 2026
Fifty state legislators across the country, from Maine and Missouri to Oklahoma and Oregon, are condemning President Donald Trump's attempt to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on his White House ballroom project in a letter reported exclusively Wednesday by Common Dreams.
"Across America, families are being squeezed from every direction," the legislators wrote to the president. "Housing costs have put homeownership out of reach for millions. Healthcare premiums are skyrocketing after Republicans killed the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits. Gas prices, groceries, utilities, and basic necessities cost more than ever."
"The affordability crisis is the defining challenge facing our constituents, and they sent us to our state capitals to fight for relief," the lawmakers stressed in the letter, organized by Defend American Action. "That is why we are appalled that you are demanding $1 billion in taxpayer money for a personal White House ballroom."
The ballroom is the feature of a project that has already involved "demolishing the historic East Wing and ripping out Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden," as the letter notes. "It began as a privately funded $200 million proposal, ballooned to $400 million, and is now being billed to taxpayers at $1 billion."
The White House has claimed the $1 billion in taxpayer funding is necessary for security-related enhancements to the ballroom project, including a subterranean bunker. On Tuesday, standing outside the construction site, Trump said the roof of the new wing would be home to a "drone empire," an element not previously disclosed.
Trump's GOP narrowly controls both chambers of Congress and is trying to use the budget reconciliation process to secure the funding. After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled against Republicans' initial plan on Saturday, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pledged to try "a new approach," and is also reportedly under pressure from the president to fire MacDonough.
The president and his allies in Congress have ramped up their push for the ballroom project since a shooting last month at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, DC, for which a man has been charged with attempting to assassinate Trump.
"Your administration claims that your personal ballroom is a national security investment and a major priority. The reality is that it is a vanity project for the wealthiest man to ever occupy the Oval Office, and it will not put a single dollar back in the pockets of working families," the state legislators wrote to Trump. "A clear majority of Americans oppose it, by a two-to-one margin. Not one of your working constituents, not a nurse in Ohio, not a factory worker in Michigan, not a single mother in Arizona, will benefit from this ballroom. Only billionaire donors and well-connected insiders will ever stand inside."
By speaking out against Trump spending $1 billion on this project, Maryland state Del. Adrian Boafo (D-23) told Common Dreams, state legislators are sending a message that "we're trying to focus on how we actually help people live comfortably here in Maryland—and frankly, not just in Maryland, but all across the country."
"His actions have made life harder on everyday American people," Boafo said of Trump. The president's war on government employees has hit Maryland particularly hard, with residents of the state having lost an estimated 25,000 federal jobs.
At the national level, Trump's tariffs and war on Iran have driven up prices of necessities, from gasoline to groceries, as working familes continue to feel the pain of the Republican Party's last budget reconciliation package—the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave more tax cuts to the rich while cutting healthcare and food assistance for Americans in need.
"Your budget reflects your values, and what you fight for reflects your values," said Boafo. "And clearly, all this president really cares about is himself and the cronies who are in his administration, and nobody else."
"Reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created. Govern for working families, Mr. President, not for yourself and your ultrawealthy donors."
The letter calls on Trump "to reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created. Govern for working families, Mr. President, not for yourself and your ultrawealthy donors."
The lawmakers also pointed out how the money could be better used:
That $1 billion could replace more than 200,000 lead pipes in America's drinking water supply, protecting millions of families from lead poisoning. It could fund home heating and cooling assistance for around 1.5 million American families struggling with utility bills. It could cover a full year of food assistance for more than 400,000 working people, low-income families, and disabled Americans. It could buy over 200 million free school lunches for lower-income children, or eliminate waiting lists for WIC food assistance to infants and pregnant women entirely.
Before joining the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), another letter signatory, was an emergency physician at a Pittsburgh hospital. He told Common Dreams that he has two problems with spending $1 billion of taxpayer funds on the White House ballroom. "The first is that the White House is the people's house. It's not President Trump's to decide what the architecture or structure should be, and clearly, he disagrees with that—and I think that is very dangerous, in terms of what it means for our governance and democracy."
"The second is with all the challenges we have—and I'm a physician, and I've seen, here in Pennsylvania, over 150,000 people who've lost health insurance," he continued. "I don't think we should be spending $1 billion to put a congressional imprint on what is a vanity project, when that money could be used in so many more productive ways, including to help get people health insurance that they've lost."
While the letter is directed at Trump, with federal lawmakers considering whether to give the president $1 billion for the project, Venkat said that "congressional Republicans should grow a spine. It's not their job to simply be a rubber stamp for the president. It's their job to represent their communities and to be a separate co-equal branch of government. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans in DC don't seem to feel that way."
Boafo—one of the Democrats running for the seat currently held by retiring former US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md)—also said that "the Republican Congress should do their job."
"This president hasn't done anything to try to raise wages, neither has the Congress. They have totally just turned their back on the American people. And instead, put all their effort into a foreign war in Iran, and put their effort into White House renovations," he added. "It is just ridiculous. And frankly, this letter and this message is kind of the message I think Democrats need as we head into the midterms in the next couple months."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular