The top House Democrats on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees said Monday that they will oppose efforts led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to cut the $3.3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel expected under the memorandum of understanding if and when they come to a vote on the House floor.

The effort is splitting the Democratic Caucus, and reportedly driving significant angst among rank-and-file Democrats in closed-door caucus meetings.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, told Jewish Insider he plans to oppose the effort to strip the aid out of the 2027 State Department Appropriations bill, calling it a “got-me vote the Republicans are trying to play with.” 

Meeks said there are “so many unanswered questions” about the implications and effects of the amendment. “I know there is still danger [in Israel]. I don’t want Israel to be without what they need,” Meeks said. He also noted that many of the weapons that would be purchased with the funding would not be built for years to come.

He said that the amendment leaves significant room for interpretation by the State Department.

“There’s just too many factors to say … ‘We’re taking away $3.3 billion,’” Meeks said, noting the U.S. provides military aid to other countries like Egypt and Jordan. “I don’t think that it would be the wise thing … not good policy.”

But Meeks also highlighted his criticisms of Israeli tactics during the war in Gaza, including the use of heavy bombs to destroy buildings and the deaths of innocent civilians, “so we need to make sure that we are talking about and moving forward in those things.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, also told JI he plans to oppose the amendment to cut the $3.3 billion.

“I’m against that,” Smith said of the attempt to cut the $3.3 billion. “I don’t think it has support because it cuts off humanitarian aid, military aid — all aid for Israel. So I don’t think there’s support for it, but we’ll see.”

Comments by Meeks and Smith closely echo warnings from Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee about the amendment — a sign that House Democratic leaders are coalescing around opposition to the amendment even as discussions in the caucus continue.

Meeks said he also planned to oppose a separate amendment that would strip a provision on U.S.-Israel cooperation from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, another bill that is also expected to be considered this week. Massie is also leading that effort. Unlike Meeks, Smith has said he plans to support efforts to take the cooperation provision out of the NDAA, after previously opposing them.

But the House Rules Committee rejected that amendment to the NDAA, and it will not receive a vote on the House floor, sidestepping a vote that had the potential to divide House Democrats but potentially raising the salience of the vote of the $3.3 billion in aid as Democrats’ only opportunity to vote on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, declined to disclose her position on the amendment to cut the $3.3 billion in aid.

“We’re talking about it,” DeLauro said. “I’m looking at what the Massie amendment is and where … we can try to move forward — what it means and what it doesn’t mean.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), the chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said he plans to support the amendment, regardless of the potential unintended consequences.

“I am aware that the amendment as written may cut off both military weapons (~$3.3 billion) and some diplomatic funding (~$50 million). While I would prefer to vote on an amendment that stripped just military funding, I think opposing the billions in military funding is what’s most important here,” Casar said.

Casar continued, “The Israeli government committed war crimes in Gaza and helped drag America into war with Iran. Americans should not be financing more weapons for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, now says he plans to support efforts to strip a provision on U.S.-Israel cooperation from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, after arguing strenuously against similar efforts during the committee’s markup of the same bill weeks ago.

The provision, based on the FUTURES Act, is relatively routine, creating a single official to oversee all U.S.-Israel cooperative programs in developing and acquiring defense technologies, and builds on existing programs. But critics have falsely claimed the provision would irrevocably link the U.S. and Israeli militaries and undermine American sovereignty.

Smith himself said during the committee markup that the way critics have described the amendment “is simply not accurate” and that the provision should not be treated as a referendum on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

In a message to constituents viewed by Jewish Insider, Smith said he now supports removing the provision.

“I previously opposed removing Section 224 because I looked at the ways the provision benefits the U.S. and helps us improve our anti-drone and anti-missile technologies,” Smith said in the message. “I still believe that Section 224 is something that primarily benefits the U.S., but after several conversations with constituents, I agree with the position that this provision is about more than just the U.S. working to improve our defense technology.”

Smith described his new opposition as based on Israeli activities in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran — despite arguing just weeks ago that, “taking a step back from using technology that is available to us just because we strongly disagree with where Israel is at right now, I think would be a mistake.”

“In the context of these ongoing conflicts, Section 224 carries meaning beyond the plain text substance of the provision. I want to advocate for peace and pressure Israel to meaningfully work with partners in the region to bring these conflicts to an end,” Smith said. “I cannot support endless conflict even though I support Israel’s right to exist. For these reasons, I will vote to remove Section 224 from the National Defense Authorization Act if it comes to the Floor.”

He emphasized in his message his criticisms of Israel and suggested that constituent feedback on the issue had helped shape his changing position on the subject — an indication of how grassroots pressure in blue districts is pushing traditionally pro-Israel members to the left on Israel policy issues.

Smith said previously that the amendment is ultimately a boon to the U.S. military by allowing it to benefit from Israeli innovations, and that its actual impacts are relatively minor.

“This is not a new framework,” Smith said during the committee meeting, noting that the U.S. already has three existing cooperative programs with Israel to develop new technologies, and that the provision does not create any new programs. “To say that this is us bowing to the bidding of Israel on this is completely inaccurate. The reason we’re doing this is because we benefit from that technology development.”

Smith did not respond to a request for comment about his new position on the provision.

An effort to strip the provision out of the bill did not come to a recorded vote in the committee — they were blocked by a voice vote. But Smith’s newfound support for removing it suggests that a significant number of Democrats will vote similarly. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), following a classified briefing for the Senate Armed Services Committee on the war in Iran on Tuesday morning, said he’s concerned that the U.S. is headed toward putting troops in Iran — echoing and elevating concerns he voiced following a classified briefing last week.

But other colleagues have, at this point, not affirmed Blumenthal’s view.

“If you look at the administration’s objectives, most especially regime change, there’s no way to accomplish it from 30,000 feet,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider. “Every military expert seems to agree that it requires troops in Iran, and likely, as well, destruction of the nuclear material that Iran has right now will require some presence of personnel.”

He said that comments by President Donald Trump and administration officials about the future of the campaign and about loosening rules of engagement have further fed into his concerns.

“There is an air of recklessness that leads me to be very fearful — not to mention what I’ve heard in the classified briefings,” Blumenthal said.

Other colleagues on the Armed Services Committee aren’t backing up Blumenthal’s concerns at this point.

“I don’t know,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) said, when asked if he agrees with Blumenthal that ground troops are likely to be deployed.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) forcefully denied to JI the idea that the U.S. would put troops on the ground in Iran.

“That’s interesting,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said, when asked about Blumenthal’s comments.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who is not on the Armed Services Committee, said that Blumenthal “is my friend” but he “needs to back off the crank. That’s not going to happen.”

A ground operation would likely be a red-line for at least some lawmakers — on both sides of the aisle — currently supporting the war effort.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), the most vocal Democratic supporter of the war effort, told JI he would not support a ground operation, a position he said he believes most Americans agree with.

“I’m not supporting a boots on the ground thing — the vast, vast, vast [majority of] Americans are there — but I support what’s happened” so far, Fetterman said. “I’ll be the first guy to say, ‘Look, I’m not aware of any single person that would support boots on the ground.’ I just watched [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth’s interview where he says they’re never going to make it about nation-building or anything.”

The Pennsylvania senator also said he plans to support any request from the administration for supplemental funding relating to the ongoing operation, adding that he took umbrage with the notion of lawmakers on either side of the aisle voting down aid for U.S. forces in an ongoing combat mission.

“If it comes up, I will vote for it,” Fetterman told JI of a supplemental package. “And I would dare anyone to vote against providing our military what’s required at this point.”

A growing number of Democrats are coming out against such supplemental funding.

“They’re saying they have more than ample resources and munitions right now. I have no idea why they would need a supplemental, so I’m certainly not writing a blank check, and they’ve given us no specificity as to why a supplemental is required,” Blumenthal told JI. 

“What’s more, Trump is saying he’s not going to sign any legislation anyway until there’s the SAVE AMERICA Act, which is a preposterous position, but why should we consider a supplemental when he’s going to veto it anyway?” he continued.

Also on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) wrote to Trump calling on him to send Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Hegseth to immediately testify publicly on the war effort.

They need to “come and answer for their failures and explain to the American people what the hell is going on,” Schumer said at a press conference. “That’s what people are asking in drug stores and bowling alleys and office buildings: What is going on? No one can understand it from what the Trump administration and Trump himself are saying.”

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee from both parties voiced concerns with Elbridge Colby, under secretary of defense for policy, and his office at the Pentagon, at a committee hearing — for the second time this week.

While Thursday’s proceedings, a confirmation hearing for Alex Velez-Green, nominated to be Colby’s top deputy and who has been a senior advisor to him in an interim capacity, were generally less heated than a Tuesday hearing with nominee Austin Dahmer, lawmakers reiterated concerns with a lack of consultation by Colby’s team and alleged rogue decision-making on a range of issues by the office.

“Many of this committee have serious concerns about the Pentagon’s policy office and how it is serving the president of the United States and the Congress,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the committee, said in his opening statement. “In many of these conversations, we hear that the Pentagon policy office seems to be doing what it pleases without coordinating, even inside the U.S. executive branch.” 

Wicker, pushing back on a defense offered earlier this week by Dahmer — who dismissed many concerns as fallacious and based on inaccurate media reporting — said that the issues raised by committee members were based on their own conversations with other administration officials and United States allies.

“Either all of these other administration officials and senior foreign officials are deliberately misleading us or we have a problem coming from this office,” he continued.

He said that the policy office can begin to rectify those issues by meeting “its statutory requirement to consult with this committee … rather than simply informing us of a decision after the fact.”

“We need a process that works for the president and the [Congress]. Unfortunately, we do not have such a process at this moment,” Wicker said, adding that progress will require a “change in a mindset” from the policy office.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) added that, “the perception is that there’s some disagreement between what has been put out [by the policy office] and what the president wants. And I think it’s pretty important that you guys figure out how to stop that.”

Velez-Green generally took a conciliatory posture, pledging to communicate and consult with lawmakers whenever possible and appropriate. He also insisted that the policy office and the entire Department of Defense have been diligent in ensuring they are fully aligned with the president’s policy.

But Velez-Green also insisted that the policy office had not directed a pause in U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, which was later publicly overridden by President Donald Trump, who said he had not been aware of or instructed any such moves. Multiple Senate Republicans pointed to a news release from the Pentagon that specifically stated that such a pause had been implemented.

Velez-Green also denied media reports that Colby had opposed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during the war between Israel and Iran.

Lawmakers again raised concerns that they and U.S. allies in Romania had been notified only days ahead of time that the U.S. would be withdrawing troops from Romania, and that lawmakers were only provided a notification after the decision had been made rather than consulted ahead of time.

“Congress was not consulted about this. I think I can say with certainty about that,” Wicker said.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was the only lawmaker to offer an unequivocal defense of Colby and his office, accusing those criticizing Colby over both policy decisions and communication issues of attempting to block his policy preferences.

“I think much of the criticism, which is cloaked in terms of transparency and communication, really is just an effort to undermine a shift in our foreign policy orientation, which I support, which is to realism, as opposed to some of the failed points of view that have dominated permanent Washington over the last 30 years,” Schmitt said, adding that criticisms of Colby and his team reflect “resistance from those invested in maintaining the foreign policy status quo that has repeatedly failed the American people.”

Senate lawmakers from both parties on the Armed Services Committee excoriated the Department of Defense policy office run by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby at a Tuesday hearing. They criticized the office for a lack of communication with lawmakers as well as a series of controversial decisions seemingly at odds with White House policy.

Lawmakers expressed frustration that they had not received sufficient communication from the Pentagon’s policy office and criticized Colby and his team for making controversial decisions like pausing U.S. aid to Ukraine, opposing the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during Israel’s war against Iran, withdrawing U.S. forces from Romania and re-assessing the AUKUS submarine agreement with the U.K. and Australia.

Democrats have publicly voiced frustration with Colby’s alleged rogue decision-making in the past, but the committee meeting — a confirmation hearing for several civilian Pentagon officials — constituted an unusual public airing of grievances from Republicans and Democrats alike about their concerns with Colby and his office.

“It just seems like there’s this pig-pen like mess coming out of the policy shop that you don’t see from [other departments of the Pentagon]. Why do you think it is that there’s so many controversies emanating out of the policy shop and not these other offices in the department?” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Austin Dahmer, the nominee to be assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities — a top position in Colby’s department — who is currently serving in an acting capacity as one of Colby’s chief deputies.

Cotton also serves as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“I’ve noticed an unsettling trend this year at times, that Pentagon officials have pursued policies that are not in accord with President Trump’s orders, or seem uncoordinated within the administration,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, adding that the members of the committee have found out about such moves from press reports rather than the Defense Department.

“There are strong foreign policy debates in my political party. We do not have consensus on every issue and I welcome healthy discussion on America’s role in the world. I think the president does too,” Wicker continued. “Amid these debates, I think everyone would expect the president’s national security strategy staff to follow his lead and implement his vision.”

He added that committee members “have struggled to receive information from the policy office and have not been able to consult in a meaningful way with [the policy office] either on the national defense strategy or the global posture review. … The situation needs to improve if we are to craft the best defense policy.”

A  frustrated Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) described Colby as “the hardest guy to get a hold of in the Trump administration.”

“He came to this committee and said, ‘Hey, I’m going to work with the Congress.’ He hasn’t, on big issues,” Sullivan continued. “I can’t even get a response and we’re on your team.”

Sullivan and other lawmakers expressed particular frustration with the lack of consultation from the administration on the forthcoming national defense strategy and global posture review, which news reports indicate will prioritize the Western hemisphere and domestic missions at the expense of other threats and theaters including China.

Dahmer, a former staffer for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), pleaded ignorance about the controversial moves and lack of communication or claimed that such moves had not happened and that public reporting about them was false.

Regarding the recent drawdown of troops from Romania, Dahmer claimed that lawmakers had been briefed three times prior to the move — but Wicker said that neither the majority nor minority staff had been notified ahead of time about the plans.

“I think all of us would like to have more information on how the decision was made” and communicated to Romania, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, adding that he had more questions for Dahmer about “what the policy office has been doing as compared to the president’s and secretary’s directives and stated policy objectives” and “confusion between what the president and secretary called for versus what the policy office has been doing, from weapons sales and deliveries to troop draw-downs.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the committee’s ranking member, said that Dahmer had “cloaked your testimony in a veil of ignorance, when in fact you were basically the stand in and the surrogate for [Under] Secretary Colby. … You’re clearly avoiding answers to questions that you should have been acutely aware of in your position.”

“I think you’ve essentially indicated to us that you won’t cooperate with us,” Reed continued.

Wicker also criticized the administration for providing notification to Congress on Sunday — days before the confirmation hearing — that it had renamed and changed the duties of the position for which Dahmer is nominated. Reed said that those changes were apparently made a month ago, without notifying Congress.

Alex Velez-Green, another former Hawley staffer nominated for a top Pentagon post under Colby, is scheduled to appear for his own confirmation hearing later this week.