America Should Stay Single

As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.

Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.” America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.

For nearly eight decades, American support for Israel has followed a traditional patronage model. When voters object to how American weapons are used, they can pressure their representatives to condition or withhold that aid–at least, in theory. By pivoting to a procurement model, Section 224 strips away even that theoretical mechanism of political oversight, further eroding the public’s ability to influence foreign policy. Any American angry about foreign military actions would now have to call the Secretary of Defense to protest. I don’t think Pete Hegseth is taking that call.

National security risks are inherent in a pact like this. If a partner nation takes actions that violate international humanitarian law or pursues geopolitical objectives that clash with Washington’s, getting out of that partnership could be incredibly difficult. When Turkey was expelled from the F-35 program, it cost the Pentagon years and half a billion dollars just to restructure the supply chains and replace Turkish suppliers for a single aircraft. Section 224 would intertwine us across multiple critical technological domains simultaneously. What a tangled web we would weave.

Taking a page out of American defense giants’ playbook, Israeli companies could expand or start production in key U.S. congressional districts, creating a powerful political shield. After all, what lawmakers would challenge an international alliance when doing so could lead to associated job loss in their backyards? Any plan that could render the U.S. political system more susceptible to a foreign country’s interests should sound suspect, but it doesn’t help that the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency just raised Israel’s espionage threat level to critical as concerns about Israeli spy agencies eavesdropping on American negotiators have intensified. That being said, it also need not matter that the country in question is Israel. We could be talking about Canada, and it would still be a very bad idea.

The Boy Who Cried Anti-Semitism and allies may try to argue that opposing 224 is a slight against Jews, but the Trump regime has been hiding behind a smokescreen of faux concern for Jewish safety for years. In reality, this proposal could put Jews in greater danger; with antisemitism on the rise, at least in part provoked by the conflict in Gaza, the idea of the federal government deepening its relationship with an international pariah over the opposition of the American people is hardly strategic or thoughtful. Antisemitic assaults reached a record high in the U.S. last year, while a report found that violent antisemitic attacks killed the highest number of Jews around the world in 30 years. Our entanglements with Israel are unpopular globally. At a time when Israel has yet to face accountability for human rights violations against Palestinian and Lebanese people, cozying up to a country that the United Nations has called out for committing genocide is almost certain to trigger negative backlash. Jews are already feeling increasingly unsafe; for Congress to take actions that could fan the flames of division seems inappropriate, irresponsible, and shortsighted.

It shouldn’t matter, but I am Jewish. While deployed to the South China Sea aboard the USS Carl Vinson, I personally wrote a Haggadah and led a Passover Seder because there wasn't a Jewish chaplain on board to do it. I also had my bat mitzvah at the Western Wall in Jerusalem in 2006, at a time when Hezbollah rockets were falling on Haifa. I never used to have to convince Jews I was Jewish enough for them to consider my opinions, nor did I feel the need to rationalize to non-Jews why I’m proud of my heritage. But this issue should have nothing to do with Judaism, and nothing to do with religion at all, and not just because the Establishment Clause in our Constitution forbids it. This is a question of national security, and I do not want the core reasoning to be obscured.

Section 224 can and should be debated strictly on its merits. No foreign government perfectly mirrors America's strategic interests at all times. By forging an intimacy so absolute that a foreign military becomes indispensable to our own technological framework, we sacrifice our autonomy. That should be a dealbreaker. I know conversations involving Israel can get highly charged, but though there is no shortage of moral arguments, the case against Section 224 is strong enough without them.

For what it’s worth, I have read numerous materials in favor of Section 224, and efforts to “refut[e] myths” about it, which would attempt to reject much of what I’ve laid out above. Supporters claim it would help American service members “have the most advanced capabilities to meet evolving threats,” but I would rather we double down on innovation at home than get hitched to another country. Ultimately, I am simply not persuaded that this is a “practical, commonsense effort to improve defense cooperation with one of America's closest security partners.” Not even while fighting the Nazis did America make such an effort to improve defense cooperation with the Allies. Section 224 seems neither practical nor common sense.

As my late mother once warned me, “it’s a lot easier to get married than to get divorced—choose your partner carefully.” Creating such an unprecedented alliance with another country seems reckless. America is young and has a lot more growing up to do. Why are we rushing into such a formal, long-term, and irreversible commitment?

I want peace for Jews worldwide, and I want the same for people of all faiths. As a scholar of global business law and a veteran military officer, I do not see how this would effectively advance that goal nor do I want my country to risk finding itself beholden to any foreign government. Regardless, when choices with such permanent consequences are on the table, the American people deserve a transparent and rigorous public debate. Short of that, Congress must strip Section 224 from the NDAA. As long as calling your reps can still affect our relationships with other countries, do it. It’s not too late for the U.S. to get cold feet. The public still has a voice on this issue. Before we form a union we might regret, speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.