A controversial proposal to expand military technology cooperation between the United States and Israel is headed for a vote in the House of Representatives after surviving its first major congressional challenge, setting the stage for a broader debate over the future of one of Washington’s closest strategic relationships.

The measure, known as the United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative, advanced out of the House Armed Services Committee on Friday after lawmakers rejected an amendment seeking to remove it from the annual defence policy bill.

Opponents are expected to renew their challenge when the legislation reaches the House floor, likely in July.

The initiative is part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual legislation through which Congress sets policy and priorities for the US military.

If enacted, it would establish a formal framework for expanding cooperation between American and Israeli defence industries and research institutions. The proposal would require the Pentagon to designate a senior official to coordinate joint projects and identify areas for cooperation ranging from artificial intelligence and cyber security to autonomous systems, advanced manufacturing and counter-drone technologies.

Supporters describe the measure as a logical extension of a decades-old partnership that already includes intelligence sharing, missile defence programmes and joint weapons development. They argue that closer cooperation in emerging technologies would help both countries maintain military advantages in a rapidly changing security environment.

Critics contend that the proposal goes much further than existing arrangements and could create an unprecedented level of integration between the American and Israeli defence sectors.

The strongest challenge so far has come from Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, who sought to remove the provision during the committee’s consideration of the defence bill.

“We need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country,” Khanna told the committee. He also argued that Americans wanted “less cooperation and blank checks to Israel, not more.”

Khanna’s effort received support from Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has also questioned deeper military commitments abroad. But the amendment was defeated after lawmakers from both parties rallied to defend the proposal.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers dismissed concerns that the measure would undermine US sovereignty.

“Claims that this provision somehow cedes authority to a foreign government are ridiculous,” Rogers said.

Representative Adam Smith, the committee’s senior Democrat, argued that the initiative largely formalises cooperation that already exists between the two countries.

The debate reflects broader political changes in Washington. While support for Israel remains strong in Congress, divisions have become more visible in recent years, particularly following the Gaza war and growing criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Progressive Democrats have increasingly questioned military aid and diplomatic support for Israel, while most Republicans and many mainstream Democrats continue to back close strategic ties.

Even after clearing the committee, the proposal faces several hurdles before becoming law. The House must approve the defence bill, the Senate must pass its own version, and the two chambers must reconcile any differences before sending final legislation to the president.

For now, however, supporters have won the first round of what is likely to be a longer battle over the future scope of US-Israel military cooperation.

• National polls show they have modest edge over Republicans
• Congress serves as check on presidential powers

WASHINGTON: National polling suggests that Democ­rats hold a modest advantage over Republicans ahead of the 2026 US mid-term elections, a contest that could significantly affect President Donald Trump’s ability to advance his agenda during the second half of his term.

A compilation of recent generic congressional ballot surveys, published by The New York Times on Sunday, shows Democrats leading in most national polls by margins ranging from one to six percentage points, with one survey showing a larger Democ­ratic advantage. The generic ballot asks voters which party they would support for Cong­ress without naming specific candidates.

According to the non-partisan US Vote Foundation, a mid-term election takes place halfway through a president’s four-year term. In 2026, voters will elect all 435 members of the US House of Represe­ntatives and 35 members of the 100-seat Senate.

“The composition of Cong­ress, and which party in Cong­r­ess has greater power to make laws and decide whether to support, modify or reject the president’s actions, will greatly affect the president and the success of his administration,” the foundation noted.

Powerful check

Congress forms the legislative branch of the US government and serves as a powerful check on presidential authority. A Congress controlled by the opposition party can block legislation, launch investigations and make it more difficult for a president to implement policies.

Historically, mid-term elections have often been difficult for sitting presidents. The US Vote Foundation noted that “voters typically want change and therefore, the president’s party typically loses ground in mid-term House elections”.

According to the organisation, this occurred in 20 of the past 22 mid-term elections.

Current polling may reflect that historical pattern. Presi­dent Trump’s job approval ratings remain weak by historical standards. The New York Times polling average shows 38 per cent approval and 58pc disapproval, while the Economist/YouGov average places his approval rating at 35pc and disapproval at 60pc.

Political scientists have long observed a strong relationship between presidential popularity and mid-term election outcomes. The 2026 elections are also unfolding amid an increasingly heated debate over the health of American democr­acy. Analysts say that public rea­ction to the administrat­ion’s domestic and foreign policies, including the consequen­ces of the conflict with Iran, could influence voter sentim­ent and shape electoral choices.

The Washington Post recently reported that the Trump admi­n­istration had pursued several controversial measures, inclu­ding efforts to redraw congressional districts in some states, changes to voting procedures, and prosecutions of political opponents.

Fair electoral maps

Among the groups expressing concern is the Campaign Legal Centre (CLC), a Washin­gton-based non-profit organisation that advocates voting rig­hts and fair electoral maps. “Our democracy is under threat,” the CLC warned. “By protecting the freedom to vote and fighting for fair maps and transparent elections, we can ensure that our democratic system remains resilient. The future of our elections depends on the actions we take today.”

Another factor shaping the battle for control of the House is the congressional map that will be used in the 2026 elections. Because House seats are awarded district by district rather than according to the national popular vote, district boundaries can influence which party wins a majority even when national vote totals remain close.

As a result, Democrats leading in national polling do not automatically translate into a House majority.

Analysts note that control of the chamber will likely be decided in a relatively small number of competitive districts, where local issues, candidate quality and voter turnout often matter as much as national political trends.

With less than five months before elections, the political landscape could still shift significantly. Economic conditions, international crises, presidential approval ratings and voter turnout will all influence the final outcome.

For now, however, the early indicators point to a familiar pattern in American politics: an unpopular president, an energised opposition party and a mid-term election that could reshape the balance of power in Washington.

Published in Dawn, June 8th, 2026

UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan on Monday renewed its call for restraint, de-escalation and a return to diplomacy in the ongoing Middle East crisis, saying that dialogue and mediation remain the only sustainable path to resolving conflicts.

Addressing the UN General Assembly during a debate on strengthening mediation in conflict prevention and resolution, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, said Islamabad had consistently advocated diplomacy in the recent tensions involving Iran and the United States.

“As a friendly neighbour of Iran, a brotherly partner of the Gulf countries, and a country with longstanding ties of amity with the United States, Pakistan continues to make sincere efforts to facilitate a durable solution for regional and global peace and stability,” he said.

The Pakistani envoy used the occasion to press for a stronger role for mediation and preventive diplomacy in addressing international disputes before they escalate into crises.

“Conflicts are not inevitable. They are often the result of diplomacy delayed, dialogue denied, and disputes left to fester,” Ambassador Ahmad told the Assembly.

“The first responsibility of the United Nations is not merely to respond to conflicts after they erupt, but to prevent them before they consume lives, regions and generations,” he said.

He noted that Pakistan’s commitment to peaceful dispute settlement was reflected in Security Council Resolution 2788, adopted unanimously in July 2025 on Pakistan’s initiative.

The resolution reaffirmed the importance of Chapter VI of the UN Charter, encouraged the use of mediation and the Secretary-General’s good offices, and underscored the role of regional and subregional organisations in resolving disputes peacefully.

Ambassador Ahmad argued that mediation should become a central pillar of international conflict prevention rather than a tool used only after violence breaks out.

“Mediation must become the guiding principle of prevention, not an instrument of crisis management,” he said.

He called for greater investment in early-warning mechanisms, quiet diplomacy, preventive engagement and the secretary general’s good offices before disputes lead to confrontation. He also stressed that mediation efforts should be anchored in international law and address the root causes of conflicts rather than merely managing their consequences.

“Lasting peace cannot be built on the denial of rights, including the right to self-determination, normalisation of foreign occupation, aggression and violation of treaties,” he said.

The envoy also urged predictable funding for the UN Mediation Support Unit and stronger partnerships between the UN and regional organisations.

Later in the day, speaking at an emergency Security Council meeting on Ukraine convened at Romania’s request, Ambassador Ahmad warned that protracted conflicts carry increasing risks of miscalculation and escalation.

He said unresolved wars often generate spillover effects and wider confrontations, a pattern that the international community was witnessing in several regions.

Referring to efforts to end the Ukraine conflict, the Pakistani envoy reiterated support for a negotiated settlement and cautioned against reliance on military solutions.

“We, therefore, see an early resumption of the United States-facilitated dialogue process as the most credible path forward,” he told the Council.

He added that military means could not deliver lasting peace and emphasised the need for sustained and meaningful negotiations.

“The true test of our commitment to peace is not how we condemn conflicts after they break out, but how proactively we prevent them in the first place,” Ambassador Ahmad said. “Mediation is the bridge between confrontation and peace.”

Pakistan has consistently maintained that dialogue, diplomacy and adherence to international law offer the only durable path to resolving international disputes, including longstanding conflicts that continue to threaten regional and international peace and security.

UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council’s annual report for 2025, presented to the General Assembly on Friday, reaffirmed the continued relevance of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute and the Palestinian question, describing them as long-standing issues on the UNSC’s agenda with implications for regional and international peace and security.

The report noted that more than 20 communications concerning the India-Pakistan question were brought before the UNSC during the reporting period and that the council held closed consultations on the issue in May 2025. It also documented the UNSC’s engagement with the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly Gaza, including the adoption of Resolution 2803 endorsing a Gaza peace plan.

Pakistan, which coordinated and drafted the introduction to the report during its UNSC presidency in July 2025, welcomed the references to both disputes, saying they underscored the need for their resolution in accordance with UN resolutions and international law.

Addressing the General Assembly debate, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, said the report highlighted the continued relevance of the Jammu and Kashmir and Palestinian disputes, which must be resolved in accordance with international legitimacy and UNSC resolutions. “This underscores that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, which has remained on the Council’s agenda for over seven decades, continues to engage its attention,” he said.

Pakistan, India clash over references to Kashmir in Security Council’s report

Ambassador Asim reiterated Pakistan’s position that durable peace in South Asia required a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute in line with UNSC resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

The annual report reviews the UNSC’s work from Jan to Dec 2025 and records its engagement with conflicts and crises across Africa, the Middle East, West Asia, South Asia, Europe and Latin America, as well as thematic issues such as the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Highlighting Pakistan’s role in preparing the report, Ambassador Asim said Islamabad adopted an open, constructive and inclusive approach and secured early consensus on the introduction through consultations with Council members and the wider UN membership.

He said the report showed that despite heightened geopolitical tensions, the Security Council remained actively engaged in addressing threats to international peace and security. He also highlighted the unanimous adoption of Resolution 2788, sponsored by Pakistan, which promoted the peaceful settlement of disputes and fuller utilisation of the UN Charter’s conflict-resolution mechanisms.

Turning to Palestine, the ambassador said the continuing tragedy in the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly Gaza, remained high on the Council’s agenda. He described Resolution 2803, endorsing the Gaza Peace Plan, as a significant step after repeated failures to halt the bloodshed and stressed the need for its full implementation.

Pakistan also reiterated support for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and for an independent, viable and contiguous State of Palestine.

Separately, Pakistan joined UN member states in marking the International Day of UN Peacekeepers. The ambassador noted that Pakistan has contributed more than 237,000 peacekeepers to 48 UN missions over the past six decades, with more than 183 personnel losing their lives.

The debate also witnessed a sharp exchange between Pakistan and India over references to Kashmir in the report. Exercising Pakistan’s right of reply, Counsellor Gul Qaiser Sarwani rejected India’s criticism and said the report itself recorded communications on the India-Pakistan question and the UNSC’s consultations in May 2025.

Published in Dawn, June 7th, 2026

• Diplomats see high chances of final agreement despite hiccups
• Insist both sides want to avoid open-ended conflict
• Nuclear issues likely to be handled in later negotiations
• Ex-envoy Munir Akram says gaps are more about narrative than substance

WASHINGTON: Islamabad remains a leading contender to host the formal signing ceremony of a possible US-Iran peace agreement if negotiators succeed in finalising a deal, diplomatic sources said.

Diplomatic sources at the United Nations and in Washington told Dawn that prospects for a final agreement remained high despite delays in completing the draft.

“Nine out of 10,” a senior diplomat said when asked to assess the likelihood of a final agreement being signed. “But I cannot say when it will happen.”

Another senior diplomat said Islamabad’s role in facilitating the initial contacts between Washington and Tehran had strengthened its credentials as a possible host.

“Iranians cannot come to Washington, and Americans cannot go to Tehran because the two countries do not have diplomatic relations,” the diplomat said. “If the signing takes place in a third capital, Islamabad would be a natural choice because it hosted the first round of talks.”

The assessment comes as reports in major US media outlets suggest Washington and Tehran have converged on several key elements of a potential settlement, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and extending the current ceasefire while negotiations continue on more contentious issues.

Recent reports in The Washington Post and Reuters indicate that negotiators have developed a framework for a broader agreement, although significant differences remain over implementation and sequencing.

Diplomatic sources said both sides had increasingly concluded that prolonging the conflict would impose unacceptable costs.

According to officials familiar with the negotiations, the Trump administration determined early in the conflict that air power alone would not achieve all of Washington’s objectives and that a prolonged military campaign risked becoming politically costly at home.

The sources said Tehran had reached a similar conclusion. While Iranian officials view their ability to withstand months of military pressure as a strategic achievement, they also recognise that a prolonged conflict would further damage an economy already weakened by war and sanctions while accelerating the destruction of critical infrastructure.

“Neither side wants an open-ended conflict,” one source said. “Both recognise that the current stalemate carries growing political, economic and strategic costs.”

Diplomats said this shared assessment had created momentum for a negotiated settlement.

Although details of the proposal have not been made public, diplomatic sources familiar with the discussions described several of its key elements to Dawn.

According to these sources, the agreement would effectively end the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran in exchange for Tehran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway it has kept closed since the early stages of the conflict, disrupting global energy supplies and trade.

The sources said Iran would also provide assurances that it would not seek to develop nuclear weapons, while some of the most contentious issues, including the future structure of its nuclear programme and the disposition of its enriched uranium stockpile, would be addressed in subsequent rounds of negotiations.

Several of these elements broadly correspond with details reported by Reuters and The Washington Post, which said negotiators were working on a framework that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz while deferring some nuclear issues to later stages of the process.

Former Pakistani ambassador to the UN Munir Akram said many of the demands publicly outlined by President Donald Trump appeared to overlap with provisions already under discussion.

“The differences are largely about narrative rather than substance,” Mr Akram said during a television interview on Saturday. “Both sides want an agreement they can present as a victory.”

He predicted that negotiators would eventually narrow the remaining gaps and reach a settlement.

Diplomats cautioned, however, that important obstacles remained.

Several pointed to Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon as a major concern for Tehran, which is seeking an immediate halt to those operations as part of a regional settlement.

Mr Akram argued that continued delays in reaching an agreement were hurting Iran’s allies in Lebanon by giving Israel additional time to consolidate its position in the south.

“This issue alone has the potential to complicate the peace process,” one diplomatic source said. Sources also said Washington remained concerned about the security of its Gulf allies. While the conflict exposed some of Iran’s vulnerabilities, diplomats noted that Tehran’s ability to withstand sustained military pressure had also heightened anxiety among Arab states in the region.

According to the sources, some Gulf governments have begun exploring closer ties with Iran as a hedge against future instability, prompting Washington to reaffirm its long-term military commitment to the region.

“The United States wants to strengthen, not reduce, its military presence in the Gulf,” a diplomatic source said. “That is not an issue on which Washington is prepared to compromise.”

Diplomats monitoring the negotiations said that while disagreements remained over sequencing, security guarantees and political messaging, there was growing confidence that both Washington and Tehran now viewed a negotiated settlement as preferable to a prolonged conflict whose costs continued to mount for all sides.

If an agreement is reached, Pakistan remains among the most likely venues for a formal signing ceremony, they added.

Published in Dawn, May 31st, 2026

WASHINGTON: The US Congress is moving to tighten oversight of Pentagon leadership decisions and limit unilateral military action against Iran, in a rare bipartisan effort that underscores renewed tensions over presidential war powers and civilian control of the military.

On Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee adopted a bipartisan provision that would require the Pentagon to notify Congress within five days whenever a senior military officer is dismissed, along with a written explanation for the decision.

Lawmakers say the measure is intended to improve transparency over personnel changes at the top levels of the armed forces, where congressional visibility has traditionally been limited.

The move comes amid broader scrutiny on Capitol Hill of the Trump administration’s handling of military operations against Iran and recent changes in senior defence leadership.

While Congress frequently debates executive war powers, bipartisan agreement on measures that directly constrain presidential military authority is uncommon in a sharply divided Washington.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives also adopted a War Powers resolution aimed at limiting the president’s ability to continue military operations against Iran without congressional authorisation.

The measure reflects growing interest among lawmakers in reasserting legislative authority over sustained military action under the 1973 War Powers framework, which requires congressional consultation when operations extend beyond defined time limits.

The latest resolution, introduced by Democratic Representative Pat Ryan, passed on Thursday by voice vote without objection, signalling unusual bipartisan consensus on an issue that has historically divided Congress along party lines.

The push for greater oversight has been fuelled in part by reports that US War Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed roughly two dozen senior military officers since taking office.

Some lawmakers in both parties have questioned both the scale of the removals and the absence of public explanations for the decisions.

Scrutiny intensified further after the removal of Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, a highly regarded officer with more than four decades of service.

Republican Congressman Steve Womack described Gen George as a “patriotic American,” reflecting unease within parts of the Republican caucus over the decision.

While civilian control of the military is a core principle of US governance, lawmakers have raised concerns in hearings about whether recent personnel changes have been accompanied by sufficient transparency to Congress, particularly at a time of heightened military activity in the Middle East.

The new reporting requirement still faces a long legislative path, needing approval by both chambers of Congress and the president’s signature. But its advancement at the committee level, alongside the War Powers resolution, signals a cautious but notable shift in congressional willingness to assert oversight over both military operations and senior Pentagon personnel decisions.

Even so, Republican lawmakers remain broadly supportive of the administration’s defence posture, suggesting that the emerging push for oversight is more focused on process and transparency than on a fundamental break with the White House’s military policy.

WASHINGTON: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation in the United States, has filed a federal lawsuit against one of America’s largest public school systems, alleging that four Muslim students were unlawfully disciplined because of their religion and ethnic background.

The lawsuit accuses Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), a school district serving nearly 180,000 students in the suburbs of Washington, DC, of discriminating against students at the prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, one of the nation’s top-ranked public schools.

Filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, the suit claims that school officials violated the students’ constitutional rights and federal civil rights laws by suspending them over a social media video while allowing similar conduct by other student groups to go unpunished.

The case stems from a video posted in October 2025 by members of the school’s Muslim Student Association (MSA), a student organisation representing Muslim pupils. According to the complaint, the students were participating in a viral social media trend used by clubs and organisations nationwide to promote events and attract members.

In the video, students ask classmates whether they intend to attend an MSA meeting. When the answer is “no”, other students jokingly appear and carry them away in what the lawsuit describes as a comedic skit. The plaintiffs argue the video contained no threats, weapons or references to any real-world conflict.

CAIR contends that similar videos had been produced by other student groups, including some depicting mock violence and weapons, without disciplinary action. The organisation argues that school officials acted only after outside activists and social media commentators accused the Muslim students of glorifying Hamas and reenacting the Oct 7, 2023 attacks in Israel.

According to the complaint, school officials adopted those characterisations, suspended the students, labelled their conduct antisemitic and placed disciplinary records in their files.

One plaintiff was also prohibited from wearing a sweatshirt depicting the map of Palestine, the lawsuit alleges.

The students are identified in court records by pseudonyms to protect their privacy.

“The MSA behaved innocently and no differently than other student groups on campus,” CAIR attorney Catherine Keck said while announcing the lawsuit. “Yet Fairfax County singled them out, robbed them of academic and professional opportunities, and encouraged the community to target and harass them.”

The complaint alleges that the suspensions had lasting consequences. The students claim they suffered reputational damage, lost educational opportunities, were subjected to online harassment and threats, and in some cases faced setbacks in college admissions and internship applications.

CAIR’s legal team argues that the disciplinary action violated the students’ rights under the First Amendment, which protects free speech, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded educational institutions.

School officials have previously defended their response, saying the videos depicted mock kidnappings and violence that were inappropriate in a school setting.

At the time of the controversy, FCPS said such content was especially troubling because it could be perceived as traumatic by members of the Jewish community amid ongoing tensions related to Israel’s war on Gaza.

Jewish community organisations also criticised the videos when they surfaced last year, arguing that imagery resembling hostage-taking was particularly insensitive given the continued impact of the October 7 attacks and the hostage crisis that followed.

The lawsuit, however, argues that the school’s actions were driven not by concerns about student safety but by stereotypes associating Muslim and Arab students with violence.

“The reason FCPS and TJHSST punished these students and not other students in similar videos is because they believe that Muslims and Arabs pose a threat where others do not,” CAIR attorney Ahmad Kaki said.

The school district has not yet filed a detailed response to the complaint.

The case is likely to turn on whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate that similarly situated non-Muslim student groups engaged in comparable conduct but were treated differently.

If the court finds evidence of selective enforcement based on religion or ethnicity, the lawsuit could become one of the most closely watched school civil-rights cases arising from post-October 7 tensions in American public schools.

The complaint seeks damages, expungement of the students’ disciplinary records, declaratory relief and court orders preventing similar actions in the future.

WASHINGTON: A provision tucked into the US House of Representatives’ version of the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 could significantly deepen military cooperation between the United States and Israel, potentially creating Washington’s closest defence partnership with any foreign country.

The NDAA is the annual legislation through which Congress authorises defence spending and sets policy priorities for the Pentagon. Before becoming law, the bill must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then signed by the president.

At the centre of the current debate is Section 224, titled the “United States–Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative,” which requires the US Secretary of Defence to “designate an executive agent responsible for synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel, including bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation.”

It outlines expanded collaboration in areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, autonomous systems, quantum technologies, and advanced weapons development. The provision also refers to potential “network integration” and “data fusion,” raising concerns among some analysts about the extent of operational interoperability between the two countries’ defence establishments.

Critics of closer cooperation argue that the proposed framework goes significantly further than existing arrangements — shifting cooperation from traditional aid mechanisms toward integrated research and co-production. They warn that the proposed changes in procurement structures could reduce public transparency and congressional oversight.

Under the current aid model, military assistance is typically approved through visible annual budgetary processes, whereas industrial and procurement partnerships operate through more complex contracting channels within the defence establishment.

These concerns come amid broader and evolving debates within US politics over the scale and nature of American support for Israel. While bipartisan backing for the US–Israel security relationship has historically been strong, recent years have seen more public questioning from lawmakers across the political spectrum regarding alignment between US foreign policy interests and Israeli military actions.

For example, Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, has argued publicly that unconditional support for Israeli governments may conflict with broader US strategic and humanitarian interests. “The Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values,” he wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday.

On the Republican side, Representative Thomas Massie and former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have both criticised the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups — positions that some analysts and commentators suggest may have affected their standing within the party.

“Why is America having to give Israel $3.8 billion?” Greene asked, noting: “We’re $37 trillion in debt; Israel is less than $400 billion in debt.”

Whether Section 224 survives in its current form remains uncertain. Defence authorisation bills in Congress often undergo significant revision during negotiations between the House and Senate, and controversial or far-reaching provisions are frequently modified, narrowed, or removed before final passage.

Published in Dawn, June 1st, 2026