Bypassing Oversight to Rush Billions in Arms to Israel
By Robert McDonald, Senior Legislative Researcher
Just one hour before doing so, the Trump Administration informed Congress that it would disregard Congressional oversight and long-standing practice under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and immediately notify more than $6 billion in arms sales to Israel.
The proposed sales comprise:
$3.8 billion for 30 Apache attack helicopters (Boeing)
$1.98 billion for 3,250 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (AM General)
$740 million for Namer Armored Personnel Carrier power packs (Rolls-Royce Solutions USA)
$150 million for AW-119Kx light utility helicopters (Leonardo / AgustaWestland)
Within the notification, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency argues that these sales “will improve Israel’s capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend its borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers,” or “enhance the mobility of its ground forces during operations.” These systems, however, are not designed to intercept Iranian missiles, stop drone attacks, or neutralize short-range rockets. They are primarily offensive and operational platforms, built for troop transport, logistical support, and direct assault operations.
Under Section 36 of the AECA, the president or secretary of state must notify Congress of any major arms transfer worth more than $100 million to Israel or another close ally 15 calendar days in advance before the administration can proceed with the transaction. This statutory process has been accompanied since 1979 by an informal review process in which the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee are able to review major arms transfers prior to their formal notification. In this instance, the arms sales in question were still under review by the Committees, who had not all provided their assent to the notification, but the Administration pulled the trigger on the formal notification regardless. This raises a fundamental question: what threat justifies bypassing Congressional oversight to rush these weapons to Israel?
Congressional Authority and the Erosion of Democratic Oversight
This most recent rush to arm the IDF - following a precedent repeatedly used by the Biden reflects a broader pattern of treating arms transfers as executive prerogatives rather than a shared statutory responsibility. When administrations circumvent review periods, ignore informal holds, or rush notifications, they weaken Congress’s ability to enforce safeguards, particularly those related to civilian protection and lawful use. Over time, this erosion of oversight sets a dangerous precedent. It signals to future administrations that Congressional review is optional, and to recipient governments that U.S. conditions are negotiable. The result is an arms transfer system driven by political expediency rather than law, accountability, or long-term stability.
Why Rush?
The administration’s justification for bypassing the informal Congressional review process rests on the claim that Israel faces extraordinary external threats requiring immediate reinforcement. If this were true, one would expect the proposed arms transfers to deliver near-term defensive or deterrent capabilities. A closer examination of the delivery timelines, however, tells a very different story.
Major weapons systems such as attack helicopters and armored vehicles are not off-the-shelf items that can be deployed within weeks or months. According to the notification from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, implementation of this proposed sale will require up to five years to support equipment fielding and training.
Each major platform in this package will take multiple years to fulfill. For example, a 2023 U.S. Army order for Apache helicopters from Boeing is scheduled to take approximately four years to complete, with final deliveries expected in 2027. Multiyear timelines apply to armored vehicles, power systems, and aviation platforms, all of which face production backlogs and supply chain constraints. The systems included in this sale are therefore unlikely to affect Israel’s immediate security environment. They will not influence near-term missile threats, ongoing regional tensions, or current battlefield conditions.
This raises a fundamental contradiction in the administration’s rationale. If these weapons will not be delivered for years, they cannot plausibly justify rushing these sales. In reality, the rush appears designed to preempt Congressional scrutiny rather. By accelerating notification and limiting review, the administration shields these transfers from debate at a moment when public concern over civilian harm, legal compliance, and U.S. complicity is at its highest. It transforms a system meant to ensure accountability into one that facilitates political expedience.
Undermining U.S. Interests and America’s Credibility
Beyond legal concerns, these arms sales directly undermine core U.S. foreign policy interests. For decades, American officials have argued that military assistance provides leverage, an ability to encourage restraint, promote compliance with international law, and support diplomatic outcomes. In Israel’s case, that leverage has rarely, if ever, been put to use.
By approving massive offensive weapons transfers amid ongoing civilian devastation, the United States signals that there are no meaningful consequences for continued escalation. This weakens Washington’s position not only with Israel, but across the region. Key partners such as Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf states face increasing domestic pressure over U.S. policy in Gaza and the West Bank. When Washington appears indifferent to Palestinian suffering, it fuels anti-American sentiment and creates political space for extremist groups and rival powers.
At the global level, these decisions erode U.S. credibility in promoting international law. American officials cannot credibly criticize abuses by Russia, China, or Iran while simultaneously enabling large-scale civilian harm through unrestricted arms transfers. Selective enforcement weakens the rules-based system the United States claims to defend. Rather than enhancing security, these sales deepen instability, entrench cycles of violence, and diminish America’s capacity to act as an effective mediator.
Arms Without Accountability
There is no credible regional security justification for rushing these arms sales while bypassing Congressional oversight. Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank instead suggests that these weapons are likely to be used to entrench occupation, accelerate displacement, and further erode prospects for a viable political resolution.
By proceeding without allowing Congress to complete its review, the Trump Administration has weakened U.S. leverage, undermined democratic accountability, and contributed to long-term regional instability. Far from promoting security, these transfers risk binding American policy ever more tightly to an open-ended conflict that exacts its highest cost from civilians.
If the United States is serious about peace, stability, and the protection of civilian life, it must respect Congressional oversight and, at the very least, condition military assistance on compliance with international law. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility.
