Conditioning Aid Is Not Radical, Unconditional Support Is

By Robert McDonald, Senior Legislative Researcher, A New Policy

Congress often claims that U.S. military aid advances stability, protects human rights, and can lead to a just and lasting peace. In Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, those claims are backed by U.S. taxpayer dollars shielded from meaningful oversight and members comfortably insulated from inconvenient truths. Under scrutiny, however, those claims collapse. H.R. 7545, the Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Families Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act, introduced by Representative Betty McCollum (MN-4), brings those inconvenient truths to the surface and places a question before Congress it has long avoided: Should American tax dollars be used to support the detention, abuse, displacement, and dispossession of Palestinian children and families?

The bill answers clearly: no.

What H.R. 7545 Actually Does

H.R. 7545 prohibits U.S. assistance to the Government of Israel from being used to support:

• The military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill treatment of Palestinian children.

• The seizure, appropriation, or destruction of Palestinian property in the occupied West Bank.

• Activities facilitating unilateral annexation of Palestinian territory.

Beyond these prohibitions, the bill also establishes the following accountability mechanisms:

• Annual Certification: The Secretary of State must certify that U.S. funds were not used for any of the prohibited purposes. If they were, the Secretary must report in detail the amount spent and the activities supported.

• Expanded Reporting: Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act would require reporting on detention practices, property destruction, and settlement expansion.

• GAO Oversight: The Government Accountability (GAO) Office must examine how Offshore Procurement (OSP) funding has been used and whether it has directly or indirectly supported illegal settlement activity.

H.R. 7545 is not an aid cut. It is not an embargo. It does not dismantle the U.S. -Israel relationship. It is a transparency and accountability mechanism tied to compliance with existing U.S. and international humanitarian law. It applies the same minimum standard of human rights compliance that the United States already requires of other recipients of American security assistance. 

The Reality the Bill Addresses

For decades, Israel's military occupation of the West Bank has operated under a dual legal system: Israeli civilian law for settlers, and Israeli military law for Palestinians. Every year, hundreds of Palestinian minors are prosecuted in military courts. Reports from Israeli, Palestinian, and international human rights organizations have documented:

• Nighttime arrests.

• Denial of access to legal counsel.

• Coercive interrogations.

• Administrative detention without charge.

• Solitary confinement.

• Psychological abuse. 

At the same time, home demolitions and settlement expansion continue in Area C of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, displacing Palestinian families and entrenching annexationist policies from the Israeli government. These actions are not only morally indefensible. They are violations of international humanitarian law and directly undermine any viable path toward peace.

H.R. 7545 does not create new legal standards for Israel. It simply requires the United States government to apply the same laws it applies to all other allied or strategically aligned countries.

Israel should not be exempt from the rules the United States claims to defend.

The Offshore Procurement Blind Spot

One of the most overlooked elements of this bill involves OSP. Unlike other recipients of U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF), Israel has long been permitted to spend a portion of U.S. grant assistance within its own defense industrial base. This arrangement has contributed to Israel becoming a top-ten global arms exporter and has complicated enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act. H.R. 7545 directs the GAO to investigate and assess whether OSP funding has contributed to Israel's defense export capacity, whether it has created competition with U.S. defense manufacturers, and whether it has directly or indirectly supported illegal settlement activity. These are questions Congress has never required clear answers to.

Tracing how U.S. military assistance is ultimately used has been a longstanding challenge. Congress attempted to address “untraceable assistance” in prior appropriations cycles and failed. H.R. 7545 does something radical in Washington…. It asks for receipts.

The Legal Argument Is Already Clear

The bill’s findings explicitly state that actions involving detention of Palestinian children, destruction of property, and annexation are contrary to American values and undermine efforts toward a just and lasting peace. This aligns with:

• The Foreign Assistance Act.

• The Arms Export Control Act.

• Longstanding U.S. opposition to unilateral annexation.

• Established prohibitions on supporting gross violations of human rights.

Opposition to this bill is not grounded in legal objection. Its requirements align with frameworks the United States already applies globally. It is grounded in the political norm of treating U.S. assistance to Israel as exempt from the oversight applied to every other recipient.

American Values & Interests

The torture or abuse of children in military detention contradicts the most basic American principles. If U.S. taxpayers would recoil at funding the abuse of children anywhere else in the world, there is no coherent moral framework that allows an exception here. Conditioning aid on compliance with law is not anti-Israel, it is pro-accountability, and accountability is foundational to American democracy.

Unconditional military assistance amid ongoing human rights violations damages U.S. credibility globally. If the United States turns a blind eye to Israel’s actions, it cannot credibly condemn Russia’s annexation of territory, criticize China’s repression of minorities, or claim leadership on international law. Selective enforcement erodes the rules-based order the U.S. claims to defend. Furthermore, continued support for settlement expansion and annexation destabilizes regional relationships with Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf partners, and fuels anti-American sentiment across the Middle East. 

Conditioning aid strengthens U.S. leverage while unconditional aid eliminates it.

The Political Reality

This is not the first time Representative McCollum has introduced similar legislation. What is different now is not the law, it has always been clear. What is different is the political will. Public opinion has shifted, and the political cost of silence is rising. Members of Congress are increasingly unwilling to defend policies that enable indefinite occupation and child detention without consequences.

For decades, Congress has appropriated this assistance with minimal scrutiny over how that funding intersects with occupation, detention, and displacement. This bill says that if U.S. funds are being used to support violations of international humanitarian law, Congress should know, and act.

H.R. 7545 introduces oversight:

It demands transparency.

It limits complicity. 

That is not radical.

It is the bare minimum of responsible governance.