Israel and US military merger that no one voted on
Somewhere beneath the marble floors of Washington—where lobbyists breed like sewer rats at a casino buffet and common sense gets mugged in broad daylight—another legislative miracle appears to be waddling toward the finish line.
Forget transparency. Forget debate. Forget that quaint old American hobby known as national sovereignty.
According to former Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, Congress has quietly inserted language into the proposed 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would permanently deepen military integration between the United States and Israel in ways unlike anything we’ve seen before.
If he’s right, this isn’t another routine appropriations fight. It’s a structural redesign of American military policy. And almost nobody is talking about it.
The United States and Israel already cooperate militarily. Nobody disputes that. There are intelligence-sharing agreements. Joint exercises. Weapons programs. Missile defense initiatives.
That’s not the controversy.
Kucinich argues that Section 219 crosses an entirely different line by making that cooperation permanent—embedding it into the operating system of the American national security state itself.
Think of it this way. Dating someone is one thing. Opening a joint checking account, buying matching bathrobes, adopting a Labrador, and tattooing each other’s names across your foreheads after the second date because the chemistry felt magical behind a dumpster?
That’s something else entirely. According to Kucinich, Section 219 moves America from cooperation to integration. His concern isn’t today’s policy. It’s tomorrow’s permanence.
Money comes and goes. Budgets expire. Appropriations evaporate. Institutions? Institutions are forever. They’re the tattoo you got after three tequila shots that you’re still explaining to your grandchildren.
not temporary cooperation—but infrastructure. Once governments build infrastructure, they almost never tear it down.
Part Two continues with Kucinich’s constitutional arguments, his concerns over congressional war powers, why he believes Section 219 represents an unprecedented transfer of sovereign authority, and what citizens can still do before the legislation reaches the House floor.
The Cary Harrison Files airs on KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles and the Pacifica Radio Network. Subscribe here on Substack for the full transcript, extended commentary, and the occasional history lesson that is likely banned in at least 30 states.
Find us at caryharrison.com — and for the love of the Founders, tell a friend.
When I asked him why he was sounding the alarm, he didn’t hesitate.
“This is one of the most serious national security issues that has arisen in the modern history of this country.”
That’s an extraordinary statement coming from someone who served in Congress, ran for president twice, sat through countless defense debates, and has watched Washington manufacture foreign policy for decades.
His central argument is straightforward.
This legislation formally merges some of the most sensitive military functions of two sovereign nations.
He believes that carries enormous constitutional consequences.
Kucinich walked through the bill’s provisions one by one.
His concern is not simply that America and Israel would share information. His concern is that future military planning itself becomes structurally intertwined.
As he described it:
“This proposal unites the air and missile defense of the United States and Israel.”
His warning is that such integration could make the United States appear to adversaries as a co-belligerent in future conflicts initiated by Israel.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with that conclusion, it’s a serious strategic question.
And remarkably...
Congress has held almost no meaningful public discussion about it.
That’s perhaps the most astonishing part. Legislation with implications this profound would ordinarily generate weeks of hearings. Constitutional scholars. Military commanders. Former Secretaries of Defense. Foreign policy experts. Public testimony. National debate.
Instead?
According to Kucinich, Section 219 has largely traveled through Congress attached to the mammoth National Defense Authorization Act with little public attention. That’s like quietly installing a second steering wheel in an airplane while everyone argues about the color of the beverage carts.
I asked Kucinich the obvious question. Why Israel? Why not Britain? Why not France? Why not Switzerland?
He laughed.
“We don’t have the American Swiss Political Action Committee.”
American Swiss Political Action Committee.
Then he became serious. His point wasn’t really about Switzerland. It was about sovereignty. If America permanently integrates core military functions with any foreign nation, he argues, constitutional questions immediately arise. Who ultimately commands? Who decides? Whose strategic interests prevail when they diverge? Those aren’t academic questions. Those are questions nations have fought wars over.
This conversation is taking place as America commemorates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence.
A document, incidentally, devoted to separating ourselves from another government.
Now imagine explaining to Jefferson that, a quarter of a millennium later, Congress might be considering legislation that permanently intertwines portions of the U.S. military with another sovereign state.
History has an odd sense of humor.
So does Washington.
One phrase in the legislation especially troubles Kucinich.
It speaks of eliminating duplication between American and Israeli military functions.
That sounds wonderfully efficient.
Government loves efficiency.
Right up until someone asks exactly which functions stop belonging exclusively to the United States.
Efficiency has a funny habit of becoming dependency.
This conversation inevitably enters emotionally charged territory. Kucinich is deeply critical of Israel’s current government and its conduct in Gaza. He argues that America’s relationship with Israel should be reconsidered in light of those policies.
Others strongly disagree. Reasonable people can and do reach different conclusions. But none of that changes the constitutional question. Regardless of one’s position on Israel...Regardless of one’s position on Gaza...Regardless of one’s position on Middle East policy... Should Congress fundamentally alter the architecture of American military command and strategic planning without a robust national debate? That’s the question.
And it’s a question every American ought to hear before anyone casts a vote.
The full conversation in the video above and wherever you get podcasts. Search: The Cary Harrison Files.
The Cary Harrison Files — KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles/ Pacifica Radio Network. More at caryharrison.com, Instagram: RealCaryHarrison or youtube: @CaryHarrison · Text or message us any time: 310-737-TALK
Available for iOS and Android
Copyright Audiences United, LLC – all rights reserved.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.