By: Fern Sidman

The White House has issued a sharp warning against efforts by Sen. Bernie Sanders to block American weapons transfers to Israel, emphasizing President Donald Trump’s commitment to a security partnership that his administration regards as indispensable to regional stability.

According to a statement of administration policy obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, President Trump is prepared to veto two joint resolutions—S.J. Res. 34 and S.J. Res. 41—introduced by Sanders. The measures seek to block sales of munitions and small arms to Israel, a move that the administration argues would weaken an ally facing existential threats from both state and non-state actors in the Middle East.

“The Administration strongly opposes passage of S.J. Res. 34 and S.J. Res. 41,” the statement read, as cited by The Daily Caller. “If S.J. Res. 34 or S.J. Res. 41 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the joint resolutions.”

Sen. Sanders, an independent from Vermont and one of Congress’ most outspoken critics of Israeli policy, is pressing for votes on the resolutions before the Senate adjourns for its August recess. His proposal comes against the backdrop of intensifying scrutiny of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, where humanitarian groups have alleged widespread suffering.

“The time is long overdue for Congress to use the leverage we have — tens of billions in arms and military aid — to demand that Israel end these atrocities,” Sanders said in remarks reported by The Daily Caller. He has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of presiding over a policy of collective punishment in Gaza, while denouncing U.S. complicity in supporting Israel’s military actions.

For the White House, however, Sanders’ resolutions represent what officials describe as an attempt to undermine America’s most reliable regional ally. Administration officials insist that the arms transfers will enhance Israel’s deterrence capacity, strengthen bilateral defense cooperation, and reinforce broader U.S. national security goals.

As The Daily Caller report observed, Sanders’ legislative challenge is the latest in a series of attempts by lawmakers to restrict U.S. arms sales to Israel. Historically, however, such measures have struggled to gain traction.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s sale of AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia faced fierce opposition in Congress but highlighted the broader tension surrounding U.S. arms transfers in the Middle East. With Israel, by contrast, bipartisan support for weapons deliveries has been far more resilient. Even during moments of controversy—such as the 2014 Gaza war, when lawmakers debated restrictions on precision-guided munitions—Congress has overwhelmingly sided with continuing military assistance.

More recently, in 2019, both chambers of Congress passed resolutions aimed at blocking arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over the Yemen war. President Trump vetoed those measures, a precedent that underscores the unlikelihood that Sanders’ resolutions would succeed even if they were to clear the Senate.

The effort has nonetheless exposed widening divisions among Senate Democrats. While Republicans remain staunchly aligned with Israel, Democrats face mounting internal pressures as a progressive wing increasingly challenges traditional support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.

As reported by The Daily Caller, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, has urged an end to military aid to Israel altogether, citing concerns of mass starvation in Gaza. Similarly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan has signaled willingness to block offensive weapons sales while leaving open support for defensive systems.

“That certainly, to me, would be a place to look,” Slotkin said on the “Breaking Points” podcast, in comments highlighted by The Daily Caller. “But I’m not going to cut off a blanket next sale on a defensive weapon that comes through, no.”

For many Democratic lawmakers, the challenge lies in balancing humanitarian concerns with the geopolitical realities of the Middle East. Yet as Sanders presses his case, the party’s internal debate is expected to intensify, raising questions about how future administrations—particularly a Democratic-led one—might approach arms sales to Israel.

The debate over these resolutions cannot be divorced from the broader U.S. confrontation with Iran. Earlier this year, Israel launched strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, actions widely supported by Senate Republicans and quietly welcomed by the Trump administration. The sales of munitions and small arms, administration officials argue, are part of a larger strategy to ensure Israel’s capacity to respond swiftly to Iranian provocations.

As The Daily Caller report emphasized, the Trump administration views Israel’s military strength as a key pillar of American deterrence against Tehran. Blocking weapons sales, White House officials warn, would send a signal of weakness to adversaries across the Middle East and could embolden Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

The administration’s veto threat thus extends beyond the immediate issue of weapons sales—it reflects a broader doctrine tying U.S. strategic interests to Israel’s security. By ensuring that Israel maintains qualitative military superiority, Washington aims to project strength in a region where both Russia and China are vying for influence.

Given the firm opposition from Senate Republicans and the White House’s clear veto threat, Sanders’ resolutions are widely seen as symbolic. Their primary effect will likely be to spotlight internal Democratic divisions and test the durability of U.S. support for Israel at a time of rising international criticism.

As The Daily Caller report noted, for President Trump, the arms sales are part of a broader political and strategic narrative: presenting himself as Israel’s most steadfast American ally while portraying his opponents as jeopardizing U.S. security interests. The administration’s response illustrates this dynamic, framing Sanders’ resolutions as not only a legislative challenge but also as a symbolic departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on Israel.

In the coming weeks, the Senate’s deliberations will reveal the extent of Democratic dissent and signal how Israel policy might evolve in future administrations. Yet the immediate outcome appears clear: the Trump White House will not permit congressional interference to derail weapons transfers it regards as essential to both Israel’s survival and America’s strategic posture in the Middle East.