Senate Rejects Sanders Effort to Halt $20 Billion Weapons Sale to Israel, but the Debate Over U.S. Support Deepens

Washington, D.C. — In a pair of lopsided roll-call votes late Wednesday, the U.S. Senate brushed aside Senator Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) bid to block a massive arms package for Israel, reaffirming—at least for now—Capitol Hill’s long-standing consensus on military aid to America’s closest Middle-East ally. Yet the unexpectedly spirited floor debate laid bare widening divisions in both parties over how to balance that alliance with mounting concerns about humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

What Sanders Tried to Do
Sanders introduced two resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA)—the 1976 law that gives Congress a narrow, fast-track mechanism to stop an arms transfer once the administration formally notifies lawmakers.

The package in question: roughly $20 billion in precision-guided bombs, 120-mm tank rounds, and assorted air-to-ground munitions.
The stakes he cited: Gaza’s Health Ministry says more than 43,000 people have been killed since the war erupted last October, and aid agencies warn that famine looms in the north of the enclave.
“When U.S.-supplied 2,000-pound bombs are flattening crowded refugee camps, we cannot look away,” Sanders argued on the floor. “If we ignore our own laws, we become complicit.”
— Sen. Bernie Sanders, June 26, 2024

Sanders pointed to two statutes in particular:

Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, which bars security aid to forces that commit “gross violations of human rights.”
The Leahy Laws, which prohibit training or equipment for foreign units credibly implicated in abuses.
How the Vote Went Down
First resolution (tank rounds and small-diameter bombs): Defeated 71-12.
Second resolution (2,000-pound and 500-pound JDAM kits): Defeated 73-11.
Breakdown:

Party Yes (to block) No Notable “Yes” Votes
Democrats (including ind.) 10 38 Sanders, Warren, Merkley, Welch, Van Hollen, Ossoff, Fetterman
Republicans 1 49 Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)
Total 11–12 71–73
Most Democrats echoed Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said halting the sale would “embolden Hamas” and undermine cease-fire talks. Republicans were even more united. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called Sanders’s gambit “a moral disgrace” that would “reward terrorism.”

A Rare Rebuke—or Routine Business?
Congress has rarely used its AECA veto power. According to the Congressional Research Service, only a handful of resolutions have ever reached a final vote, and none have passed both chambers. Still, Sanders’s move forced a public reckoning:

Humanitarian law vs. strategic partner: Critics say the Israel Defense Forces’ use of large-yield bombs in dense urban areas violates international norms; supporters counter that Hamas embeds in civilian zones, leaving Israel few alternatives.
Executive vs. legislative oversight: Presidents of both parties typically consult key committees but retain wide latitude. Several senators complained they see major deals only in classified briefings, “with no real chance to modify them,” as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) put it—even as he opposed Sanders’s resolutions.
The Administration’s Position
The Biden administration officially transmitted the sale in early June, urging “expedited” consideration. Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer told PBS that conditioning aid would send “the wrong signal” during delicate hostage-and-cease-fire negotiations mediated by Qatar and Egypt. Privately, State Department officials argue that:

Precision weapons reduce—not increase—collateral damage compared with unguided artillery.
Pausing deliveries could push Israel to rely on older, even less discriminating ordnance.
Nonetheless, the administration has taken some steps to show restraint: it paused one separate shipment of 2,000-pound bombs in April and rolled out a new civilian-harm safeguard policy in May.

Rising Dissent Inside the Democratic Caucus
Although only a dozen Democrats voted with Sanders, several more signaled discomfort. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who supported one of the two disapproval resolutions, is drafting bipartisan language to mandate end-use monitoring—verifying how U.S. bombs are actually employed. Meanwhile, House progressives led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) say they will introduce their own resolutions if the administration notifies Congress of additional packages.

“Tonight’s vote doesn’t end our responsibility,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who backed both measures. “We will continue pressing for real accounting of every bomb dropped with a ‘Made in U.S.A.’ stamp.”

What Happens Next?
Delivery Timeline: The Pentagon says the munitions will be shipped in tranches over the next 18-24 months, meaning a future Congress—or president—could still intervene.
Aid vs. Appropriations: The Senate may soon debate the annual defense bill, where critics can offer amendments to restrict funds or add reporting requirements.
International Pressure: The International Court of Justice has demanded Israel curb civilian deaths; a separate South African case accuses Israel of genocidal intent—allegations Israel vehemently denies.
For now, Israel’s arsenal will be replenished, but the political landscape in Washington is shifting. As the civilian toll climbs and photos of Gaza’s devastation circulate, the once-unquestioned bipartisan reflex to “green-light” arms sales is facing scrutiny unseen since the 1980s Lebanon conflict.

Whether that scrutiny translates into concrete limits—or remains largely symbolic—will depend on how the Gaza war unfolds, and whether lawmakers like Sanders can convince colleagues that upholding human-rights statutes is not at odds with supporting an ally.