Who are the key U.S. Congressional committees involved in shaping Israel defense policy?

1. Congressional power in practice: who gets reports and referrals

When Congress or the executive branch writes law or provides formal notifications about U.S. defense cooperation with Israel, the text routinely sends materials to the defense and foreign‑affairs committees. For example, both the Senate and House versions of the United States‑Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025 require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee on program implementation; the Senate bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House bill to the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees for their jurisdictional review ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Congressional Research Service (CRS) summaries of 119th Congress activity similarly highlight those committees as central players in authorizations and oversight ^[3].

2. The Foreign Relations / Foreign Affairs committees: gatekeepers of arms‑sale review

CRS and bill texts show that formal arms‑sale notifications and related pre‑notifications are routinely handled through the foreign‑relations/foreign‑affairs pathway—Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs leaders are often notified in pre‑notification practice, and resolutions to disapprove arms sales frequently center in those committees and their floor procedures ^[3]. CRS notes the longstanding informal norm of administratively notifying those leaders prior to formal notification, although that norm is not codified in statute ^[3].

3. Armed Services committees: statutory oversight and program implementation

The Armed Services Committees on both chambers receive explicit statutory reporting responsibilities tied to defense cooperation provisions. The United States‑Israel Defense Partnership Act mandates annual DoD reports to both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees about counter‑UAS and other cooperative programs; the National Defense Authorization Act (and related provisions) also directs briefings and reports to “relevant committees” on intelligence support, missile defense, and other operational assistance ^{[1] [7]}. CRS reporting repeatedly cites the Armed Services Committees when describing where DoD obligations and program updates must be delivered ^[3].

4. Appropriations committees and “appropriate congressional committees” language

When funds are appropriated or FMF (Foreign Military Financing) is provided, statute and appropriations text frequently require notifications to “appropriate congressional committees” or specify periodic reports to committees tied to funding lines (for example, Israel supplemental appropriations statutes and the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act language) ^[5]. CRS and other legislative digests flag that appropriation actions (including supplemental packages) involve both defense and foreign‑affairs oversight paths and that spending plans and obligation authorities trigger committee briefings and reporting obligations ^{[8] [9]}.

5. How committees interact: overlapping jurisdiction and practical politics

The sources show overlapping jurisdiction — the Foreign Relations/Foreign Affairs committees handle diplomatic and arms‑export notification processes, the Armed Services committees handle DoD program implementation and military assistance execution, and appropriations committees control money. CRS commentary and bill referrals illustrate that bills such as H.R.1229 and S.554 are routinely referred to multiple committees so each can review provisions within its purview; that overlap creates opportunities for coordination but also for procedural friction, holds, or informal pre‑notification bargaining ^{[2] [3] [6]}.

6. Disagreements, norms and limits found in reporting

CRS emphasizes that some practices—like administration pre‑notification of committee leaders—are norms rather than legal requirements, meaning administrations can and have diverged from them, producing tensions on the Hill ^[3]. The CRS reports also document Senate motions and efforts to discharge committees from further consideration of arms‑sale disapproval resolutions, underscoring political contention over committee control and floor access ^[3].

7. What the sources do not cover

Available sources do not mention detailed roles for specific Senate/House appropriations subcommittees, intelligence committees’ routine classified reviews of operational support to Israel, or exact staff‑level coordination mechanisms between committees; they also do not map each committee member’s stated positions or provide an exhaustive list of all congressional actors who have influenced policy since October 2023 (not found in current reporting) ^{[3] [5]}.

Bottom line: statutory texts and CRS reporting point clearly to four institutional pillars in shaping U.S. defense policy toward Israel—Senate and House Armed Services Committees and Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees—with appropriations and notification routes involving appropriations committees and “appropriate congressional committees” language that broadens practical oversight and political influence ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}.