Who voted to send 3.3 billion to isreal
Executive summary
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a State Department/foreign-operations funding bill that includes $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Israel; the measure cleared the House by a bipartisan margin and now moves to the Senate for consideration [1] [2]. That $3.3 billion is the FMF slice of a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding that totals roughly $3.8 billion annually for Israel when missile-defense funding is included [2] [3].
1. What the House actually voted on and the margin it passed by
The recent vote in the House advanced a “minibus” State Department and related programs bill that explicitly preserves $3.3 billion in grants for Israel as part of annual Foreign Military Financing; one outlet reported the package passed the House 341–79, framing the outcome as broadly bipartisan [1], and other reporting likewise describes the House as having passed the State/foreign‑operations funding bill sending the $3.3 billion to the Senate [2]. Those reports indicate the action was a routine appropriations advance — not a new standalone emergency supplemental — and the bill now moves to the other chamber for further action [1] [2].
2. Where the $3.3 billion fits in longer-term U.S.–Israel commitments
The $3.3 billion figure is the Foreign Military Financing piece of a 2016 10‑year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that pledged about $38 billion in U.S. assistance to Israel from FY2019 through FY2028; the remaining approximately $500 million that brings the annual total to $3.8 billion is earmarked for missile‑defense programs funded through defense accounts [2] [3]. Multiple sources describe the appropriations move as a procedural fulfillment of that MOU and part of routine annual budgeting for FMF [4] [3].
3. Who supported the vote and who opposed it, according to reporting
Coverage shows bipartisan congressional support and strong endorsements from pro‑Israel groups: AIPAC praised the passage as reinforcing “bipartisan and ironclad” support [5] [6]. Media accounts point to a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats voting for the bill, with some progressive Democrats—named in reporting as examples like Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Ro Khanna—joining in support [5]. At the same time, reporting and political analysis note intraparty tensions, with some progressives and other critics opposing continued arms flows to Israel amid concerns about civilian harm and changing public opinion [7] [3].
4. What the bill does beyond sending $3.3 billion and the political stakes
Beyond the FMF tranche for Israel, the funding package includes wider State Department, foreign aid, and national security appropriations and contains provisions that condition or restrict aid to Palestinians, tying assistance to State Department certifications about Palestinian security force conduct and other benchmarks [4] [8]. That combination of funding and policy riders has made the minibus politically consequential: proponents argue it honors bilateral commitments and supports Israeli defense capabilities, while opponents warn it embeds controversial conditions and further militarizes U.S. assistance [4] [3].
5. Limits of available reporting and where the vote goes next
Available sources document the House passage and describe the bipartisan nature of the vote and stakeholder reactions, but the reporting assembled here does not provide a complete roll‑call list of every member who voted for or against the specific current minibus [1] [2] [5]. Journalistic accounts uniformly state the bill moves to the Senate, where leaders are expected to consider it in coming weeks and where the ultimate disposition — passage, amendment, or failure — will determine whether the $3.3 billion is enacted as part of this appropriations cycle [1] [2].