The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Senator Bernie Sanders’s effort to block a $20 billion weapons sale to Israel, maintaining long-standing bipartisan support for military aid to its ally. Sanders had introduced two resolutions under the Arms Export Control Act to stop the shipment of precision-guided bombs and tank rounds, citing humanitarian concerns in Gaza where over 43,000 people have reportedly died since the conflict began. He argued that continuing the arms supply makes the U.S. complicit in potential human rights violations.

Despite passionate floor speeches, both resolutions failed by wide margins—71-12 and 73-11—highlighting strong opposition from both parties. Most Democrats and nearly all Republicans argued that halting the sale would weaken Israel during an ongoing war and embolden Hamas. Critics like Senator Rand Paul and Senator Elizabeth Warren supported Sanders, while Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and others defended the aid as essential for regional stability.

Though Congress rarely blocks arms sales, Sanders’s move ignited a broader debate about the U.S.-Israel alliance, accountability, and executive power. Some lawmakers expressed frustration over limited congressional oversight and called for new safeguards, including end-use monitoring of U.S.-supplied weapons. The Biden administration, while backing the sale, has paused some shipments and introduced civilian-harm reduction policies, arguing that precision arms reduce collateral damage.

The debate is far from over. Progressive House members plan to introduce their own resolutions, and future defense bills may face new restrictions or reporting requirements. With rising civilian casualties and growing international pressure, Washington’s once-automatic support for Israeli arms deals is facing deeper scrutiny—and could mark a turning point in how America balances strategic alliances with human rights concerns.