June, 24 2026, 12:31pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
CAIR National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell, 404-285-9530, e-Mitchell@cair.com
CAIR Letter Urges House to Strike U.S.-Israel Military Merger and Anti-Boycott Amendment from NDAA
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed Amendment #2 to the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), submitted by Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
The bipartisan amendment would strike Section 219, formerly Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” which would expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, research partnerships, intelligence coordination, and military-industrial integration.
CLICK HERE: READ CAIR’S LETTER
CAIR also called on the House Rules Committee to reject Amendment 151, which would expand federal anti-boycott restrictions to boycotts promoted by international governmental organizations (IGOs), including bodies such as the United Nations, and Amendment 362, which would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that Department of Defense contractors do not participate in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel. Both amendments raise serious concerns about free speech and First Amendment protections.
Earlier today, CAIR submitted a letter to the House Rules Committee urging members to support Amendment 2 and oppose Amendments 151 and 362. Next week, the committee will consider all amendments to the House’s version of the NDAA. CAIR is urging every American to take action by sending a message to members of Congress to strike Section 219 to stop American military merger with the Israeli government.
TAKE ACTION NOW! – TELL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BLOCK ALL U.S.-ISRAEL MILITARY MERGER BILLS
In a statement, CAIR Government Affairs Department Director Robert McCaw said:
“Americans should never be asked to surrender their First Amendment rights to protect the political interests of a foreign government. Amendment 151 would further expand anti-boycott laws that chill peaceful political expression, while Amendment 362 would impose an ideological litmus test on federal contractors based on their participation in a constitutionally protected form of political advocacy.
“Congress was right to reject this anti-boycott proposal in committee last week, and it should reject this latest attempt to revive the same policy through the NDAA amendment process.
“At the same time, Section 219 would take the extraordinary step of further binding the United States and Israel through deeper military, intelligence, technological, and defense-industrial integration at a moment when the Israeli government stands accused of genocide, apartheid, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As disturbing reports continue to emerge of torture, abuse, and sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, Congress should not be creating new mechanisms for military and technological integration that risk further implicating the United States in these abuses rather than helping bring them to an end.
“We urge every member of the House Rules Committee to reject Amendments 151 and 362, make Amendment 2 in order, and send a clear message that the constitutional rights of the American people, the principles of accountability, and the interests of our nation come before the demands of any foreign government.”
The proposed expansion of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation comes at a time when the Israeli government faces allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, and genocide, as well as documented reports of abuse and sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, including children. Deepening military, intelligence, and technology integration under these circumstances risks further entangling the United States in actions that much of the international community has condemned and undermines efforts to secure accountability for violations of international law.
CAIR noted that last week, Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY), who is sponsoring the IGO Anti-Boycott Act provision, was forced to withdraw the amendment before consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee following outreach from CAIRand other civil liberties advocates.
That earlier proposal sought to revive the controversial IGO Anti-Boycott Act by extending federal anti-boycott restrictions to boycotts associated with international governmental organizations such as the United Nations. For the past two years, CAIR has warned members of Congress that the measure threatened constitutionally protected political speech and advocacy and welcomed its withdrawal before last week’s markup.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a grassroots civil rights and advocacy group. CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
(202) 488-8787LATEST NEWS
'Totally Crazy': Trump Holds Bipartisan Housing Bill Hostage to Push Evisceration of Voting Rights
"Trump just threw a tantrum," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
Jun 24, 2026
Congress this week passed a bipartisan bill "to build more housing, lower costs, and stop private equity's housing grab," as US Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted after the final vote, but President Donald Trump on Wednesday scrapped his plans to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act over a stalled GOP attack on voting rights.
Trump initially took a swipe at Warren (D-Mass.) on his Truth Social platform Wednesday morning, writing that "the Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren centric housing bill, which is of minor importance compared to lower interest rates, and even FISA, pales in comparison to passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about."
"Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF," Trump continued. "The Dumocrats will do it in hour one, 100%. Republicans will feel very stupid if they don’t do it first. I'll be watching with tears in my eyes!!!"
Less than an hour later, he added, "Today's Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
Trump and other backers of the anti-voter bill argue it is needed to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting in US elections—which is already illegal, and research shows is remarkably rare. Critics warn that the legislation would disenfranchise eligible voters who lack access to proof-of-citizenship documents.
While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) responded by stressing that he and other Republicans in the House of Representatives support the SAVE America Act, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the canceled ceremony was Trump's "call to make" but expressed hope that he'll "find his way to sign" the housing bill, other lawmakers—including Warren—and supporters of the legislation took aim at the president over his move.
"Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum," Warren wrote on social media. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections. Nope—I'll keep fighting to lower housing costs."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told journalists that "Trump is running away from one of the very few accomplishments that could actually help the American people," and urged the president not to veto the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
Approved by the Senate in an 85-5 vote on Monday and the House in a 358-32 vote on Tuesday, the bill contains dozens of provisions to promote the rebuilding of older homes and development of vacant buildings, encourage local governments to build more housing, streamline regulations for construction, ban corporate investors from buying single-family homes to rent out, and more.
Stressing that the bill passed "overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way," and would "save American families a lot of money when it comes to housing," Sen. Andy Kim (D-Calif.) said that "I honestly can't believe that the president is holding this hostage."
"I hope the American people see this for what it is, which is that he doesn't care at all about the high cost of living that a lot of Americans are struggling with," Kim declared. "He doesn't care about the housing crisis. He is just continuing to push forward on his extreme agenda."
In the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) replied to the president: "The housing crisis is a national emergency. Do something to make life more affordable for hardworking American taxpayers. Sign the bill."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pointed to Trump's campaign pledges, writing: "The president who promised lower costs on Day 1 is refusing to sign the largest housing affordability bill in a generation. It's a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to afford a place to live. My Republican colleagues need to find some courage and stand up to this mad king."
In a video, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) warned the public that Trump "is taking away your housing for his personal projects that can never pass and are unconstitutional."
Longtime human rights advocate Kenneth Roth, who's now a visiting professor at Princeton University, similarly summarized: "Trump to America: I [couldn't] care less about affordable housing. So I won't sign a bill to advance it unless Congress endorses my autocratic efforts to restrict the right to vote."
Although Trump has not decisively said whether he will formally block the bill, Roth wondered, "Will the Republicans have the backbone to override his veto?"
Either way, The New York Times noted that "Trump's decision threatened to deprive Republicans, in particular, of an opportunity to showcase a legislative success in a year with very few of them—one that spoke directly to voters' economic concerns."
In a Wednesday statement, Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, looked to the midterm elections, in which Democrats aim to retake majorities in both chambers of Congress.
"Donald Trump has been clear: The SAVE Act is his #1 legislative priority—not lowering costs for working people, creating good-paying jobs, or helping families afford a roof over their heads," said Edkins. "Today, he decided it was more important to help Republicans avoid accountability for the cost-of-living crisis than actually do something about it."
"Trump was born on third base, and it shows. He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to make rent, save for a down payment, pay a mortgage, or worry that your kids will be able to afford a home of their own," he added. "Trump could've signed bipartisan legislation today to help lower housing costs and give Republicans something—anything—to show voters that they deserve reelection this November. Instead, he told working families to screw themselves. It's selfish, petty, and self-defeating."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Warnings of Atrocities in Sudan, Van Hollen Says Senate 'Missed Opportunity' to Cut Off Arms to UAE
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan," the senator said. "We should actually be using our leverage."
Jun 24, 2026
After the US State Department warned earlier this week of imminent “atrocities” by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday criticized the US Senate for missing a recent opportunity to cut off weapons to the United Arab Emirates, which has supplied the genocidal paramilitary group.
On Monday, the State Department warned that RSF forces were massing near the city of El-Obeid and could commit “mass atrocities” against civilians if allowed to take the city.
"The belligerents must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and ensure that those seeking safety can do so without fear or obstruction," the department said.
The statement echoed concerns expressed last week by a coalition of states at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said that roughly 500,000 civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people, could be at risk of violence if RSF escalated its assault.
UN human rights experts have said RSF's October offensive in Darfur bore the "hallmarks of genocide," with more than 6,000 people killed and numerous civilians tortured, raped, and starved during a three-day rampage across the city of El-Fasher.
But while Trump's State Department has sanctioned some entities accused of supplying fighters for the RSF, the Monday statement made no mention of the UAE, which rights groups point out is the group’s principal foreign backer.
A report issued last year by Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) found that the UAE was continuing to provide weapons to the RSF despite telling the US that it was not.
Following previous failed attempts at pushing Congress to impose an arms embargo on Sudan through standalone legislation, Van Hollen attempted to do so again last week by tacking a pair of amendments onto the bipartisan PEACE in Sudan Act, which requires the State Department to assess designating armed Sudanese groups as terrorists and allows Trump to impose optional sanctions on foreign actors funding the war, but stopped short of introducing any hard leverage.
At a markup session for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Van Hollen introduced an amendment banning the US from selling or transferring military equipment to the UAE as long as it continues supporting the RSF. The amendment failed in a 15-7 vote, with four Democrats—Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Jacky Rosen (Nev.)—joining every Republican on the committee, aside from Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), in opposition.
A second amendment, which did not single out the UAE specifically but restricted arms sales to any country arming either side of the conflict, also failed 13-9, but received support from Shaheen and Rosen.
Coons said he'd have "enthusiastically" supported the amendment, but voted no because he believed it would "bring down" the broader Sudan bill in a GOP-controlled Senate. Duckworth did not explain her reasoning for voting no.
In light of the State Department's warning this week about RSF's march toward El-Obeid, Van Hollen told a Drop Site News reporter on Tuesday that he believed the no vote on his amendments "was a missed opportunity."
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan. We should actually be using our leverage," he said.
Noting that Trump likely would not support a restriction on arms to the UAE given his extensive financial entanglements with the Emiratis and his previous policy of fast-tracking weapons to the country without any strings attached, Van Hollen said his goal was simply to "keep the pressure on."
He said, "We need to keep showing the hypocrisy of the Trump administration policy, where they claim they want to do something but refuse to take some of the basic actions we can take as a country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Applause as Judge Halts 'Blatantly Illegal and Cruel' ICE Courthouse Arrest Policy Nationwide
"The courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE," said one attorney.
Jun 24, 2026
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a nationwide halt to a Trump administration policy expanding immigration enforcement officials' authority to arrest non-citizens at US immigration courthouses.
US District Judge P. Casey Pitts, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that the courthouse arrests carried out by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated the Administrative Procedures Act's requirement for "reasoned decision making" in federal agencies' policy decisions.
After reviewing the evidence, Pitts found that the government "failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions," which he thus deemed "arbitrary and capricious."
"The expansion of arrests at immigration courthouses results not from merely unreasoned decision making," Pitts emphasized, "but a complete lack of decision making."
The Trump administration last year rescinded previous policies that had restricted ICE agents' ability to make arrests at courts, and allowed agents to keep noncitizens detained for up to 72 hours.
In prior years, noted Pitts, courthouse arrests "would be undertaken only against noncitizens whom ICE had a heightened interest in detaining immediately because, for example, they were ‘suspected of terrorism or espionage,’ had been convicted of crimes, ‘participated in organized criminal gangs,’ or ‘otherwise pose[d] a serious risk to public safety.'"
Pitts' ruling, which the Trump administration is expected to challenge, restores those previous restrictions on courthouse arrests.
Jordan Wells, senior staff attorney at the Bay Area chapter of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, told The San Francisco Chronicle that Pitts' ruling restored the notion that "the courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE."
“No one, including immigrants, should be forced to choose between their liberty and their day in court," added Wells, whose organization is co-representing a group of asylum seekers who had filed a complaint to overturn the ICE courthouse arrest policy.
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) hailed Pitts' ruling as "excellent news."
"Immigrants who show up to court—'the right way'—have been targeted by this administration," Escobar wrote in a social media post. "So glad to see this blatantly illegal and cruel policy struck down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular