Is Congress Committing Treason By Entangling Israel In the U.S. Military?

ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ

The introduction of the new NDAA in Congress makes Israel’s Defense Force entangled permanently with the U.S. military – especially on issues of advanced technology!! 

By Helleniscope’s Editorial Team

“There are constitutional ways for the United States to cooperate with Israel—or with any other nation. They are called treaties.”

That is the distinction former Congressman Dennis Kucinich asks viewers to consider at the outset of this conversation in a must-watch interview with Tucker Carlson (at the bottom of this post). Treaties are negotiated by the President, require the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and are openly debated because they can fundamentally shape America’s relationship with foreign nations.

Kucinich argues that the provisions he discusses in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) do something very different. Rather than establishing a treaty approved through the constitutional process, he contends that Congress is embedding an unprecedented level of military and strategic integration with Israel inside a massive annual defense bill that most Americans—and many lawmakers—will never fully examine.

In Kucinich’s view, this is not simply another defense authorization. He argues it bypasses the constitutional treaty process while creating enduring commitments that could influence future military planning, intelligence cooperation, weapons development, and strategic decision-making. He believes such commitments should never be made without the transparency and constitutional safeguards required for treaties.

Tucker Carlson agrees with that assessment and argues that if Congress is effectively binding the United States to another nation’s strategic interests outside the treaty process, it represents a profound betrayal of its constitutional duty to the American people. Carlson describes the legislation as “an act of treason.” That characterization reflects his political and moral judgment; under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the legal crime of treason has a much narrower definition and has not been applied to legislation such as the NDAA.

Critics further argue that these provisions were inserted into an enormous must-pass defense bill, limiting public scrutiny and meaningful debate over changes they believe could have lasting consequences for American sovereignty. They contend that if the United States is to undertake commitments that could affect when, where, and why its military might be called upon, those commitments should be debated openly and adopted through the constitutional treaty process—not embedded within annual defense legislation.

Supporters of the legislation reject these criticisms. They maintain that the NDAA strengthens cooperation with a longstanding ally while preserving the constitutional authority of Congress and the President over any decision to deploy U.S. forces.

The conversation that follows explores these competing views. At its heart is a fundamental constitutional question: Has Congress simply reinforced an important strategic alliance, or has it crossed a line by creating obligations that belong only in a treaty? Dennis Kucinich and Tucker Carlson believe the answer carries profound implications for American sovereignty, constitutional government, and the future direction of U.S. foreign policy.