The Trump administration has formally moved to secure congressional approval for a $6.4 billion weapons and support equipment sale to Israel, a deal that arrives amid a dramatic escalation of violence in Gaza and mounting international scrutiny. According to reporting from Reuters, Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal, the package includes 30 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, 3,250 infantry assault vehicles, and an additional $750 million in support parts for armored personnel carriers and power supplies. The proposal, which surfaced on September 19, 2025, comes just days before world leaders are set to convene in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly and a high-level Security Council meeting focused squarely on the Gaza conflict.
As the gears of Washington turn, Israeli forces have expanded their operations in Gaza City, bombarding what they describe as Hamas infrastructure. The timing of the proposed arms deal is striking, dropping into a geopolitical landscape already roiled by the ongoing war in Gaza. The Gaza Health Ministry reports that more than 64,000 people—most of them civilians—have been killed during the conflict, a staggering toll that has fueled calls for an immediate ceasefire and intensified scrutiny of U.S. support for Israel's military campaign.
The details of the proposed sale are eye-popping in both scale and substance. According to sources cited by Bloomberg and Reuters, the $6.4 billion package is broken down into a $3.8 billion deal for 30 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and $1.9 billion for 3,250 infantry assault vehicles. An additional $750 million is earmarked for support parts and power supplies, crucial for maintaining Israel's armored personnel carrier fleet. All of this would be financed through the U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which provides grants or loans to allied countries for the purchase of American-made weapons.
The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee is currently reviewing the proposal. As reported by Reuters, this informal congressional review is a standard part of the arms transfer process. Only after this stage can the White House send a formal notification to lawmakers, opening the door for Israeli officials and U.S. defense contractors to negotiate the final terms. The State Department, for its part, declined to comment on "potential or pending arms transfers before they are formally notified to Congress," but did reiterate in a statement, "Our support for Israel's security is ironclad."
The Trump administration's approach to Israel has been marked by a robust, often unqualified support for its military needs. President Donald Trump has consistently championed Israel's security, a stance that stands in sharp contrast to the growing skepticism among Democrats in Congress. According to The Wall Street Journal, more than half of Senate Democrats recently voted against further arms sales to Israel, reflecting mounting unease over the humanitarian cost of the war in Gaza. On Thursday, a group of U.S. senators introduced a resolution urging recognition of a Palestinian state—the first such measure in the Senate—signaling a clear desire among some lawmakers to recalibrate America's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The proposed arms sale has landed in the midst of a particularly tense diplomatic moment. The annual United Nations General Assembly, set to begin on September 22, 2025, is expected to draw intense focus on the Gaza crisis. A high-level Security Council meeting on Gaza is also scheduled, and the U.S. has already drawn criticism for its decision to veto a Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire. As reported by Bloomberg, the U.S. was the lone dissenting vote, with all other members backing the call for a halt to hostilities.
For many observers, the juxtaposition of the proposed weapons sale and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is jarring. The Gaza Health Ministry's report of more than 64,000 deaths, the majority of them civilians, has become a rallying point for critics of continued U.S. military support for Israel. Displaced Palestinians, according to Reuters, have described being traumatized by the Israeli military's advance, with few means of escape as bombardments intensify. The optics of a major arms transfer at this moment have not gone unnoticed, either in Washington or on the world stage.
Yet, the Trump administration and its supporters argue that robust military support for Israel is both a strategic necessity and a moral imperative. They point to Israel's security challenges, particularly from Hamas and other militant groups operating in Gaza, as justification for ensuring Israel maintains a qualitative military edge. President Trump has repeatedly framed his administration's approach as one of unwavering commitment, a message underscored by the scale of the proposed deal.
Opponents, however, see things very differently. The recent Senate resolution urging recognition of a Palestinian state and the significant opposition among Senate Democrats to further arms sales reflect a broader debate over America's role in the conflict. Critics argue that continued arms transfers, especially of the magnitude now under consideration, risk deepening the humanitarian crisis and undermining prospects for a negotiated settlement. They point to the sheer scale of civilian casualties and the destruction wrought in Gaza as evidence that U.S. policy needs a fundamental rethink.
As the informal congressional review unfolds, the path forward remains uncertain. The process is designed to provide lawmakers with an opportunity to weigh the strategic, ethical, and political implications of such sales before any formal notification is issued. Should Congress approve the deal, Israeli officials and U.S. defense contractors would then hammer out the final details, with deliveries likely stretching over several years.
The White House, meanwhile, has kept largely silent on the specifics of the proposal. Requests for comment from The Wall Street Journal and other outlets went unanswered, a reflection, perhaps, of the political sensitivity surrounding the issue. With the United Nations General Assembly looming and the Gaza war showing no signs of abating, the debate over U.S. arms sales to Israel is certain to remain a flashpoint in both domestic and international arenas.
For now, the world watches as Washington weighs a decision that could shape the course of the Gaza conflict and reverberate far beyond. The stakes, both human and geopolitical, have rarely felt higher.