All Roads Lead to Israel

About the Site Author

As a concerned American citizen and retiree, I write from my own perspective. Over the years, I have watched Washington change and, in my view, not for the better. My work on this site, and on many others that I have since closed, has focused on researching changes in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, the erosion of our electoral system following Citizens United, and what I believe to be Israeli interference in, and an increasing anti-American influence over, the White House and Congress—an influence that, in my opinion, has undermined both the interests of American citizens and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Based on my personal research, I currently hold the opinion that Israel has, for all intents and purposes, gained extraordinary influence over President Trump and Congress. I also believe that Israeli intelligence activities, advocacy organizations, and media influence American public opinion and elections through multiple channels, including news media, entertainment, and popular culture.

Influence through media is not a new phenomenon.
During periods of war, governments and interested parties have historically used films, television, news coverage, and patriotic messaging to shape public opinion.

However, in the past year and a half, I have observed what I believe is a noticeable increase in pro-Israel themes and messaging across movies, television, news media, advertising, and other forms of entertainment.

My central concern is straightforward: that a foreign country’s influence over the United States—specifically Israel—has reached a level that deserves far greater public scrutiny and greater political accountability from members of Congress. Throughout this website, I distinguish carefully between documented facts, reasonable inferences, and my personal conclusions.

About this Research

My writing and research methods have evolved considerably over time. During the past eight months, artificial intelligence has become an important research tool for my research. At the same time, I have learned that AI can produce inaccurate information with great confidence. As a result, I spend a substantial amount of time verifying AI-generated material against primary sources and independent documentation.

I now subject every AI-assisted report to a forensic audit before publication, multiple times in fact. I also conduct my own independent verification of selected facts to test the accuracy of the research. My objective is not simply to assemble facts, but to understand whether documented patterns of behavior support the conclusions I ultimately draw. Whether readers agree with those conclusions is their decision; my responsibility is to make the evidence and my methodology as transparent as possible.

Intro to FDD

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit research institute founded shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. FDD describes itself as a nonpartisan national-security and foreign-policy organization focused on issues including Iran, Israel, terrorism, cybersecurity, defense technology, China, sanctions, and great-power competition. It states that it regularly provides research and policy recommendations to Congress, executive branch officials, and multiple presidential administrations, and that it does not accept donations from foreign governments. Its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. (FDD⁠)

Unlike a traditional academic think tank that primarily publishes research, FDD operates within the policy-development ecosystem surrounding Congress and the executive branch. Through its affiliated advocacy organization, FDD Action, it publicly states that it provides congressional offices with legislative drafting assistance, policy analysis, private briefings, amendment support, and consultations on national-security legislation.

Financially, FDD is supported overwhelmingly through private charitable contributions. According to its most recent publicly available IRS Form 990, approximately 98% of its revenue came from contributions and grants rather than government funding or commercial activities. Like many U.S. nonprofit organizations, FDD is not generally required to publicly disclose the identities of its private donors on its IRS Form 990, although its financial statements, revenues, expenditures, and executive compensation are publicly reported. (ProPublica⁠)

For purposes of this report, FDD is significant not because of its existence as a think tank, but because the documentary record shows that it has spent years developing policy proposals concerning U.S.–Israel defense and technology cooperation. Those proposals, its publicly stated legislative support activities, and its documented interactions with Congress form an important part of the evidentiary record examined in this investigation.

Intro to FDD Action

FDD Action is the advocacy affiliate of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Established in 2019, it is organized as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, a legal structure that allows it to engage directly in public policy advocacy and lobbying. Unlike FDD, which operates as a research institute, FDD Action works directly with Congress and executive branch officials to advance national security legislation and policy initiatives. (FDD Action⁠)

According to its own public descriptions, FDD Action provides congressional offices and policymakers with legislative drafting assistance, amendment drafting, policy analysis, private briefings, consultations, and staff training, all at no cost to the requesting office. It also publicly endorses legislation consistent with its policy objectives and files federal lobbying disclosures identifying the legislation and policy areas on which it advocates. (FDD Action⁠)

FDD and FDD Action perform complementary but legally distinct functions. FDD develops research, policy analysis, and strategic recommendations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. FDD Action works to translate many of those policy recommendations into legislation and executive branch action through direct engagement with Congress and federal policymakers as a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization. Both organizations state that they do not accept contributions from foreign governments.

FDD develops policy ideas. FDD Action advocates for their implementation.

FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Ride along:

H.R. 7540 (House):
* Sponsor: Ronny Jackson
* One official cosponsor: Don Davis

S. 3855 (Senate):

• Sponsor: Ted Budd
• One official cosponsor: Kirsten Gillibrand (per Congress.gov bill record).

FDD Action openly advertises that it helps write legislation.

• legislative drafting assistance,
• amendment drafting,
• private congressional briefings,
• policy analysis,
• training for congressional staff,
• direct support to committee staff,
• assistance to executive branch officials.

____________________

The U.S.-Israel FUTURES Act
Legislative Provenance, Policy Lineage, and Influence Network

THE FUTURES ACT

Legislative Provenance, Policy Lineage, and Influence Network

Final Investigative Product Based on Audited and Frozen Evidence

Prepared as a living evidentiary record. Documentary conflicts are retained in red rather than silently harmonized.

Executive Assessment

The strongest documented connection is the Jackson-FDD policy lineage. FDD researcher Bradley Bowman states that he conceived the U.S.-Israel Operations-Technology Working Group (OTWG) in 2019 and spent roughly two years promoting it. FDD Action disclosed lobbying on that mechanism in 2020. Congress authorized the OTWG in the FY2021 NDAA. Ronny Jackson then advanced a related U.S.-Israel emerging-technology amendment in 2024, and the 2026 FUTURES Act explicitly directs coordination with the OTWG while expanding the architecture into procurement, integration, licensing, joint ventures, co-production, manufacturing, and dedicated funding. [S1] [S2] [S3] [S4] [S5]

The Trump connection is substantial as policy environment and political alignment, but not as proven operational coordination. Jackson is a Trump-aligned legislator, and FDD publicly endorsed important elements of the Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy, including its treatment of Israel as a model ally. The public evidence reviewed does not establish that Trump, Jackson, and FDD jointly planned or drafted the FUTURES Act. [S6] [S7]

The most probative outside-influence evidence is issue-specific lobbying and policy production. AIPAC disclosed lobbying the House, Senate, and Department of Defense on H.R. 7540/S. 3855 during the first quarter of 2026. FDD Action publicly advertises legislative drafting assistance, private briefings, and policy support, and publicly supported the bill on the day of introduction. These facts establish capability, access, and advocacy; they do not establish bill authorship. [S8] [S9] [S10]

The legislative strategy is institutionally significant. The standalone House and Senate bills were introduced on February 12, 2026, but the policy architecture also moved into both armed-services committee NDAA vehicles: Section 224 in the House chairman’s mark and Section 1217 in the Senate committee filing. The House floor rule for H.R. 8800 failed 198-224 on June 30, delaying consideration; this did not delete the provision from the committee product. [S11] [S12] [S13] [S14] [S15]

Key Findings at a Glance

1. Method and Evidentiary Controls

This report uses only propositions that survived a claim-level audit or are clearly labeled as patterns, conflicts, negative findings, or open leads. Related advocacy organizations do not corroborate one another. A primary document may directly verify what that document says, but it does not automatically verify a broader inference.

• Tier 1 – Frozen evidence: primary legislative text, official committee records, federal disclosures, or direct attributable statements that survived audit.
• Tier 2 – Corroborated pattern: multiple verified facts that form a material pattern, without claiming unproven causation or authorship.
• Tier 3 – Open investigative lead: a bounded, evidence-based question requiring records not presently public.
• Conflict register: contradictory documentary claims preserved in red, with the controlling formal source identified where possible.
• Negative findings: important avenues searched where no supporting public evidence was located.

Scope limitation. This is a public-record investigation. It cannot test private communications, classified briefings, unpublished legislative drafts, or records withheld from disclosure.

2. Reconstructed Chronology

3. Tier 1 – Frozen Evidence

3.1 The bill and its formal sponsors

• H.R. 7540 was introduced February 12, 2026 by Ronny Jackson, with Don Davis named in the introduction clause. S. 3855 was introduced the same day by Ted Budd for himself and Kirsten Gillibrand. [S11] [S12]
• The standalone act establishes a United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. [S11]
• The bill includes identification and potential integration of jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies into U.S. systems and programs of record. [S11]
• It includes joint ventures, licensing agreements, U.S.-based co-production, and manufacturing partnerships with Israeli industry. [S11]
• It authorizes $150 million for each of fiscal years 2027, 2028, and 2029. [S11]

3.2 The predecessor mechanism

• Bowman directly stated that he conceived the OTWG idea in 2019 and promoted it for roughly two years. [S1]
• FDD Action’s federal lobbying disclosure records work on OTWG-related FY2021 NDAA issues. [S2]
• The FUTURES Act itself requires coordination with the OTWG, creating a direct institutional bridge between the predecessor and the new initiative. [S5] [S11]

3.3 Jackson’s legislative continuity

• Jackson’s 2024 amendment authorizing U.S.-Israel cooperation on emerging technology capabilities was agreed to by voice vote. [S3]
• The 2026 bill broadens the model from cooperation on emerging technology into integration, acquisition pathways, industrial cooperation, and dedicated funding. [S11]

3.4 FDD/FDD Action documented activity

• FDD maintained a multi-year publication record advocating the OTWG and deeper U.S.-Israel defense-technology cooperation. [S17] [S18] [S20] [S7]
• FDD Action publicly states that it provides legislative drafting assistance, shapes legislation and amendments, and offers private briefings and consultations. [S22]
• Jackson’s February 12 press release included a supportive statement from FDD Action’s Tyler Stapleton. [S10]
• FDD Action published a formal endorsement on February 24. [S9]

3.5 AIPAC documented activity

• AIPAC’s first-quarter 2026 LD-2 filing lists H.R. 7540/S. 3855 and reports lobbying the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and Department of Defense. [S8]
• The filing lists six lobbyists in the defense issue area containing the FUTURES Act, but does not assign each individual to each listed bill. [S8]
• AIPAC’s public bill summary describes Jackson, Davis, Budd, and Gillibrand as the legislation’s authors; that is advocacy terminology, not proof of drafting authorship. [S21]

3.6 Committee migration and current posture

• The House Armed Services chairman’s mark includes Section 224, requiring a DoD executive agent to synchronize U.S.-Israel technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation. [S13]
• The Senate Armed Services filing includes Section 1217 associated with the FUTURES framework. [S14]
• The Senate committee voted 18-9 to advance its FY2027 NDAA. [S23]
• The House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 8800 by a 44-12 vote. [S24]
• The House rule for floor consideration failed 198-224 on June 30. [S15]

4. Tier 2 – Corroborated Patterns and Implications

Policy lineage from FDD concept to statute to FUTURES expansion

The record establishes a sequence: Bowman-originated OTWG concept; FDD Action lobbying; congressional authorization; sustained FDD advocacy; Jackson’s 2024 amendment; FDD’s late-2025 and January-2026 strategic-partnership proposals; and a 2026 bill that expressly coordinates with the OTWG while extending it into procurement and industrial integration. This is strong evidence of policy lineage. It is not proof that FDD drafted H.R. 7540.

Jackson as the legislative carrier

Jackson’s legislative activity predates the 2025 AIEF trip. The 2024 amendment shows that he was already advancing U.S.-Israel emerging-technology cooperation. The 2025 trip is therefore better characterized as reinforcement and access, not the origin of the policy.

Trump-Jackson-FDD alignment

Jackson’s political identity is closely aligned with Trump. FDD’s January 2026 analysis endorsed core elements of the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy, including its characterization of Israel as a model ally, and urged stronger OTWG and strategic-partnership mechanisms. These facts show alignment across political sponsor, administration policy, and think-tank advocacy. The public record reviewed does not show a coordinated three-party planning process.

Institutional bypass of standalone sponsorship

The proposal gained an alternative route through armed-services committee vehicles, where committee inclusion can matter more than standalone cosponsor growth.

This pattern shifts investigative attention from public sponsorship counts to staff drafting, committee negotiations, and outside briefings.

From aid to embedded industrial architecture

The bill’s significance lies less in conventional foreign aid than in creating a standing Pentagon mechanism for research, testing, integration, licensing, co-production, manufacturing, and acquisition-related cooperation. That structure can persist beyond annual political debates over aid.

Access plus policy production

FDD/FDD Action supplied policy concepts and legislative-support capacity; AIPAC disclosed lobbying Congress and DoD; AIEF provided organized Israel-policy travel; and congressional sponsors advanced the legislation. Together these facts establish an influence ecosystem. They do not establish a quid pro quo or clandestine recruitment.

5. The Trump-Jackson-FDD Connection: Evidence-Bounded Assessment

Assessment: strong as a documented pattern of political and policy alignment; incomplete as proof of direct coordination.

Three separate links are documented:

1. Trump-Jackson: Jackson’s congressional identity and advancement are closely associated with Trump-aligned politics. This establishes political alignment, not a FUTURES Act drafting channel.
2. FDD-Trump policy environment: FDD publicly analyzed and endorsed important parts of the Trump administration’s 2026 defense strategy, particularly its emphasis on allies carrying more of the burden and Israel as a model ally. FDD simultaneously recommended strengthening the OTWG and replacing the MOU with a broader strategic partnership. [S7]
3. Jackson-FDD policy lineage: FDD developed and promoted the OTWG architecture; Jackson advanced a related amendment and then sponsored a bill that expressly incorporated coordination with that mechanism. [S1] [S2] [S3] [S5] [S11]

What is not established: No collected public document shows Trump directing Jackson to introduce the bill, FDD transmitting a final draft to Jackson’s office, or a joint Trump-Jackson-FDD meeting or communication concerning H.R. 7540.

6. Conflict Register

The following conflict is intentionally retained. It must not be silently corrected or omitted because it demonstrates a discrepancy between an advocacy organization’s presentation and the controlling legislative record.

7. Tier 3 – Open Investigative Leads

FDD/FDD Action communications

Seek calendars, meeting records, emails, briefing memoranda, or draft language exchanged with Jackson, Davis, Budd, Gillibrand, or Armed Services Committee staff.

AIPAC contacts

The LD-2 filing confirms lobbying Congress and DoD but not dates, officials, positions, or materials. Those records would materially clarify the influence path.

Committee insertion

Determine which committee staff proposed the House and Senate NDAA provisions and whether the language came from the standalone bill, an outside memorandum, or committee counsel.

Israeli institutional input

Search for Israeli Ministry of Defense, MAFAT, embassy, or defense-industry communications concerning the initiative. No such drafting record is currently in the frozen public evidence set.

Defense-industry beneficiaries

Map U.S. and Israeli companies positioned to benefit from licensing, co-production, integration, AI, missile defense, directed energy, cyber, biotechnology, and counter-UAS provisions.

Travel follow-up

Identify post-trip briefings, staff assignments, or legislative work following Jackson’s AIEF-sponsored 2025 travel and Davis’s defense-focused 2026 travel.

8. Negative Findings and Boundaries

No public drafting attribution: No collected public document identifies FDD, FDD Action, AIPAC, an Israeli official, or an Israeli ministry as the actual drafter of H.R. 7540.

No proven direct Trump instruction: No collected public document shows Trump ordering or negotiating the FUTURES Act.

No proven quid pro quo: Campaign support, lobbying, travel, and policy alignment do not by themselves establish bribery, blackmail, or a corrupt exchange.

No verified personal Israeli investment motive: The frozen evidence used for this report does not establish that Jackson sponsored the bill because of a disclosed personal investment in Israel.

No final enactment: The reviewed records establish committee and procedural status, not enactment into law as of the evidence cutoff.

9. Investigative Conclusion

The evidence supports a strong, fact-based conclusion that the FUTURES Act is the latest stage of a longer policy-development chain rather than a spontaneous 2026 proposal. FDD personnel publicly claim origination of the predecessor OTWG concept; FDD Action lobbied for that framework; Congress authorized it; FDD continued advocating its expansion; Jackson advanced related legislation in 2024; and the FUTURES Act explicitly ties itself to the OTWG while greatly expanding the Pentagon, acquisition, and industrial dimensions of U.S.-Israel cooperation.

The evidence also supports describing a Trump-Jackson-FDD alignment, provided the wording remains bounded. Trump supplies the governing defense-policy environment and political coalition; Jackson is the legislative sponsor and carrier; FDD/FDD Action supplies a documented policy lineage, advocacy, and legislative-support capability. The public record does not yet establish a coordinated three-party drafting operation.

The most consequential unresolved question is legislative provenance: who supplied the operative language, which congressional office requested the Legislative Counsel draft, what role, if any, outside organizations played in developing the proposal, and how the legislation moved from a low-profile standalone bill into both armed-services committee vehicles.

Those questions are answerable only through communications, calendars, committee records, draft histories, or testimony that is not presently public.

Source Appendix

S1. FDD transcript, “American Military and Political Power and the Iran File,” featuring Bradley Bowman, August 6, 2025. https://www.fdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/FDD-TIB_S2_Ep4_Bowman_Transcript.pdf
S2. Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filing: FDD Action, Q3 2020, OTWG-related FY2021 NDAA lobbying. https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/8ec0bc47-466d-4020-a1ec-18065262d6c4/print/
S3. House Armed Services Committee, FY2025 NDAA Floor Amendment Tracker, Jackson amendment 0894 and Nunn amendment 1038. https://armedservices.house.gov/ndaa/fy25-ndaa-floor-amendment-tracker.htm
S4. FY2021 NDAA conference material, Section 1299M, U.S.-Israel Operations-Technology Working Group. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20201207/CRPT-116hrpt617.pdf
S5. Jackson office pre-introduction FUTURES Act draft, timestamped February 5, 2026. https://jackson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/futures.pdf
S6. Ronny Jackson official biography and political record. https://jackson.house.gov/about/
S7. FDD, “What Trump’s National Defense Strategy Gets Right – and Wrong,” January 29, 2026. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/01/29/what-trumps-national-defense-strategy-gets-right-and-wrong/
S8. Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filing: AIPAC, Q1 2026, H.R. 7540/S. 3855. https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/ad4e8e54-def8-4563-97c5-0ac5a0ca16a3/print/
S9. FDD Action endorsement of H.R. 7540, February 24, 2026. https://www.fddaction.org/endorsements/2026/02/24/h-r-7540-the-united-states-israel-futures-act-of-2026/
S10. Ronny Jackson official release introducing the FUTURES Act, February 12, 2026. https://jackson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2482
S11. GovInfo, H.R. 7540 introduced text and metadata. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr7540ih
S12. GovInfo, S. 3855 introduced text and metadata. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119s3855is
S13. House Armed Services Committee, FY2027 NDAA Chairman’s Mark, Section 224. https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy27_ndaa_chairmans_mark_-_final.pdf
S14. Senate Armed Services Committee, FY2027 NDAA committee filing/report, Section 1217. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy27_ndaa_report_language_committee_filing_version.pdf
S15. House Clerk and House Rules Committee, H. Res. 1398 roll call 231, June 30, 2026. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2026231
S16. FDD, “Defending Forward,” discussion of OTWG authorization. https://www.fdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/fdd-monograph-defending-forward.pdf
S17. FDD, OTWG implementation analysis, January 8, 2021. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2021/01/08/u-s-israel-operations-technology-working-group-authorization-provides-opportunity-for-biden-administration/
S18. FDD analyses on expansion of U.S.-Israel operations-technology cooperation, 2022. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/
S19. House Clerk privately sponsored travel disclosure: Ronny Jackson/AIEF, February 2025. https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/gtimages/MT/2025/500029681.pdf
S20. FDD, “Beyond the U.S.-Israel MOU: The Case for a Strategic Partnership Agreement,” December 19, 2025. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/12/19/beyond-the-u-s-israel-mou-the-case-for-a-strategic-partnership-agreement/
S21. AIPAC bill summary for H.R. 7540/S. 3855, February 25, 2026. https://www.aipac.org/bill-summaries/america-israel-futures
S22. FDD Action, About page describing legislative drafting, briefings, and consultations. https://www.fddaction.org/about/
S23. Senate Armed Services Committee release reporting 18-9 vote on FY2027 NDAA, June 11, 2026. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/sasc-completes-markup-of-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2027
S24. House Armed Services Committee release reporting committee passage of H.R. 8800. https://armedservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6713