Stand with Israel Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 12, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to leverage U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations as a deterrent against any attempt to illegally expel Israel from a UN organ or agency.
What it actually does
This bill amends existing U.S. law to prohibit any U.S. funds from being made available to a United Nations organ or agency if Israel is "illegally expelled" from that body. This funding limitation would remain in effect until the illegal expulsion is reversed, expanding upon previous restrictions on funding for UN-affiliated organizations that grant full membership to non-states.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill reinforces the unwavering U.S. commitment to Israel's standing in international bodies and serves as a crucial deterrent against politically motivated actions aimed at delegitimizing a key U.S. ally. They contend it ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars do not inadvertently support organizations that undermine Israel's legitimate participation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such a measure could undermine overall U.S. influence and diplomatic efforts within the United Nations by making funding conditional, potentially harming broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. They may also raise concerns about the lack of a clear definition for "illegally expelled," which could lead to subjective interpretations and diplomatic disputes.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, allowing for rapid and complete comprehension by any informed reader.
Section 2
Limitation on Funding for United States Participation in the United Nations if Israel is Illegally Expelled
This section modifies an existing law, Section 115(b) of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287 note), which previously restricted U.S. funding to UN-affiliated organizations. The amendment replaces the second sentence of that section, mandating that no U.S. funds, whether voluntary or assessed, can be provided to any UN organ or agency if Israel is "illegally expelled" from it. This prohibition remains in effect until the "illegal action is reversed," thereby broadening the conditions under which U.S. contributions to the UN system could be withheld.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is a strong and necessary statement of U.S. support for Israel, providing a clear deterrent against politically motivated attempts to delegitimize or expel Israel from international forums. They assert it ensures that U.S. funds are not used to facilitate actions hostile to a key ally and upholds principles of fair international engagement.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that this provision could unduly tie the hands of U.S. diplomats, potentially reducing overall U.S. influence within the UN by making funding conditional on a specific political outcome. They may also argue that the term "illegally expelled" is open to interpretation, potentially leading to disputes over when the funding cut-off should apply and creating diplomatic friction.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tension between the desire to protect Israel's standing in international bodies and the potential for reduced U.S. diplomatic leverage and financial contributions to the UN, which could impact other U.S. foreign policy objectives and the functioning of international cooperation.
The bill amends Section 115(b) of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287 note) by striking the second sentence and inserting new language. The original second sentence prohibited funds to UN-affiliated organizations that grant full membership to non-states. The new language shifts the focus to "illegal expulsion" of Israel.
Section 2
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to amend existing law by reference, rather than reprinting the entire section. It is not inherently evasive, but requires external knowledge of the U.S. Code for complete context.
Case for: Supporters would argue that amending existing law by reference is an efficient legislative method to update policy, maintaining continuity within the U.S. Code without creating entirely new statutory frameworks.
Case against: Critics might argue that referencing existing law without providing the full context makes it more challenging for the public to understand the complete implications of the change without conducting additional legal research.
Estimated impact: This change broadens the conditions under which U.S. funding to the UN could be withheld, potentially impacting billions in annual contributions, depending on the specific UN body and the scale of U.S. support to it.