Ceasefire Compliance Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 23, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to condition U.S. military aid to Israel on its compliance with a 2025 ceasefire agreement and related humanitarian and governance conditions in Gaza and the West Bank.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the sale, export, or transfer of United States-origin defense articles to Israel for use in the West Bank or Gaza if Israel fails to meet specific conditions related to a 2025 ceasefire agreement, humanitarian aid, non-occupation of Gaza, establishment of a transitional Palestinian government, and actions in the West Bank. It also establishes an end-use monitoring group and imposes a broader prohibition on all defense articles if misuse is certified, with a presidential waiver for national security.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill ensures U.S. defense articles are used in accordance with U.S. law and values, promotes peace, humanitarian aid, and a two-state solution by holding Israel accountable to ceasefire terms and international norms. It provides necessary oversight and accountability for U.S. military aid.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue this bill undermines Israel's security, interferes with its sovereign right to self-defense, and could embolden adversaries by limiting its access to critical U.S. military support, potentially destabilizing the region. They may view it as an overreach that could weaken a vital strategic partner.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions.
Section 4(a)
Quarterly Certification of Israeli Compliance with Ceasefire and Conditions
This provision mandates that the Secretary of State, in coordination with Defense and Intelligence, submit a quarterly report to Congress. This report must certify whether Israel has complied with ten specific conditions related to the October 10, 2025, ceasefire agreement, humanitarian aid to Gaza, non-occupation of Gaza, establishment of a transitional Palestinian government, and actions in the West Bank, including preventing settler violence and annexation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides necessary oversight and accountability for U.S. military aid, ensuring it aligns with U.S. foreign policy goals of peace, stability, and humanitarian protection. It incentivizes Israel to adhere to ceasefire agreements and international law.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that these conditions impose an undue burden on Israel, a key U.S. ally, and could be seen as micromanaging its security operations. They may argue it ties Israel's hands in responding to threats and could be exploited by adversaries.
Tradeoffs
Balances U.S. support for Israel's security with U.S. humanitarian and diplomatic objectives, potentially creating tension between these priorities.
Section 4(d)
Conditional Prohibition on Defense Article Sales/Transfers to Israel
If the quarterly certification determines Israel is violating any of the specified conditions, this provision prohibits the U.S. from authorizing the sale, export, or transfer of any U.S.-origin defense articles to Israel for end use in the West Bank or Gaza. It also requires agreements to prevent previously provided articles from being used in these areas. These prohibitions remain until Israel is certified to be in full compliance.
Section 5(a) and (b)
Creation of End Use Monitoring Group and Reporting
This section mandates the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, to establish an end-use monitoring group. This group's purpose is to continuously monitor whether U.S.-origin defense articles are being used by Israel in the West Bank or Gaza. During any period when the prohibitions from Section 4(d) are in effect, this group must submit a report every 60 days to Congress certifying on this specific use.
Section 5(c)
Total Prohibition on Defense Articles if Misuse is Certified
If the End Use Monitoring Group certifies that Israel is using U.S.-origin defense articles in the West Bank or Gaza (when such use is prohibited), then the U.S. must cease all sales, exports, or transfers of any U.S.-origin defense articles to Israel. This prohibition can only be waived by the President if it's deemed vital to U.S. national security, with a 15-day congressional notification. This total prohibition remains until the monitoring group certifies no misuse.
Section 6
Restrictions on Support for the Board of Peace
This section clarifies that nothing in the Act or related agreements authorizes funding for the administrative expenses, operating costs, or personnel support of a 'Board of Peace' unless explicitly authorized and appropriated by Congress. It also states that the Board of Peace's authority cannot supersede the United Nations' role or other U.S./international law.
Defines 'verifiable steps' for Israel's cooperation with establishing a temporary transitional Palestinian government in Gaza, including affirmative steps to facilitate deployment, refraining from obstruction, and not financing obstructionist entities.
Section 4(a)(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms precisely, but its detail makes it a critical component of the compliance criteria.
Case for: Proponents would argue this detailed definition provides clear, objective criteria for assessing Israeli compliance, preventing ambiguity and ensuring accountability. It outlines specific actions and inactions that constitute cooperation or obstruction.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a detailed definition could be overly prescriptive, limiting Israel's flexibility in complex security and political environments, and potentially creating loopholes or unintended consequences depending on interpretation.
Estimated impact: High, as it directly dictates how a key condition for U.S. aid is evaluated, influencing regional governance structures.
Clarifies that nothing in the Act prevents the U.S. from assisting Israel and other countries by providing material for missile defense articles and systems, including Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3 maintenance and resupply.
Section 3(3)(C)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to ensure specific, critical programs are not inadvertently impacted by broader prohibitions.
Case for: Proponents would argue this carve-out is essential to ensure Israel's defensive capabilities against missile threats are not compromised, maintaining a critical aspect of U.S. security assistance regardless of other compliance issues.
Case against: Critics might argue that such an explicit carve-out could be seen as undermining the overall leverage of the bill, allowing a significant portion of defense aid to continue even if other conditions are violated.
Estimated impact: High, as it protects a major component of U.S. security assistance to Israel.