Gillen Backs Israel Defense Programs and ICC Sanctions

Card photograph: ARCHIVE. Laura Gillen, official portrait for the 119th Congress. Ike Hayman / House Creative Services. Public domain. Cropped for the card. License. Source photograph.

Laura Gillen has backed proposed U.S.-Israel defense programs totaling $200 million annually, House legislation sanctioning people involved in specified International Criminal Court proceedings, and an expansion of federal anti-boycott rules. Her official policy page lists the measures as part of her Israel agenda.

Gillen lists herself as a cosponsor of H.R. 1229, the United States-Israel Defense Partnership Act. Its introduced text proposes $150 million annually for a counter-unmanned-systems program and $50 million annually for emerging defense technologies during fiscal years 2026–2030. The latter covers areas including artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, robotics and quantum technology.

That is $200 million per year in proposed authorizations across those two programs, not money already spent. The bill also addresses other cooperative programs and a Defense Innovation Unit office in Israel. Such provisions would deepen the institutional relationship through research, development and deployment rather than simply renew an existing grant.

Sanctions against international scrutiny

ARCHIVE. Laura Gillen is sworn into the 119th Congress, 2025-01-03. Photo: Office of Rep. Laura Gillen, Public domain. License. Source photograph.

Gillen also records voting for H.R. 23, the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act. The House-passed text would impose sanctions on certain foreign people involved in or materially supporting ICC proceedings against protected U.S. or allied persons. Its immigration restrictions extend to specified immediate family members. The House passed it, but the January 28, 2025 Senate action failed to advance the measure through cloture.

The sanctions mechanism would use U.S. financial and immigration powers against participation in covered court proceedings. Mike Johnson’s defense of the measure placed protection of Israeli officials at the center of its purpose.

The introduced text of H.R.867, which Gillen supports, would extend the existing Anti-Boycott Act framework to boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations. Its scope is narrower than a blanket ban on voluntary individual boycotts of Israel.

Gillen also opposed July’s Massie amendment. Her statement cited the peacebuilding programs it would eliminate. That stated concern accompanied her support for new defense cooperation and penalties against international pressure on Israel.

Domestic protection and military cooperation are different policies

Gillen’s policy page also describes efforts to fund security for Jewish community institutions and combat antisemitism. Those protections address threats to people and institutions in the United States. They are distinct from decisions to fund a foreign military, sanction international investigators or regulate participation in an internationally organized boycott.

The defense-partnership bill would raise the authorization for anti-tunnel cooperation from $50 million to $80 million and extend it through 2028. It would also increase a separate counter-drone authorization from $55 million to $75 million and extend that program. These proposed changes sit alongside the two new annual authorizations totaling $200 million, rather than inside that headline figure.

The anti-boycott proposal works through the existing commercial regulatory framework. Its addition of international governmental organizations matters because it would reach a different source of boycott pressure; it does not turn every personal refusal to buy a product into the same regulated act.

Together, the measures describe an agenda with several instruments: additional defense cooperation, financial and visa sanctions related to international prosecutions, and broader anti-boycott rules. Gillen’s July vote preserved the bill’s Israel funding, while her stated defense of peacebuilding explained one reason for rejecting the cutoff.