Competing Viewpoints on Joint U.S.-Israeli Defense. Some lawmakers reportedly have approved the prospect of phasing out aid and moving toward a more equal defense partnership, arguing that joint U.S.-Israeli defense programs require financial commitments from both parties, provide the United States access to Israeli innovations, and support the U.S. and Israeli industrial workforce. Others oppose enhanced defense cooperation, as some lawmakers have pledged to no longer support joint missile defense programs, such as Iron Dome, due to Israel's alleged violations of international law and human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Currently, U.S. defense budget appropriations support a variety of jointly funded, cooperative U.S.-Israeli defense programs, including on missile defense, counter-tunneling, counter-unmanned aerial systems, and emerging technologies. Of these jointly funded programs, only U.S. support for Israel's missile defense ($500 million annually) falls within the purview of the current MOU. For FY2026, Congress appropriated $202 million for cooperative defense programs with Israel outside the MOU.

MOUs are not legally binding agreements like treaties and do not require Senate ratification; ultimately, lawmakers' appropriations power subjects foreign assistance levels delineated in MOUs to congressional approval. Past MOUs have significantly influenced U.S. aid to Israel; historically, Congress has appropriated foreign aid to Israel largely according to the terms of the MOU in place at the time (with the exception of supplemental appropriations acts). Congress last authorized military aid to Israel per the terms of the current MOU in P.L. 116-283, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for FY2021. With potentially consequential elections scheduled this fall in Israel and Israel seeking munitions replenishment in light of the war in Iran and other conflicts, both sides may seek to complete a new MOU in the months ahead.

A deadly drone strike on a bus in Russia carrying a children's soccer team from Belarus was a "provocation" intended to push Minsk to directly involve itself in the Ukraine conflict, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said.

The attack in Russia's Bryansk Region killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach, who was accompanying the young athletes to a Russian seaside resort. Eight others were injured, including six minors.

Speaking to senior military officials on Thursday, Lukashenko warned that "the war is at our borders," pointing to "various provocations" and "direct breaches of agreements."

He condemned "the behavior of certain states," citing a Ukrainian drone strike on a vocational college dormitory in Starobelsk, Russia that killed 21 people during a nighttime raid. Anyone attempting to drag Belarus "into war," he warned, "will have to pay dearly for that."

Kiev has denied responsibility for both incidents.

The [Ukrainian military] say they did not strike Bryansk Region at the time. But the driver says he personally - and other witnesses will probably confirm this to investigators - saw not one drone, but several, which he said were circling and buzzing over the bus.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which said the sole constitutional argument in the case would likely fail.

"Citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, one set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti's TPS [Temporary Protected Status] designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country's population," Alito wrote.

"But, ironically, one of respondents' other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong, race-neutral explanation for Haiti's termination: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past."

During oral argument in April, the Justice Department argued that lower court judges had exceeded their authority in blocking DHS's decisions to terminate protected status for those groups.

Some of the arguments focused on a portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act that says,

"There is no judicial review of any determination of the [DHS Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection."

The decision is expected to impact thousands of Haitians and Syrians who received temporary protected status.