The Ceasefire Compliance Act requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, to certify every 90 days that Israel is meeting ten specific conditions tied to the October 10, 2025 ceasefire and a U.S. 20‑point plan. If the interagency assessment finds any condition unmet, the United States must not authorize sales, exports, or transfers of U.S.-origin defense articles to Israel for end use in the West Bank or Gaza and must place prior deliveries under a formal use restriction.
The bill also creates an end‑use monitoring group to issue 60‑day certifications on whether U.S.-origin defense articles are being used in those territories, includes a narrowly drawn presidential waiver with 15‑day congressional notice, preserves U.S. support for missile defense and humanitarian funding, and terminates on a five‑year schedule. For policymakers, defense contractors, and humanitarian organizations, the bill converts ceasefire compliance into an enforceable condition on arms flows and institutionalizes regular, public reporting and oversight.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates recurring, interagency certifications that Israel is complying with ten ceasefire‑related benchmarks; failure to certify halts U.S. authorization of defense articles for end use in the West Bank and Gaza and requires use‑restriction agreements for prior transfers. It creates an end‑use monitoring group with 60‑day reporting and permits a narrow presidential waiver for national security reasons with advance congressional notice.
Who It Affects
U.S. agencies that manage arms transfers (State, Defense, and intelligence), defense contractors and exporters whose deliveries could be paused or subject to use restrictions, the Government of Israel as the recipient, and humanitarian organizations and international mediators seeking improved access to Gaza.
Why It Matters
This turns U.S. military assistance into leverage tied to very specific operational and political benchmarks—humanitarian access, troop withdrawals, no annexation, and steps toward transitional governance—forcing repeated, public decisions that could alter transfer timelines and alliance management.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a repeatable compliance workflow that conditions U.S. authorization of defense articles on Israel’s adherence to a set of ceasefire-related benchmarks. Within 30 days of enactment and then every 90 days, the Secretary of State must produce a public certification, supported by DoD and intelligence input, that Israel has met ten named conditions—ranging from halting aerial bombardment and withdrawing forces to ensuring humanitarian access, preventing forced displacement, stopping annexation efforts, and enabling a temporary technocratic Palestinian committee.
If any single condition is unmet, the United States must stop authorizing sales, exports, or transfers of U.S.-origin defense articles for end use in the West Bank or Gaza.
To detect current misuse, the bill requires the immediate creation of an end use monitoring group. That group files 60‑day reports to congressional committees certifying whether U.S.-origin defense articles are being used in the West Bank or Gaza; a finding that they are in use triggers an immediate prohibition on further authorizations.
The President may waive that prohibition for a specific transfer only if the waiver is vital to U.S. national security and the Administration provides a detailed, largely unclassified justification to key congressional committee leaders at least 15 days before authorization.Mechanically, the statute requires that any future sale, export, or transfer while prohibitions are in effect include a Letter of Offer and Acceptance or export license specifying that the articles will not be used in the West Bank or Gaza. It also directs the Secretary of State, with DoD and DNI, to secure an agreement with Israel ensuring that previously provided U.S.-origin defense articles are not used in those territories.
The reports and certifications are submitted in unclassified form with the option of classified annexes, which builds public oversight but preserves operational secrecy where necessary.The bill preserves key exceptions and limits: it does not restrict U.S. defense of its personnel, intelligence sharing, or assistance for missile defense systems (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow 3). It expressly bars U.S. funding for administrative or operating costs of a proposed "Board of Peace" without fresh congressional authorization and states that the measure does not curtail existing, lawful humanitarian, stabilization, or reconstruction assistance for Gaza.
All authorities created by the Act expire five years after enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of State must submit an initial certification within 30 days of enactment and then every 90 days certifying Israel’s compliance with ten named conditions tied to the October 10, 2025 ceasefire and a U.S. 20‑point plan.
If the interagency certification finds any condition unmet, the U.S. must not authorize sales, exports, or transfers of U.S.-origin defense articles for end use in the West Bank or Gaza, and prior deliveries must be subject to a formal agreement prohibiting their use there.
An End Use Monitoring Group, established immediately, must report every 60 days to Congress on whether U.S.-origin defense articles are being used in the West Bank or Gaza; a finding of use also triggers an authorization prohibition.
The President can waive an end‑use prohibition for a specific transfer only if the waiver is vital to U.S. national security and the Administration provides detailed, mostly unclassified notification to key congressional leaders at least 15 days ahead.
The Act protects transfers related to missile defense and expressly preserves funding for humanitarian, stabilization, and reconstruction assistance, and it sunsets five years after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Ceasefire Compliance Act of 2026.' This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s stated focus on conditioning U.S. support on ceasefire adherence and related political steps.
Findings and policy framework
Sets out factual predicates and a U.S. policy orientation: recognition of the October 7, 2023 attacks, the October 10, 2025 ceasefire, humanitarian concerns, and a stated goal of replacing Hamas with alternative governance. These findings provide the legislative rationale for tying security assistance to specific political and humanitarian benchmarks and will guide agencies in interpreting the bill’s requirements.
Rule of construction preserving core defense and intelligence activities
Carves out routine U.S. defense, intelligence, and contingency support from the Act’s prohibitions, including defensive measures for U.S. personnel and material for missile defense systems. Practically, this limits the bill’s reach and creates express statutory exceptions that agencies can cite when authorizing particular transfers.
Certification process and conditional prohibition on transfers
Requires an interagency certification (State led, coordinated with DoD and DNI) within 30 days and every 90 days thereafter that Israel meets ten enumerated benchmarks—humanitarian access, no forced displacement, halt of bombardment and withdrawal, no annexation in West Bank, facilitation of a transitional technocratic governance mechanism in Gaza, and measures to curb settler violence. Failure on any single benchmark bars U.S. authorization of defense articles for end use in the West Bank or Gaza, requires future LOAs/export licenses to include use restrictions, and directs an agreement with Israel to limit prior transfers from being used there. Reports are unclassified with possible classified annexes to balance transparency and national security.
End Use Monitoring Group and 60‑day reporting
Mandates immediate establishment of a monitoring group (State, Defense, and intelligence coordination) to detect whether U.S.-origin defense articles are in use in the targeted territories; it must report to specified congressional committees every 60 days. A positive finding triggers a prohibition on further authorizations. The section also details a presidential waiver process that requires a national‑security justification and 15 days’ notice to congressional leaders and preserves obligations for missile defense systems.
Limitations on the Board of Peace and funding rules
Restricts administrative or operating support for any entity called the Board of Peace unless Congress provides explicit appropriations; clarifies that nothing in the Act supplants U.N. authority or international law and reiterates that existing authorities for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance remain intact. This aims to prevent executive branch reallocation of funds to finance new multilateral bodies without congressional approval.
Sunset
All authorities created by the Act expire five years after enactment. The sunset forces Congress and the Administration to reassess whether the conditionality framework should continue beyond that term.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Palestinian civilians and humanitarian organizations — The bill conditions arms transfers on verified unimpeded humanitarian access, infrastructure rehabilitation, and protections against forced displacement, which, if enforced, could improve aid flow and civilian safety in Gaza.
- Congressional oversight committees — Regular 30/90‑day certifications and 60‑day monitoring reports create recurring public decision points and greater leverage for Congress over arms transfer policy.
- International mediators and the United Nations — The statutory emphasis on implementation of the October 10, 2025 ceasefire, a 20‑point plan, and a technocratic transitional body supports multilateral stabilization efforts and provides U.S. backing for UN‑led processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Government of Israel — The administration faces the direct operational and diplomatic cost of potential pauses in U.S. defense articles for use in Gaza/West Bank and must negotiate and comply with use‑restriction agreements.
- U.S. defense contractors and exporters — Companies face the risk of halted authorizations, added compliance requirements in LOAs and export licenses, and potential contract delays or cancellations tied to recurring certifications.
- U.S. agencies (State, Defense, DNI) — Agencies must perform repeated interagency assessments, establish and staff an end‑use monitoring group, produce public reports with classified annexes, and negotiate use‑restriction agreements—adding workload and coordination burdens without an identified new appropriation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to trade enduring security cooperation and the operational flexibility to counter threats for enforceable leverage that pressures compliance with humanitarian and political benchmarks: conditioning arms transfers increases U.S. leverage to protect civilians and press for a political settlement, but it simultaneously risks degrading interoperability, complicating deterrence and defense planning, and undercutting confidential tools that agencies use to manage crises.
The bill creates meaningful enforcement tools but leaves several operational questions unresolved. First, enforcing a prohibition on "use" of U.S.-origin defense articles in a fluid conflict zone is technically difficult: weapons and materiel can be re‑employed, transferred internally, or improvised, and attribution—demonstrating that a specific U.S.-origin item was used in a prohibited manner—relies heavily on intelligence that may be classified and contested.
The statute allows classified annexes, but public certifications are central to the law’s political effect; balancing transparency with the protection of sources and methods will be a recurring tension.
Second, the requirement to "establish an agreement" with Israel to restrict prior transfers raises legal and practical questions about enforcement mechanisms and remedies if Israel refuses to comply. The Act does not prescribe penalties beyond halting future authorizations, nor does it provide a clear technical mechanism for reclaiming or disabling hardware already in theater.
That makes the prohibition a prospective lever rather than an immediately reversible remedy for misuse.
Third, the waiver and carve‑outs create potential gaps in leverage. The presidential waiver for national security reasons and the express protections for missile defense units create legitimate escape valves for urgent strategic needs—but they also permit the Executive to override the prohibitions in ways that could blunt congressional leverage.
Similarly, preserving humanitarian, stabilization, and missile‑defense assistance protects vital capabilities but narrows pressure points available to condition behavior.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.