The Stand with Israel Act of 2026 would amend Section 115(b) of the Department of State Authorization Act to block funding for the United States’ participation in the United Nations if Israel is deemed to have been illegally expelled. The amendment strikes the current sentence and replaces it with a provision stating that no funds made available to the Department of State or any other federal department or agency may be used for any contribution, grant, or other payment to the UN or its organs until the illegal action is reversed.
The bill makes clear that this withholding covers both mandatory and discretionary funds, and applies to all forms of contributions—voluntary or assessed. It is sponsored by Rep.
Michael Lawler (R) and Rep. Moskowitz and was introduced in the 119th Congress.
This is a policy lever aimed at tying U.S. multilateral funding to Israel’s status in ongoing international discussions.
At a Glance
What It Does
It amends Sec. 115(b) to strike the second sentence and insert a new clause: no funds may be used for any contribution, grant, or other payment to the UN or its organs until the illegal action is reversed. This applies to the Department of State and any other Federal department or agency.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that fund UN contributions, plus the UN itself and its organs. It also indirectly affects recipients of UN funding and programs that rely on U.S. capital contributions.
Why It Matters
It creates a concrete funding conditional tied to a political action, giving Congress a leverage point over multilateral bodies and signaling a shift in how the United States approaches UN decisions involving Israel.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill introduces a funding condition tied to an international action involving Israel. By amending a long-standing section of the Department of State Authorization Act, it withholds any money the U.S. would normally provide to the United Nations or its organs until a stated illegal action against Israel is reversed.
The withholding covers all types of U.S. contributions—whether mandatory or discretionary—and applies to the Department of State as well as other federal agencies that fund the UN. In practical terms, the UN’s ability to carry out its programs that depend on U.S. funding would be constrained as long as the condition remains unresolved.
This is a structural tool rather than a program-level policy. It does not specify new UN duties or reforms; rather, it uses finance as a sanction to influence a specific outcome in international diplomacy regarding Israel.
The core mechanism is straightforward: if the “illegal action” is not reversed, no U.S. funds may be allocated to the UN or its organs for contributions, grants, or other payments. The standard for what constitutes illegal action is not spelled out in the text provided, which raises questions about definitional scope and due process in a real-world setting.
The bill thus centers on leverage and signaling, with tangible implications for multilateral engagement and for UN programs funded by the United States.If enacted, the Stand with Israel Act of 2026 would force the executive branch to coordinate funding decisions with this legislative condition, potentially altering routine budgeting and international collaboration timelines. Stakeholders would need to prepare for a possible compression of funding cycles at the UN and for diplomacy to address funding-related constraints alongside other foreign policy objectives.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Sec. 115(b) of the Department of State Authorization Act to strike the existing sentence and insert a new funding condition.
It withholds funds to the United States Department of State or any other federal department or agency for contributions to the UN or its organs until the alleged illegal action against Israel is reversed.
The withholding applies to all forms of contributions, including voluntary or assessed payments.
The mechanism is triggered by the action described as illegal against Israel and is reversible only upon reversal of that action.
The legislation is introduced in the 119th Congress by Rep. Michael Lawler (R) and Rep. Moskowitz (introduced Jan 12, 2026).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section codifies the act’s name as the Stand with Israel Act of 2026. It establishes the formal title that will guide citation and reference in subsequent sections and committee discussions.
Limitation on Funding if Israel Is Illegally Expelled
This section amends Section 115(b) of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985. It replaces the second sentence with a new clause: no funds made available to the Department of State or any other Federal department or agency may be used for any contribution, grant, or other payment to the United Nations or any UN organ until the illegal action is reversed. The scope covers contributions, whether voluntary or assessed, and applies to all UN-related funding administered by U.S. agencies.
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
- Israel and its supporters, who gain leverage over UN actions affecting Israel through funding constraints.
- Sponsors of the bill and aligned policymakers seeking stronger U.S. influence over multilateral bodies in foreign policy.
- Advocacy groups and think tanks advocating for a tougher U.S. stance toward UN positions regarding Israel.
Who Bears the Cost
- United Nations programs and agencies that rely on U.S. financial contributions for operations and program continuity.
- UN member states and partners whose projects may be affected by reduced U.S. funding or delayed funding cycles.
- U.S. foreign policy institutions and diplomats who must navigate a more constrained multilateral environment and potentially slower multilateral decision-making due to funding bottlenecks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing leverage over UN decisions with the risk of undermining multilateral operations and potentially harming humanitarian outcomes through funding instability.
The bill relies on a policy lever (funding withholdings) to influence UN actions, which creates a potential tension between preserving multilateral cooperation and pursuing a unilateral policy objective. A key uncertainty is how “illegal action” and its reversal will be determined and demonstrated, and what due process will govern the transition from withholding funds to release.
Operationally, the unspecified mechanics of budget cycles, appropriations, and exceptions in emergency or humanitarian contexts could complicate implementation. The broader question is whether tying funding to a contentious international action could hinder essential UN functions that rely on predictable U.S. funding.
CoreTension: The central dilemma is whether it is appropriate to tether foreign aid to a specific international action in a way that can disrupt the UN’s capacity to function, potentially affecting global diplomacy and humanitarian outcomes while signaling a clear political stance in support of Israel.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.