The NDAA 2027 US–Israel fusion provisions are two clauses John Kiriakou treats as a single policy: section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027, creating a permanent Department of Defense executive agent for US–Israeli military fusion, and section 622 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2027, which he attributes to Senator Tom Cotton and which “locks in permanent intelligence sharing with Israel and ties it to their qualitative military edge and restricts future presidents from scaling it back.”[1]
How they get in
Kiriakou’s account of the mechanism is procedural and contemptuous. “NDAAs just by their nature are just rotten, evil, terrible pieces of legislation. They usually run between 1,500 and 3,000 pages. Nobody reads them. And members of Congress like Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz can slip in anything they want. They get themselves appointed to the to the conference committee so they can ensure that in the clean bill that comes out at the end of the negotiation, their provisions are still inside. It’s a it’s a filthy business.”[2][3]
The substantive effect, as he reads it, is that the NDAA “would create an unprecedented liaison relationship at the Pentagon between the United States and Israel that would literally join the US and Israel at the hip in terms of technical technological cooperation.”[3]
Why it makes the spying unnecessary
Kiriakou illustrates the stakes with the F-35 avionics history — the degraded export variants, Israel’s refusal of a degraded aircraft, and the hundreds of spies he says Israel sent across American defence contractors to steal the withheld two per cent. “Well, with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, they don’t need the spies to steal it cuz we’re just going to fork it over. Just hand it over to them. Here you go. Here are our most sensitive secrets.”[4][5]
Asked directly whether the provisions make Mossad infiltration of American agencies unnecessary, his answer is one word followed by agreement: “Yeah, it does. It makes it unnecessary.” When the interviewer summarises the policy as mitigating the threat by becoming it, Kiriakou answers “That’s exactly right. How sick is that?”[6][7]