Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) took to social media Wednesday to demand that Congress block a massive, newly disclosed sale of American munitions to Israel, arguing that the $2.8 billion package of 40,000 bombs would further fuel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. The post is the latest salvo from Markey, a longtime critic of U.S. arms transfers to Israel, as the Trump administration presses forward with what would be one of the largest single deliveries of American munitions to the country in years.
The Post
Writing on X on Wednesday, September 16, at 3:50 p.m., Markey said:
“The United States must not send 40,000 taxpayer-funded bombs to Netanyahu for his war on Gaza and Lebanon and on Iran. We must block the sale of these weapons now. #BlockTheBombs”
The senator’s post linked to a New York Times report published a day earlier detailing the Trump administration’s approval of the sale, which includes 20,000 MK-84 general-purpose bombs, 20,000 BLU-117 bombs, and 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator bunker-busting warheads. Each of the bombs weighs roughly one ton, and their use by Israel in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon has repeatedly drawn international condemnation over civilian casualties.
The $2.8 Billion Package
According to the Times, the State Department has already forwarded the proposed sale to two congressional committees for informal review, a required step before a foreign military sale can proceed. The package would be funded through Foreign Military Financing, the mechanism by which Washington provides Israel with the money it then uses to purchase American-made weapons — meaning U.S. taxpayers effectively underwrite the transaction, a point Markey emphasized in his post.
The MK-84 and BLU-117 bombs at the center of the deal are among the most destructive conventional munitions in the U.S. arsenal. Their blast can be lethal at distances exceeding 1,000 feet and can leave craters as deep as 50 feet. The Biden administration paused a shipment of the same bomb type in mid-2024 over concerns about civilian harm in crowded areas, a pause President Trump reversed within days of taking office in January 2025. In February, the administration separately approved the sale of roughly 35,000 additional MK-84 and BLU-117 bombs to Israel, meaning Wednesday’s disclosure would mark a continuation of a pattern of expanding heavy-munitions transfers under the current administration.
Congressional Resistance Builds
Markey’s post came the same day that Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced he would not clear the sale. “The Trump administration has not provided sufficient assurances that these weapons will be used by the Netanyahu government in accordance with U.S. law and with appropriate protections for civilians,” Meeks said in a statement, adding that he would not approve the export “at this time.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) issued a similarly forceful statement a day earlier, saying the deal amounted to sending “bombs paid for by American taxpayers to a government led by a wanted war criminal” and pledging to “work to stop it.” Van Hollen’s remarks reflect a broader and growing unease among Senate Democrats over continued unconditional arms support for Israel as the war in Gaza persists alongside the U.S.-backed conflict with Iran launched in February.
Congressional objections, however, face a steep procedural climb. While the House and Senate Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs Committees can withhold informal approval, Secretary of State Marco Rubio retains emergency authority to bypass that step entirely and move the sale forward regardless of committee objections — an authority the administration has invoked before. If that happens, blocking the sale would require both chambers of Congress to pass a joint resolution of disapproval, and then muster a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override an all-but-certain presidential veto.
Markey’s Established Record on the Issue
Wednesday’s post is consistent with a position Markey has staked out repeatedly over the past year. In April, Markey voted in favor of two Senate joint resolutions of disapproval introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that sought to block separate arms sales to Israel. Both measures failed, by margins of 40-59 and 36-63, but Markey used the floor debate to lay out his reasoning. “A vote to approve arms sales to Israel at this time would be seen as a message of approval for Trump and Netanyahu’s disastrous war against Iran. I will not send that message,” Markey said in prepared remarks. “Why would we send American military weapons that could prolong, escalate, or worsen this horrible situation in the Middle East? I say no more.”
That April vote was not Markey’s first break with the administration on arms transfers. In an earlier round of disapproval resolutions targeting roughly $675 million in bombs and guidance kits, Markey joined a bloc of Senate Democrats in voting to block the sale, explaining that the munitions in question “go beyond what is needed for Israel’s current defense and could be used to further decimate Gaza.” He noted at the time that he had previously supported significant U.S. defense assistance to Israel, including a $14 billion package, framing his opposition as targeted specifically at heavy, high-casualty munitions rather than a wholesale rejection of military aid to the country.
Markey has continued to press the issue on the campaign trail as he seeks reelection to his Senate seat this cycle. During a July debate against primary challenger Rep. Seth Moulton, Markey pointed to his early opposition to bomb shipments as evidence of his consistency on the issue, noting that he was among the first 11 senators to vote against 1,000-pound bomb shipments to Israel. He went on to win the Massachusetts Democratic Senate primary decisively in early September, campaigning in part on calls to “end the war in Iran, and stop the bombing in Gaza.”
Broader Political Context
The proposed sale lands at a politically delicate moment for the Trump administration. It comes amid what multiple outlets have described as significant friction between President Trump and Netanyahu over the conduct and duration of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran — friction that has occasionally complicated U.S.-led efforts to negotiate a lasting resolution to those conflicts. Netanyahu is expected to travel to New York next week to address the United Nations General Assembly, placing the arms package squarely in the spotlight just as world leaders gather.
Opposition to the sale has not been confined to Democrats. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, an influential voice among Trump’s base, publicly criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza and warned that supplying additional heavy munitions would prolong the Iran war rather than resolve it. “If you wanted to extend the Iran war into the indefinite future, this is exactly what you’d do,” Carlson wrote, blaming Netanyahu for pushing Trump toward the offensive launched in February.
Israeli officials have defended the use of heavy munitions by arguing that Hamas fighters in Gaza and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon deliberately embed themselves among civilian populations, including in tunnel networks that require large bombs to destroy, forcing difficult tradeoffs in any strike. Critics, including former U.S. officials and independent military analysts, have questioned whether Israel has too readily reached for the most destructive available options rather than less lethal alternatives.
What Happens Next
The State Department has said, as a matter of policy, that it will not confirm or comment on a proposed arms sale before it has been formally notified to Congress — meaning the package remains in the informal review stage as of Wednesday. Production and delivery of munitions on this scale typically takes months to years absent an expedited timeline, giving Congress a window, however narrow, to mount opposition before any bombs would reach Israel.
For now, Markey’s post stands as one of the most direct public challenges yet to the proposed deal, adding his voice — and his record of prior votes against similar sales — to a small but persistent bloc of senators pressing to slow or stop the flow of heavy American munitions into an increasingly volatile regional conflict. Whether that pressure translates into a formal resolution, and whether such a resolution could survive a floor vote or a presidential veto, remains to be seen in the days ahead.