On May 21, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the Syria Transition Support Act. The bipartisan legislation introduced by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-NJ, and ranking member Bob Corker, R-TN, passed with a 15-3 vote. It is the first committee approved bill that seeks to provide military assistance to vetted opposition groups in Syria. It is the first time a US lawmakers have backed military assistance to Syria. 

The legislation suggests broader humanitarian aid and creation of a $250 million transition fund, which is to be carried from already allocated funds. No new funding is suggested. It reinforces sanctions on arms and oil sales to the Bashar al-Assad regime, and seeks further cooperation with Russia to end the civil war. It maintains that in the post-Assad era, once all terror and weapons of mass destruction threats are under control and a transition government is in place, sanctions will end. The crux of the bill is the approval of arms, military training and non-lethal aid to be provided to groups that are thoroughly vetted by the US government, if they can meet certain criteria “on human-rights, terrorism and non-proliferation.” The legislation was not “breaking” news in Washington, as Walter Pincus of The Washington Post wrote that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has gone too far and that Syria Transition Act of 2013 is more of a “gesture” that is it most likely will not become law.

A US Department of Defense official familiar with Syria told Al-Monitor that "I cannot imagine that Congress is going to push Obama into a Syria policy that he does not agree with. Nor do I think that this act will ever pass through Congress". The probability of a congressional backing is very low since the US public opinion polls demonstrate a consistent unwillingness for a military intervention in Syria. 

Tony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., said, “Debating non-binding Congressional legislative gestures is a dubious proposition since they are little more than an exercise in political symbolism. The act clearly states that it does not authorize the use of military force, and only involves $250 million for Syrian transition expenses which would come from authorized funds when and if a transition expense occurred that the US actually wanted to support and that it could not cover with existing aid funds.” Overall, the act is a gesture and nothing more at this point.