The NDAA was once one of Congress’s most reliable bipartisan bills. Recent fights over presidential power, social policy, war and election law are pulling that coalition apart.
This week, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – the annual bill that sets U.S. military policy and authorizes Pentagon programs and spending for the coming year.
This year’s NDAA includes $1.15 trillion for troop pay raises, major investments in shipbuilding and munitions production, and new support for artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, critical minerals and other advanced technologies.
The vote was mostly along party lines, with 209 Republicans and only 6 Democrats – Reps. Henry Cuellar, Don Davis, Jared Golden, Adam Gray, Vicente Gonzalez, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez – voting yes.
Not long ago, that kind of party-line split would have been unthinkable.
For years, the NDAA drew broad support from both parties. Republicans and Democrats disagreed over plenty of defense issues, but the final bill usually passed with comfortable bipartisan majorities.
That consensus is now in retreat.
The NDAA still passes. But it is increasingly passing as a majority-party bill rather than a bipartisan one.
What Is the NDAA?
The National Defense Authorization Act is Congress’s annual defense policy bill.
It establishes military policy, authorizes weapons programs, sets troop levels and addresses everything from military pay and housing to nuclear weapons, cybersecurity and relations with foreign allies.
Congress has enacted an NDAA every year for more than six decades. That consistency has made it one of the few pieces of legislation widely considered “must-pass.”
But must-pass bills attract riders.
Members know that provisions attached to the NDAA have a better chance of becoming law than stand-alone legislation. Over time, the bill has expanded beyond basic questions of military spending and strategy into disputes over social policy, presidential authority, energy, immigration and elections.
That’s exactly where the bipartisan coalition has started to break down. This chart shows the share of each party that voted for the last 15 NDAAs in the House, going from a steady consensus to much more polarized in recent years:
Here are the three recent episodes that show how the NDAA’s bipartisan coalition came apart.
2021: Republicans Break Ranks
The 2021 NDAA authorized approximately $740.5 billion for national defense, including a 3% military pay raise, more than $130 billion for weapons procurement and more than $106 billion for military research and development. It also invested in artificial intelligence, biotechnology and autonomous systems and established a new initiative to strengthen the U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific.
But several provisions put President Trump and Republicans in conflict with the Democratic-controlled House.
The bill required the military to rename bases honoring Confederate officers. It also placed conditions on President Trump’s plans to reduce U.S. troop levels in Europe and limited aspects of the president’s ability to use the military and National Guard to enforce the law domestically.
About 40% of House Republicans voted against the NDAA that year, a low point for the party that usually champions national defense.
Much of the opposition came from the conservative wing of the party, like Rep. Paul Gosar, who said it “restricts the President’s ability to restore law and order in times of unrest” and “handicaps the Secretary of Defense’s border security efforts.”
The libertarian wing of the Republican Party opposed the NDAA for spending too much money and continuing the Afghanistan War without a clear withdrawal plan. Rep. Warren Davidson, for example, voted no because Congress should be “focusing on restoring sanity to our defense budget or ending endless wars.”
2025: Democrats Defect
The 2025 NDAA authorized over $880 billion. It provided a 4.5% raise for all service members and an additional adjustment for junior enlisted personnel that brought their total raise to approximately 14.5%. It also included improvements to military housing, barracks, health care, childcare and employment assistance for military spouses.
The bill invested in shipbuilding, missile production, artificial intelligence and counter-drone technology. It also expanded security cooperation with Taiwan and authorized continued U.S.–Israel missile-defense programs.
But after initial bipartisan agreement, a last-minute pivot tanked Democratic support. Speaker Mike Johnson added a provision to the final draft banning the military’s TRICARE health program from covering “gender-affirming care” like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors.
Ultimately, a majority of Democrats – 124 – voted against the NDAA.
Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, was one of them. He explained: “There is much to celebrate in this bill thanks to the bipartisan commitment that defined the time-honored process … However, the corrosive effect of Speaker Johnson’s insistence on including a harmful provision puts the lives of thousands of children at risk by denying them health care and may force thousands of service members to choose between continuing their military service or leaving to ensure their child can get the health care they need.”
2027: Bipartisanship in Retreat
This year’s NDAA is the biggest ever, authorizing $1.15 trillion in defense spending.
The bill would require the Army to build the capacity to produce 100,000 artillery shells per month, authorize multiyear purchases of destroyers, fighter jets and munitions, and create a Pentagon task force aimed at finally producing a clean audit by the end of 2028. It would also authorize up to $1 billion for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative, which helps Taiwan acquire weapons, training, and other military capabilities to deter and defend against Chinese aggression.
Over 200 House Democrats voted against the legislation, with opposition coming from several directions.
The first was the topline.
With the U.S. already running unsustainable deficits, and the Trump administration cutting crucial programs in the name of fiscal responsibility, many Democrats objected to adding $1.15 trillion in new spending.
Rep. Adam Smith argued, “We need to be more fiscally responsible and DoD needs to become more innovative and efficient in terms of developing capabilities to meet our national security needs in a more cost-effective manner.”
The second dispute was over the SAVE Act, President Trump’s plan to require voter ID for all federal elections, along with other provisions like curtailing mail-in voting. Republicans have been struggling to pass it for months, so they’re hoping to make it law through the NDAA. This is a non-starter for most Democrats.
The final – and more potent – dispute was the Middle East.
House Democrats are upset about the conflict in Iran, and they wanted the NDAA to include provisions forcing the White House to seek congressional approval. Rep. Ted Lieu summarized the opposition simply: “Congress should not fund an illegal war.”
Progressives are also concerned about NDAA provisions relating to Israel. Specifically, the NDAA would establish a new “U.S.–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” for researching, developing, and procuring new weapons systems.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed that the provision will “merge” America’s military with Israel’s, a claim that was quickly debunked.
The New Normal?
As Washington gets increasingly divided and Congress passes fewer and fewer laws, we may see more episodes like these in the future. And not just in the NDAA; other processes like the Senate’s budget reconciliation maneuver are increasingly being used as vehicles to jam through the majority party’s unrelated priorities.
As long as that keeps happening, these traditionally bipartisan bills will keep losing the broad coalitions that once made them reliable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.