The House of Representatives is poised to vote on a significant defense bill this week that allocates $900 billion for military programs. This legislation includes provisions for increasing pay for service members, curtailing Pentagon diversity initiatives, and mandates the release of unedited footage of attacks on vessels suspected of drug trafficking. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support, but it faces heightened scrutiny as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth navigates controversy surrounding military strikes off the coast of Venezuela.
Concerns regarding military accountability are reflected in the compromise bill released by the House Armed Services Committee on Sunday. While it incorporates several of Donald Trump‘s executive orders, the bill demands greater transparency regarding the administration’s actions against drug cartels in Latin America. It also reaffirms the U.S. commitment to European allies, a response to recent criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.
Key Provisions of the Defense Bill
One of the most contentious aspects of the legislation is the demand for the Pentagon to release unedited video footage of strikes against drug cartel vessels. Lawmakers have warned that failure to comply could result in withholding a quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget. This follows a September 2 strike in which reports indicated U.S. forces fired on survivors clinging to wreckage after an alleged drug-smuggling boat was attacked. Legal experts, along with some Democrats, argue that this follow-up action may have violated laws of war, which the Trump administration disputes by asserting that the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict against these cartels.
The bill also allocates $400 million annually for the next two years to bolster military support for Ukraine, reflecting ongoing concerns about Russian aggression. Although this funding represents only a fraction of Kyiv’s overall military needs, it underscores congressional support amid uncertainty regarding Trump’s commitment to Ukraine. The legislation mandates that the Pentagon provide intelligence support, which had been temporarily paused earlier this year.
Commitment to Troop Presence and Revisions to Domestic Policy
In a bid to reaffirm U.S. commitments to NATO and European allies, the bill stipulates that a minimum of 76,000 troops and essential military equipment must remain stationed in Europe unless a strategic review deems withdrawal necessary. This is crucial in light of NATO allies’ fears regarding potential reductions in U.S. troop levels as they confront a more assertive Russia. Currently, around 80,000 to 100,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Europe.
The legislation also maintains the existing troop presence in South Korea, requiring a minimum of 28,500 personnel.
Notably, the bill lacks provisions for expanded coverage of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for active-duty service members. Rep. Sara Jacobs, a Democrat from California, criticized the removal of her proposal to include IVF coverage in military health insurance, describing the decision as “selfish and callous” towards those who have served.
The NDAA additionally seeks to officially conclude the war in Iraq by repealing the authorization for the 2003 invasion. Advocates argue that this repeal is essential to prevent future military overreach and affirm Iraq’s status as a U.S. partner.
In a significant shift regarding international sanctions, Congress plans to permanently lift the most stringent U.S. sanctions on Syria, which were previously enacted in response to human rights violations. This move comes as Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa aims to rebuild the country’s economy following years of turmoil.
The bill also proposes cuts totaling $1.6 billion to climate change-related initiatives, despite military assessments identifying climate change as a threat to national security. In addition, it aims to save $40 million by eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the Pentagon, which has drawn criticism from various quarters.
As the House prepares for the vote, the implications of this legislation—both domestically and internationally—are substantial, reflecting ongoing debates over military spending, accountability, and U.S. foreign policy direction.
