In a move that has sent ripples through Washington and beyond, the U.S. House of Representatives on December 10, 2025, passed a sweeping $900.6 billion defense policy bill that does far more than just set the Pentagon’s budget for the coming year. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal 2026, approved by a 312-112 vote, is now headed to the Senate for final passage, carrying with it a contentious provision: a mandate for the Pentagon to release unedited video footage and documentation of controversial military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats off the coast of Latin America.
This provision, tucked into the must-pass legislation after months of negotiations between Senate and House leaders, reflects a rare moment of bipartisan agreement—though one not without its share of drama and division. The bill’s journey has been marked by heated debate, starkly differing interpretations of classified footage, and a swirl of legal and moral questions regarding U.S. military conduct abroad.
At the heart of the controversy is a series of U.S. military strikes targeting vessels suspected of ferrying drugs from Venezuela. These operations, which began in September 2025, have resulted in at least 87 deaths, according to congressional sources cited by Politico. The administration has staunchly defended the strikes as necessary to disrupt the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, labeling the targets as “narco-terrorists.” But critics, including several former military lawyers, have raised alarm bells, suggesting that some of these actions—including a particularly contentious “double-tap” strike—may amount to war crimes or even the murder of noncombatant civilians.
The “double-tap” incident, which took place in September, involved a second strike on survivors clinging to the wreckage of their boat some 45 minutes after the initial attack. As The Washington Post revealed, this follow-up strike killed two men who had survived the first bombardment. Lawmakers who have since viewed the unreleased footage emerged sharply divided. Some Republicans argued that the video justified the administration’s actions, while Democratic lawmakers described the images as “highly disturbing” and called for greater transparency and scrutiny.
“If they release the video, then everything that the Republicans are saying will clearly be portrayed to be completely false,” Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told ABC’s This Week. Smith has been among those pushing for a full-scale investigation, including public hearings with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to explain the rationale and chain of command behind the strikes. “We should do a full-scale investigation,” he said. “I think we should have … up and down the chain of command, any written documents … and then a public hearing where Secretary Hegseth explains, while being questioned by the committee, what did you do here and why.”
In response to mounting pressure, the NDAA includes a stipulation that withholds 25% of Secretary Hegseth’s travel budget until the Department of Defense delivers unedited video of the strikes and copies of each order authorizing lethal force to both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The bill also requires the Pentagon to submit overdue reports, including a key analysis of lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, before the full travel budget is restored. According to Defense News, this measure is designed to ensure congressional oversight and accountability in military operations that have drawn increasing scrutiny both at home and abroad.
The debate over releasing the video footage has not been limited to Congress. President Donald Trump, who has expressed support for the NDAA and signaled his intention to sign it, initially stated he had “no problem” with releasing the video. However, in a dramatic reversal just days later, Trump claimed, “I didn’t say that.” Meanwhile, Secretary Hegseth has cited concerns about the potential safety risks to U.S. troops if the footage were made public, leaving the final decision in limbo as the bill advances through the legislative process.
Admiral Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, reportedly made the final call on the second strike, and he, along with Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Daine, briefed lawmakers on national security committees last week. Yet, even after viewing the unedited footage, lawmakers could not reach a consensus on what it revealed. Some Republicans believe the video vindicates the administration’s position, while Democrats argue it heightens the need for transparency and further inquiry.
House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican, praised the legislative process that produced the NDAA. “It’s refreshing to see this kind of effort, this kind of product come to the floor in these more recent years of toxicity in this town,” Rogers commented, as quoted by Politico. “But that toxicity is not reflected in this product.” The bill, he said, represents a compromise that balances national security needs with the imperative for oversight and openness.
Beyond the controversy surrounding the strikes, the NDAA also contains several significant defense policy shifts. Notably, it repeals the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), legal frameworks that have underpinned U.S. military actions in the Middle East for decades. The White House, in a statement of administration policy, said that repealing these AUMFs supports Trump’s goal of “ending ‘forever wars.’”
The bill further authorizes the Pentagon to enter into multiyear procurement contracts for critical munitions—a move that, according to the administration, will save taxpayers money and encourage defense contractors to expand their industrial capacity. This is seen as a pragmatic step to ensure the U.S. military remains well-supplied amid ongoing global tensions and the lessons emerging from conflicts such as the war in Ukraine.
For many lawmakers, however, the central issue remains the need for transparency and accountability in the use of lethal force. The NDAA’s new requirements are a direct response to concerns about the legality and morality of recent military operations, as well as the broader question of how the U.S. should wield its considerable power abroad. As the bill moves to the Senate, all eyes remain on Secretary Hegseth and the Pentagon: will the long-demanded videos finally see the light of day? Or will the controversy deepen, fueling further calls for oversight and reform?
As Congress edges toward final passage of the NDAA, the stakes could hardly be higher. With bipartisan support and the backing of President Trump, the bill’s fate seems all but assured. Yet, the debate it has sparked—over secrecy, accountability, and the use of force—shows no sign of fading soon.
However the Senate votes, the demand for answers about America’s actions abroad—and the consequences they carry—will continue to echo through the halls of power.
