On December 11, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a sweeping $900 billion defense policy bill, marking a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the country’s military priorities and the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. The legislation, which passed by a robust 312-112 vote, includes a pay raise for troops, major reforms to the way the Department of Defense acquires weapons, and a host of controversial provisions that reflect both bipartisan cooperation and deepening political divides.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual fixture in Washington politics, typically enjoying broad support across party lines. This year’s bill, however, arrives amid mounting friction between the Republican-controlled Congress and President Donald Trump’s administration regarding military management. Despite these tensions, the White House signaled “strong support” for the bill, describing it as consistent with President Trump’s national security agenda, according to multiple reports including AP News and The Washington Post.
At over 3,000 pages, the bill is a behemoth, packed with measures that touch on nearly every facet of U.S. defense policy. Among its headline features is a 3.8% pay raise for many military members, an increase that lawmakers say is long overdue. The legislation also earmarks funds for improvements to housing and facilities on military bases—a move intended to boost morale and quality of life for service members and their families.
Weapon acquisition reform is another centerpiece of the bill. Lawmakers overseeing the military have long complained that the Pentagon’s procurement process is plagued by delays and inefficiencies, often leaving troops with outdated equipment. The new legislation aims to speed up the process and encourage innovation, a priority for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, described the bill as “the most ambitious swing at acquisition reform that we’ve taken.” He acknowledged, though, that the bill does not go as far as Democrats would like in reining in the Trump administration, but called it “a step in the right direction towards reasserting the authority of Congress.”
Yet, the bill is not without controversy. Embedded within its thousands of pages are provisions that push back against the Department of Defense and demand greater transparency. One such measure requires the Pentagon to provide Congress with unedited video footage of strikes against what the Pentagon said were drug boats near Venezuela on September 2, 2025. Lawmakers also insisted on reviewing the orders for those strikes. Until the Pentagon complies, the bill slashes Defense Secretary Hegseth’s travel budget by a quarter—a clear sign of Congress’s growing impatience with executive secrecy.
Internationally, the bill underscores America’s ongoing commitments to its allies. It mandates that the Pentagon maintain at least 76,000 troops and major equipment in Europe, unless NATO allies are consulted and a withdrawal is deemed to be in U.S. interests. Typically, between 80,000 and 100,000 American troops are stationed on European soil. The bill also authorizes $400 million annually for the next two years to manufacture weapons destined for Ukraine, reinforcing bipartisan support for the embattled nation amid ongoing conflict. In Asia, the legislation sets a minimum requirement of 28,500 U.S. troops to remain stationed in South Korea, signaling continued American presence on the Korean Peninsula.
Domestically, the bill represents a compromise between political parties, reflecting both the priorities of President Trump’s administration and the concerns of Congressional Democrats. In line with the administration’s agenda, the legislation cuts $1.6 billion in climate change-related spending—a move that has drawn criticism from environmental advocates and some military officials, who point out that U.S. military assessments have long identified climate change as a threat to national security. Military bases, for instance, have suffered repeated damage from hurricanes and flooding, issues that some argue will only worsen as the climate continues to change.
In addition, the bill repeals $40 million in spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, eliminating offices, programs, and trainings dedicated to these efforts. The position of chief diversity officer will be cut, among other changes. According to the House Armed Services Committee, these cuts are intended to streamline defense spending, though critics argue they undermine efforts to create a more inclusive military.
Perhaps most notably, the legislation officially ends the war in Iraq by repealing the 2002 authorization for the invasion. Supporters in both the House and Senate have hailed this move as crucial to preventing future abuses of executive power and reinforcing Iraq’s status as a strategic partner rather than an adversary. The bill also permanently lifts U.S. sanctions on Syria, following a temporary suspension by the Trump administration. Advocates for this provision contend that international companies are unlikely to invest in Syria’s reconstruction as long as the threat of renewed sanctions looms.
Not every provision survived the political wrangling. Democrats criticized House Speaker Mike Johnson for stripping out a measure that would have expanded coverage of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for active duty personnel. An earlier version of the bill included this benefit, which is designed to help service members facing infertility. Its removal has sparked frustration among advocates for military families, who argue that the military should do more to support those who sacrifice for their country.
Safety concerns also played a role in the legislative debate. Several senators on both sides of the aisle voiced disappointment that the bill does not do enough to restrict military flights over Washington, D.C. This issue gained urgency after a midair collision earlier in 2025 between an Army helicopter and a jetliner near Ronald Reagan National Airport killed all 67 people aboard. The National Transportation Safety Board echoed these concerns, opposing the relevant section of the bill and calling for stricter oversight to prevent future tragedies.
As the NDAA heads to the Senate, the debate is far from over. Lawmakers and advocates on all sides are already gearing up for further battles over military spending, oversight, and America’s role in the world. For now, though, the House’s decisive vote signals that—despite deep divisions—Congress can still come together to address the nation’s defense needs, even if the final product leaves some wishing for more.
With the stakes as high as ever, the next steps for this landmark defense bill will be watched closely by allies and adversaries alike, as well as by the thousands of service members whose lives and livelihoods hang in the balance.