President Joe Biden recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025, which authorizes $895 billion in military spending. The bill, passed by the Senate with a significant bipartisan majority of 85-14, has ignited considerable debate due to its inclusion of provisions affecting military families—particularly those with transgender dependents.
The NDAA not only outlines funding for various military initiatives but also contains language barring the use of military health care benefits for certain gender-affirming treatments for minors. Under provisions introduced by Republicans, TRICARE, the health insurance program for military personnel, will not cover treatments related to gender dysphoria for individuals 18 years of age and younger. This shift has drawn fierce criticism from LGBTQ advocates and some lawmakers.
President Biden expressed his discontent with the anti-trans provisions, stating, “This section undermines our all-volunteer military’s ability to recruit and retain the finest fighting force the world has ever known by denying health care coverage to thousands of our service members’ children.” This remark reflects the broader concerns about the potential impact on military recruitment and retention amid changing societal norms around gender identity.
The Human Rights Campaign's president, Kelley Robinson, stated, “For them, this law is not about politics – it’s about losing the freedom to make their own health care decisions.” The sentiment resonates with many families who feel the legislation undermines their ability to provide necessary medical care for their children.
Meanwhile, political leaders are divided on the bill. Several Democratic senators voted against the NDAA due to the controversial amendments, arguing it restricts fundamental healthcare rights for military families. Among them were Senators Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and Ed Markey, highlighting the fracture within the party over these issues.
Despite the backlash, the NDAA incorporates other significant provisions, including pay raises for military personnel—junior enlisted members will see their salaries increase by 14.5%, with 4.5% raises for all other service members. The NDAA also allocates funds for nuclear weapons programs, military infrastructure, and environmental cleanup initiatives across various military installations.
New Mexico, where Biden recently signed the NDAA, stands to benefit considerably from these allocations. With more than 14,000 active-duty service members, the state will see direct impacts from the provision for military pay raises and funding for military-related projects, including clean-up efforts at nuclear facilities and upgrades to bases.
Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández, representing New Mexico, was among those who vocally opposed the bill, stating, “Sadly, children are more likely to attempt and commit suicide when they are bullied, and this bill amounts to bullying at a national scale.” Her comments shed light on the personal stakes involved for families serving the country.
The financial framework within the NDAA includes substantial funding for projects aimed at bolstering the U.S. military presence globally, particularly emphasizing capabilities within the Indo-Pacific region—a strategic move amid growing geopolitical tensions.
While the NDAA is traditionally seen as must-pass legislation, the contentious provisions related to healthcare have necessitated discussions about the federal government’s role and responsibilities toward serving military families. Biden reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring decisions affecting health care remain with families rather than government interference.
The debate surrounding the NDAA reflects broader societal conflicts over gender identity, healthcare access, and the responsibilities of those who serve the nation. It remains to be seen how these changes will affect military morale, recruitment, and the overall well-being of families who sacrifice so much for their country.
With the signed NDAA, the Biden administration faces fierce scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum. Republicans view the act as fulfillment of campaign promises, whereas many Democrats and advocacy groups condemn its approach toward transgender medical care.
Looking forward, advocates insist on continuing to challenge the legislation until the provisions targeting transgender service members are amended or repealed. The stakes are higher than ever, as families navigate military life amid shifting policies and the growing need for inclusivity and support.
What this bill reveals is the clash of values within American society, particularly as it pertains to those who have volunteered to serve. The hope remains for future legislative actions to recognize the dignity and needs of all service members, irrespective of their gender identity.
