On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the National Defense Authorization Act of 2025 (NDAA), authorizing $895 billion in military spending for the next fiscal year. The bill passed by a vote of 281-140, with 124 Democrats opposed, primarily over a controversial provision that would limit access to certain transgender-related health care for military dependents. Sixteen Republicans, including Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, and Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, also cited unconstitutional foreign aid and a lack of proper oversight, among other things. The government opposed the spending, citing concerns.
The NDAA outlines funding for the Department of Defense (DoD) and military-related spending for other federal agencies. While the $895 billion figure is already significant, it does not account for the full scope of US military spending. According to Winslow Wheeler, a longtime defense analyst cited by AntiWar.com, the actual The total amount could reach $1.77 trillion.
summary
A summary of the bill released by the House Armed Services Committee focuses on military welfare, modernization, and global deterrence. Based on bipartisan recommendations, it has the following characteristics:
Pay and quality of life: 14.5 percent pay increase for noncommissioned officers and 4.5 percent for others, child care assistance, housing upgrades, and free internet in barracks.
Technology modernization: $143.8 billion for research and development, $33.5 billion for shipbuilding (seven new ships), overseeing issues of the F-35 program, and strengthening nuclear deterrence.
Military support: a new Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative (modeled after the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative), expansion of the European and Pacific Deterrence Initiative, and sale of aging systems.
Health and family support: No-copay contraceptives, cryonics pilots, and increased mental health support for military families.
The report says the NDAA “prioritizes innovation, technology, and modernization” while supporting the growth of domestic industry and ensuring readiness against global adversaries.
The committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), emphasized that the bill's top priority is to improve the quality of life for service members.
How does the 2025 NDAA compare to 2024?
The 2025 NDAA reflects a 5 percent increase from the $858 billion authorized in 2024. This increase emphasizes increased military engagement, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. Key spending initiatives include modernizing the nuclear arsenal, expanding cybersecurity programs, and continuing support to U.S. allies.
In contrast, the 2024 NDAA focused on military aid to Ukraine after the 2022 Russian invasion. While Ukraine remains a priority for the 2025 NDAA, the new bill shifts much of its focus to Pacific deterrence, particularly countering China's growing influence in the region. This includes strengthening the U.S. presence around Taiwan and providing additional resources to support NATO allies.
Supporters of the spending increases say it is essential to maintain military superiority and support international alliances. But critics say the budget is growing far faster than inflation and that funds are increasingly being directed to global conflicts rather than rushing domestic needs.
Chairman Johnson: Peace through power
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) praised the bill's passage, stressing its focus on strengthening the United States' military while moving away from “woke ideology.” He said the bill would prioritize the military's “core mission of protecting America” and ensure that the U.S. military has “the resources and support it needs to protect our great country.” did.
The main focus of this bill is to strengthen the United States' military capabilities against global adversaries, particularly China, Russia, and Iran. “We thwarted the Biden administration's plan to reduce the number of U.S. military special forces because we believe in peace through strength,” Johnson said.
The bill also brings about some cultural changes within the military. In addition to banning “transgender treatment of minors” and “critical race theory at military academies,” Johnson also announced that he would He emphasized the movement against “anti-Semitism.” He declared, “Our men and women in uniform must know that their first duty is to protect our country, not any woke ideology.”
For Johnson, the passage of the NDAA reflects a firm commitment to national security and the welfare of American military personnel. “The safety and security of the American people is (our) top priority,” he concluded, emphasizing the House's focus on maintaining the U.S. military as “the most powerful military in the world.” did.
critic
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) criticized the bill's nearly $900 billion price tag and controversial policy provisions. She reaffirmed her support for “our military, our armed forces, and our overwhelming and strong national defense,” while arguing that the Pentagon's lack of fiscal responsibility makes its spending unwarranted.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) criticized the allocation of billions of dollars for foreign aid. He also slammed the bill's “transgender language.”
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vermont) argued that Congress should prioritize domestic needs over unchecked military spending.
Echoing this sentiment, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Florida) said the bill allocates funds for foreign aid as America's communities face urgent recovery needs. denounced. Steube drew attention to the devastation caused by the hurricanes in his district and throughout the Southeast, and questioned the bill's priorities.
“My district was destroyed by three hurricanes in three months,” he said, highlighting the severe impact of Hurricane Helen. Nevertheless, the NDAA directs $115 million in foreign disaster assistance and $463.8 million to NATO's security investment program to rebuild Europe's military infrastructure.
“Democrats love to donate American taxpayers to foreign countries,” Steube said, attacking his Republican colleagues, asking, “Why did the Republicans support this?”
What’s next for the NDAA in 2025?
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces opposition from some Democrats but is expected to pass with broad bipartisan support for increased defense spending. A vote is scheduled for next week.
Lawmakers have one last chance to propose changes, but major changes are unlikely as the US maintains an expanded military posture due to perceived threats from China, Russia and Iran. Not likely.
All eyes will be on the Senate to see whether some of the $1.77 trillion in security spending will be adjusted. But the bigger problem remains. Can the United States balance its national security goals with the financial burden of foreign ties and rising debt?
