On Wednesday, the House passed an $895 billion defense policy bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), amidst significant pushback from Democrats regarding a controversial provision affecting transgender youth. The bill secured a bipartisan vote of 281-140, but most Democrats opposed it, primarily due to language that would restrict gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. The provision, advocated by Speaker Mike Johnson, has been criticized by lawmakers from both parties who believe that such social issues should not be included in defense legislation. Representative Mark Pocan, chair of the House Equality Caucus, stated that this reflects a broader agenda prioritizing “right-wing extremist dogma” over national defense.
The contentious provision specifically prohibits the military’s Tricare health system from covering treatments related to gender dysphoria that might lead to sterilization for individuals under 18. Critics, including Rep. Adam Smith, decried it as discriminatory and detrimental not only to transgender youth but also to the children of military personnel. Supporters of the provision maintain that funding for gender-affirming care distracts from the military’s core mission. They framed the debate as one of prioritization, arguing that such healthcare issues should not be the focus of a defense bill. Opponents caution that denying these healthcare options can have severe consequences, possibly even jeopardizing lives.
Despite the division, the legislation includes significant financial provisions such as a 14.5% pay increase for junior enlisted troops and a 4.5% general pay raise for military personnel. Many Democrats felt constrained in their opposition given the importance of these financial benefits within the bill. Commenting on the bipartisan nature of the vote, House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers expressed regret that the controversial provision could hinder broader support for a bill that would otherwise unite lawmakers in a shared commitment to national security.
Negotiators worked to compromise on several points, resulting in the exclusion of many conservative-backed provisions that had previously polarized discussions. Earlier iterations of the NDAA had included proposals to limit abortion reimbursements, restrict gender-affirming care for transgender service members, and dismantle diversity programs within the Pentagon. The final version banned the endorsement of critical race theory in Department of Defense academic institutions while maintaining a freeze on hiring for diversity-related positions. This suggests a tentative balance in the negotiations, allowing the bill to progress despite lingering elements of the culture war narrative.
The final NDAA adheres to established limits on national defense spending, aligning with budgetary agreements set in the previous year’s debt limit deal and matching the appropriations requested by President Biden. It authorizes $850 billion for base Pentagon operations and an additional $33.5 billion for nuclear programs, totaling the $895 billion figure. Although a proposed increase of $25 billion was shelved during negotiations, the passage of this authorization is just the first step; actual funding must be secured through subsequent appropriations bills that will determine military budgets for the fiscal year 2025.
In terms of military capability, the bill endorses several key programs that reflect bipartisan support, including the authorization for a second Virginia-class attack submarine and a third Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. However, it cuts funding for the Constellation-class frigate, which underscores ongoing concerns regarding defense budget allocations. Additionally, the NDAA authorizes the Biden administration to transfer certain Air National Guard units engaged in space missions to the Space Force without requiring state governors’ approval, a move that faced widespread opposition from those officials. Overall, this defense policy bill reveals the complexities of navigating both partisan agendas and defense priorities in contemporary governance.
