National Defense Authorization Act for FY2026
How Congress voted
| Chamber | Date | Question | Result | Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| House | 2025-12-10 | Passage | Passed 312–112 Republicans 197–18; Democrats 115–94 (Roll Call). | Roll call 320 |
| Senate | 2025-12-17 | Agree to the House amendment (final passage) | Passed 77–20 | Roll call 648 |
Both sides
What the bill did. The annual defense policy law. It authorizes roughly $890–$900 billion in national defense spending (counts differ by source; the money itself must be provided in separate appropriations bills), a 3.8% military pay raise, and an overhaul of how the Pentagon buys weapons and technology. It also sets policy such as continued Ukraine security assistance. [1] [2] [3]
Strongest case for
Supporters say it modernizes both the military and the Pentagon: Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called its acquisition changes “the most sweeping upgrades to the Pentagon’s business practices in 60 years,” and it funds a 3.8% pay raise, shipbuilding, drones and counter-drone authority. [3]
Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said it “enhances military readiness, supports servicemembers and their families,” reinforces alliances in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, and maintains “robust Congressional oversight.” [3]
House Armed Services Democrat Adam Smith (D-Wash.) acknowledged provisions he opposed and left-out provisions he wanted, but said that on balance the bill is a strong positive for U.S. national security, Roll Call reported. [2]
Backers also point to provisions that limit reducing U.S. troops in Europe below 76,000 and extend Ukraine security assistance, which they see as guarding against abrupt shifts in alliances. [4] [3]
Strongest case against
Critics in both parties objected to the cost: Roll Call reports the $900.6 billion authorization was $8 billion above the President’s request and troubled fiscal conservatives and many liberals, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus said that with reconciliation-law funding the Pentagon would exceed $1 trillion a year. [2] [5] [1]
Progressives said it does nothing to curb the President’s use of the military inside U.S. cities, and Democrats objected that leadership removed provisions on IVF coverage under TRICARE, Confederate-named bases and collective bargaining for civilian Pentagon workers. [5] [2]
Some conservatives objected to the topline, aid to Ukraine and other partners, and the absence of unrelated priorities such as a ban on a central bank digital currency. [2]
Even Rep. Smith, who supported it, said the Pentagon has not given Congress the information it is supposed to receive, which Roll Call said implied the law’s requirements might not be heeded. [2]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this bill does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the bill.
- The Pentagon’s audit record. The Defense Department has failed every annual audit since they began in 2018 and is the only one of 24 major federal agencies never to pass, Defense News reported. For fiscal 2025 the DoD Inspector General issued a “disclaimer of opinion,” meaning auditors could not get enough evidence to give an opinion, and identified 26 material weaknesses; the Inspector General also said officials had made progress, with auditors downgrading some weaknesses. The Pentagon says it aims for a clean opinion by 2028. [6] [7]
- Weapons costs and schedules. GAO’s June 2025 annual assessment found the combined cost estimates for 30 major weapon programs it also reviewed the year before rose by $49.3 billion, more than $36 billion (73%) of it from the Air Force’s Sentinel missile program. The average time for major programs to deliver an initial capability rose by 18 months, to almost 12 years. GAO lists DoD weapon systems acquisition on its High Risk List. [8]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Sources
- FY2026 NDAA: Summary of Funding Authorizations (IN12641) — Congressional Research Service (Government record (CRS), 2026-01-20)
- House votes overwhelmingly to pass compromise NDAA — Roll Call (News report, 2025-12-10)
- Wicker and Reed Commend Final Passage of the FY2026 NDAA — Senate Armed Services Committee (Official statement, 2025-12-17)
- Trump signs $1tn annual US defense bill without fanfare — The Guardian / Reuters (News report, 2025-12-18)
- CPC Opposes the NDAA for FY2026 — Congressional Progressive Caucus (Official statement, 2025-09-10)
- Press Release: Independent Auditor’s Reports on the DoD FY 2025 Financial Statements — Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (Government record, 2025-12-19)
- Pentagon fails financial audit for 8th year in a row — Defense News (News report, 2025-12-19)
- Weapon Systems Annual Assessment (GAO-25-107569) — Government Accountability Office (Government record (GAO), 2025-06-11)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-26. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.