The US House of Representatives has narrowly passed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), approving a sweeping defence policy package authorising $1.1 trillion in military spending on Wednesday.
The measure passed 216-212, with support from all but seven Republicans and six Democrats, marking one of the most partisan votes on the annual defence bill in recent years. The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future because Republicans need Democratic support to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
The NDAA traditionally attracts overwhelming bipartisan support because it authorises military operations, troop pay, weapons procurement and national security programmes. This year’s legislation, however, has become deeply divisive amid disagreements over military spending and the ongoing US-Iran conflict.
Also read:
What is the NDAA and what does the new bill include?
The NDAA is an annual bill that sets defence policy, authorises military programmes and establishes spending limits for the Department of Defense.
Congress has passed an NDAA every year for more than six decades.
Republicans described this year’s proposal as “a generational investment in America’s national defense.” They said it prioritises military readiness, advanced technology, artificial intelligence, next-generation weapons and innovation needed to counter strategic rivals such as China and Russia.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers argued the legislation strengthens America’s military by modernising the armed forces and investing in emerging technologies. Republican leaders also said the bill improves defence industrial capacity and supports long-term military preparedness.
However, Democrats sharply criticised the legislation.
The House’s top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, argued that the bill authorises $1.15 trillion in discretionary spending while pairing it with significant reductions to domestic programmes and tax changes that Democrats oppose.
“I cannot and do not support meeting these needs by making massive cuts to critically important domestic programs and slashing taxes,” Smith said.
The final vote reflected those divisions.
Only six Democrats crossed party lines to support the legislation:
- Henry Cuellar (Texas)
- Jared Golden (Maine)
- Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
- Adam Gray (California)
- Don Davis (North Carolina)
- Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington)
Seven Republicans voted against the bill despite backing from House GOP leadership.
Speaker Mike Johnson hailed the vote as a major legislative victory before the House adjourned for its month-long summer recess. Republicans argued the bill strengthens US military capabilities during a period of growing geopolitical instability.
Also read:
Israel, Iran and what comes next in the Senate
The NDAA debate unfolded during escalating US military involvement in the conflict with Iran.
According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the conflict has already cost taxpayers approximately $37.5 billion. At least 18 US service members have been killed, while nearly 500 have been injured. Hence, highlighting the urgency of discussions over military funding.
Several provisions reinforce long-standing US security cooperation with Israel, including defence technology partnerships, missile defence programmes and industrial cooperation.
The NDAA now faces a more difficult path in the Senate.
Last week, Senate Democrats blocked consideration of an earlier version, demanding changes related to President Donald Trump’s military operations against Iran. Republicans will likely require bipartisan support because most Senate legislation needs 60 votes to advance.
The NDAA vote came alongside House approval of a separate $95 billion reconciliation framework, which proposes more than $70 billion for the Iran war, $12 billion for agricultural assistance and funding to implement parts of the SAVE America Act.
That budget measure passed 216-214 and now awaits Senate consideration. Because reconciliation bills require only a simple majority in the Senate, Republicans may eventually use that process if negotiations stall.
