The House introduced H.R. 8070 on April 18 and sent it to the Senate on July 8 for consideration. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the Senate's version of the bill, on June 14 in a 22–3 vote.[4][5] Committee Chairman Jack Reed (D‑RI) initially voted against the bill, due to disagreement with the decision to increase defense spending $25 billion over the budget cap established by the Fiscal Responsibility Act; Elizabeth Warren (D‑MA) and Tom Cotton (R‑AR) joined Reed in voting against the bill. The $25 billion spending increase over the cap was due to an amendment introduced by its Ranking Member, Roger Wicker (R‑MS).[5] Reed reintroduced a new Senate version as S. 4638 on July 8 which was suspended. Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) introduced H.R. 5009, which is a repurposed bill once used for the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Reauthorization Act.
History
On May 22, the House Armed Services Committee approved its version of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, by a 57–1 vote.[6] As passed by the Committee, the bill included the Pentagon's controversial "Legislative Proposal 480", transferring Air National Guard space units to the Space Force; however, the Committee accepted an amendment proposed by Joe Wilson (R‑SC), watering down the Pentagon's proposal by adding a requirement for gubernatorial consent to any such transfers.[6]
Republican amendments
On June 14, the United States House of Representatives passed the US$895 billion defense spending bill in a 217–199 vote, with several added socially conservative amendments made by House Republicans that Speaker of the HouseMike Johnson approved in order to prevent any hardline Republicans from blocking the bill.[7] All but six House Democrats opposed the bill, while only three House Republicans opposed the bill. Many Democrats criticized the changes and the House Republicans for using the mandatory defense bill to push forward divisive, partisan agendas.
A White House spokesperson condemned the amendments as prioritizing GOP politics over the safety and needs of US troops, and called it "an unserious effort" that would not pass the Senate without several amendments being removed or altered.[8]
On July 8, the Senate Armed Services Committee publicly released its version of the NDAA text,[9] which was revealed to include a provision restricting gender-affirming care in the military, approved by a vote of the Republican members of the Committee with the support of conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.[10] This provision was not mentioned in the summary of the text the Committee had released earlier, and the presence of gender-affirming care restrictions in both the House and Senate texts was seen as increasing the odds such a provision would be included in the bill as finally passed.[10]
The Senate's version of the 2025 NDAA includes a clause to posthumously advance Air Force General John D. Lavelle's retired rank from major general to lieutenant general, while the House's version would fully restore his four-star general rank on the retire-list. The reconciled bill includes the clause corresponding to the Senate's version.[citation needed]
In November 2024, it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) wanted to attach the controversial Antisemitism Awareness Act, which the House had passed earlier in the year, to the 2025 NDAA.[13] However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R‑LA) announced that House Republicans would reject the linkage of the two Acts, arguing that it was a scheme for Democratic Senators to avoid having to go on the record as voting for or against it.[14]
Selective Service System
The Senate version of the NDAA contains a provision expanding selective service registration to women; the House version does not. On December 5, a group of eight GOP senators, led by Missouri's Josh Hawley, sent a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, opposing the inclusion of the provision in the final version of the Bill being negotiated between the House and Senate.[15]
The bill passed the House on December 11, 2024 by a vote of 281-140.[20] Many House Democrats who voted in favor of the bill voiced opposition to the provision, but decided to support the bill for other reasons such as increased pay for service members and financing new military technology.[21] On December 13, 2024, over 40 Senate Democrats signed a letter addressed to the Senate Appropriations Committee leaders urging them to reject new anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ riders in future appropriations bills.[22]
On December 16, 2024, Senator Tammy Baldwin and over 20 other Democratic Senators introduced an amendment to the Senate version of bill removing the restriction on TRICARE coverage for gender-affirming care for minors, however the amendment was never brought up for a vote.[23][24][25] On December 18, 2024, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 with the provision included. Like the House Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, Senate Democrats who voted in favor of the bill opposed the restrictions on gender-affirming care, but voted in favor of the bill for other things in the bill that they supported.[26]
LGBTQ Nation said that, due to the vague language of the provision, which bans TRICARE coverage of gender dysphoria "treatments that could result in sterilization" for minors, but does not name any specific treatments, it is unclear if the provision will actually be able to ban TRICARE coverage of gender-affirming care for minors since puberty-blocking drugs do not affect fertility.[27] Additionally, medical experts said that gender-affirming treatments do not typically cause sterilization, but LGBTQ+ advocates noted that Republicans intend for the provision to ban coverage for all gender-affirming treatments for minors under TRICARE regardless and worry that the incoming Donald Trump administration will enforce it this way.[25] The provision is estimated to affect between 6,000 and 7,000 military families.[16] However, a 2022 study found that approximately 2,500 children were treated with gender-affirming care through TRICARE in 2017.[28] The provision was opposed by military veterans, families and active-duty service members who have transgender connections.[29] Some military families with transgender kids said that if passed, they would either be forced to leave the military, seek a different insurance provider or pay out of pocket for their child's treatment.[30][31]
.svg)
