Defense Bill Advances Through House Committee Amid Uncertain Path Forward

A critical bill determining nearly $900 billion in federal defense spending cleared an important hurdle Tuesday night when the House Rules Committee voted along party lines to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to a full chamber vote scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

The legislation, which will shape America’s national defense policy for the upcoming fiscal year, faces lingering questions about whether it can ultimately reach President Donald Trump’s desk despite broad support from most House Republicans.

With a razor-thin majority in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose only two GOP votes on Wednesday’s procedural “rule vote” — a step that typically falls along party lines even for bipartisan legislation. Several House conservatives have already voiced serious concerns about key provisions missing from the 3,000-page bill unveiled Sunday night.

At the center of conservative opposition is the exclusion of language that would ban central bank digital currency (CBDC). Privacy advocates within the GOP argue this omission could potentially allow the federal government to use digital currency for surveillance and control of Americans.

“Conservatives were promised that anti-central bank digital currency language, authored by Tom Emmer, the whip, would be in the NDAA,” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) said Monday on “Mornings with Maria.” He added that the bill also lacks “anti-abortion language,” explaining, “So as we fund our military, there are red lines that we need to put in here.”

Self told reporters he remains undecided on the rule vote but plans to vote against the final legislation. Representatives Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) have also expressed uncertainty about supporting the procedural vote, while Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) indicated he would likely vote against it.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) criticized the process by which the NDAA was developed, telling Fox News Digital: “All of this was negotiated behind closed doors. We’re getting shoved and we just have to eat it, or you know, vote against increasing pay to our military service members. It’s a very unfortunate situation to be in, that the speaker keeps putting us in.”

Despite these objections, there were positive signals for the bill’s advancement when the House Rules Committee’s three House Freedom Caucus members — Reps. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) — all voted to move the legislation forward.

The majority of House Republicans support the NDAA, highlighting provisions that codify elements of Trump’s agenda, strengthen U.S. capabilities against China and other adversaries, and provide a pay increase for service members. Should the rule vote appear in jeopardy, House GOP leadership could opt to bring the bill up under suspension of rules, bypassing the procedural hurdle but requiring a two-thirds majority for passage rather than a simple majority.

The final NDAA vote is expected to pass with bipartisan support, though the exact number of Democratic votes remains unclear. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, has indicated he will support the bill despite expressing “concerns with how a number of issues were handled by the Speaker and the White House during final negotiations.”

House GOP leaders hope to hold the chamber-wide NDAA vote early Wednesday evening, marking a significant step for the legislation that will dictate national security priorities and military funding. If passed, the bill will then head to the Senate before potentially reaching the President’s desk.

The annual defense authorization bill represents one of the few consistently bipartisan legislative efforts in Congress, having been enacted for 62 consecutive years regardless of which party controls the chambers or the White House.