Listen to the article
The Senate approved a sweeping $901 billion defense bill Wednesday, delivering bipartisan support for the annual military policy legislation while creating new pressure on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over recent naval operations near Venezuela.
The National Defense Authorization Act passed with a 77-20 vote, with two Republicans—Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee—and 18 Democrats voting against it. The bill includes a 3.8% pay raise for troops and addresses a range of security priorities aligned with the Trump administration’s shift in focus from European security toward Central and South America.
While the White House has signaled the legislation aligns with President Trump’s national security vision, the 3,000-plus page bill reveals growing tension between Congress and Pentagon leadership. Lawmakers included provisions demanding greater transparency on military operations and limiting the administration’s ability to reduce troop levels in Europe without congressional consultation.
The bill notably threatens to withhold a quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget unless he provides lawmakers with unedited video footage of controversial naval strikes in international waters near Venezuela. These operations, particularly a September 2 “double-tap” strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack, have drawn scrutiny from congressional committees.
“The American people absolutely need to see this video,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. “I think they would be shocked.”
Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who ordered the controversial strike, appeared before congressional committees Wednesday in a classified briefing that included video of the incident. While several Republican senators emerged supporting Hegseth’s decision to withhold public release of the footage, Democrats have called for partial public disclosure.
Congressional oversight represents a central theme throughout the legislation. Lawmakers have incorporated provisions requiring consultation before major security decisions after being caught off guard by several Trump administration moves, including a pause in intelligence sharing with Ukraine and reductions in U.S. troop presence in NATO’s eastern European countries.
The bill specifically requires maintaining at least 76,000 troops in Europe and 28,500 troops in South Korea unless allies are consulted and such withdrawals are determined to be in U.S. interests. It also authorizes $400 million annually over the next two years to manufacture weapons for Ukraine.
Senator Roger Wicker, Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, highlighted the bill’s ambitious scope: “We’re about to pass, and the president will enthusiastically sign, the most sweeping upgrades to DoD’s business practices in 60 years.”
The legislation also codifies many of the administration’s priorities to eliminate diversity programs within the military. It repeals diversity, equity and inclusion offices and trainings, including the position of chief diversity officer—changes projected to save approximately $40 million according to the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee.
Climate-related programs face significant cuts of $1.6 billion, despite the military’s long-standing position that climate change threatens national security through potential damage to bases and equipment.
In a rare show of bipartisan cooperation on war powers, the bill repeals both the 2003 authorization for the Iraq invasion and the 1991 authorization for the Gulf War. This signals Congress’s interest in reclaiming some of its constitutional authority over military actions as Iraq has transitioned to become a strategic U.S. partner.
The legislation faced objections from leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee and the National Transportation Safety Board over provisions that could allow military aircraft to operate without broadcasting their precise locations. This issue gained urgency following January’s tragic midair collision between an Army helicopter and an airliner over Washington, D.C., which killed 67 people.
To address these concerns, the Senate advanced separate legislation requiring all military and civilian aircraft to broadcast their locations. Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, expressed optimism this bill could reach the president’s desk as early as next month, with White House support already secured.
Once signed by President Trump, the comprehensive defense package will shape military policy, operations, and spending priorities for the coming year while establishing new boundaries for executive decision-making on national security matters.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
While a defense bill of this scale is always controversial, it’s encouraging to see bipartisan cooperation on key national security priorities. Oversight and civil-military relations will be critical going forward.
Absolutely. Maintaining a strong, capable military is essential, but it must be balanced with appropriate checks and balances. The details in this legislation will shape those dynamics for years to come.
The provisions around troop levels and the Hegseth video seem like attempts by Congress to reassert its role in defense policy. It will be worth watching how the administration responds and how this plays out.
Yes, the civil-military tensions underlying these provisions are quite significant. The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches on national security matters is an ongoing point of contention.
The focus on Central and South America is intriguing, given the administration’s shift in strategic priorities. I wonder how this bill will impact military posture and engagement in that region.
Yes, the regional focus is notable. It will be important to monitor how these policy changes manifest on the ground and what impacts they have on geopolitics in the Americas.
The provisions around troop levels in Europe and the Hegseth video seem like attempts by Congress to reassert its role in military and foreign policy decision-making. It will be interesting to see how the administration responds.
Absolutely, Congress is clearly trying to exercise its constitutional authority over defense and national security matters. The administration’s reaction will be telling in terms of civil-military relations.
This defense bill seems to have a lot of moving parts – from a pay raise for troops to tensions over military operations. I’m curious to see how the Hegseth video issue plays out and what it reveals about oversight and transparency.
Yes, the bill touches on a wide range of security priorities. The provision requiring the Hegseth video is an interesting oversight mechanism, though it remains to be seen how the Pentagon will respond.
While a large defense bill is not surprising, the specific details around priorities, oversight, and civil-military relations are worth closely following. These issues have significant geopolitical implications.
Agreed, the nuances of this legislation deserve close attention. Defense policy is complex, with ripple effects across domestic and international arenas.
The focus on Central and South America is intriguing, given ongoing regional dynamics and great power competition. I wonder how this bill’s provisions will impact US engagement and influence in the Americas.
That’s a good point. The regional focus likely reflects broader strategic calculations, but the specifics will be important to monitor, especially in terms of great power rivalry in the Western Hemisphere.
While a 3.8% pay raise for troops is positive, I’m concerned about the broader implications of this massive defense bill. Limiting troop reductions in Europe and demanding more transparency on operations seem like important checks on executive power.
Agreed, the bill appears to reflect ongoing tensions between Congress and the administration on national security issues. Oversight and transparency are critical, even for sensitive military operations.
I appreciate the bipartisan support for this defense bill, even with the ongoing tensions. Maintaining a strong, capable military is critical for national security, though the details around oversight and priorities are always worth scrutinizing.
Agreed, bipartisanship on defense issues is important, even as there are areas of disagreement. Rigorous oversight helps ensure the military’s capabilities are aligned with strategic priorities.