In one of the most dramatic and divisive defense votes in recent congressional history, the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — a sprawling $901 billion military spending package — following hours of tense negotiations, sudden vote switches, and loud objections from both ends of the political spectrum.
The final vote came in at 312–112, with 18 Republicans and 94 Democrats voting against the measure. Despite solid support from leadership in both chambers, the bill’s passage highlighted deep fractures within the Republican Party and renewed conflict between House conservatives, national security hawks, and the Democratic caucus.
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where leaders expect it to move quickly to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.
But the path to get there was anything but smooth.
A Procedural Vote Nearly Sank the Entire Bill
Earlier in the day, the House nearly failed to bring the bill to the floor at all. In a razor-thin procedural vote — often routine but occasionally explosive — the rule passed 215 to 211, surviving only because four Republican lawmakers flipped their votes at the last second.
Reps.
- Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL)
- Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
- Tim Burchett (R-TN)
- Lauren Boebert (R-CO)
all reversed their initial “no” votes after private discussions with GOP leadership.
Their switch stunned Democrats, all of whom voted against the procedural rule in a rare show of complete caucus unity. For hours beforehand, rumors circulated that the Freedom Caucus would block the bill over concerns about Ukraine funding, Pentagon bureaucracy, and domestic surveillance issues — threats that nearly came to fruition.
As Fox News reported, GOP leaders were engaged in frantic hallway negotiations, making last-minute appeals to members who had signaled defiance.
Why the NDAA Sparked a Bipartisan Revolt
At the heart of the dispute were several major flashpoints:
1. Ukraine Funding
Hardline conservatives were angered that the conference bill includes $400 million per year for two years in continued military assistance to Ukraine.
Many conservatives argue the U.S. has already contributed more than enough and that European nations should bear more responsibility.
“We cannot continue writing blank checks,” one senior conservative aide said.
“Our southern border is collapsing and we’re spending billions overseas.”
Democrats, on the other hand, objected that the Ukraine funding was too little, pointing to President Zelensky’s repeated warnings that Ukraine faces a critical ammunition shortage.
With both sides unhappy — for opposite reasons — the Ukraine component became one of the most politically volatile elements in the bill.
2. The Missing CBDC Ban
Perhaps the biggest sticking point for the right was the bill’s failure to include a proposed ban on the Federal Reserve developing or issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC).
Conservatives had pushed the measure aggressively, arguing that a digital dollar could become a tool for mass government surveillance.
Rep. Tom Emmer and other advocates warn that a CBDC could give federal agencies granular visibility into personal transactions — even the ability to restrict what Americans can buy.
“A government-controlled digital currency is the fastest path to financial authoritarianism,” one conservative privacy advocate said.
The provision did not make it into the final bill, and for many Republicans, that omission was a deal-breaker.
3. Restrictions Placed on Trump’s Foreign Policy Authority
Despite being a must-pass defense bill, several provisions directly constrain presidential authority — including President Trump’s.
The legislation prevents the president from:
- reducing U.S. troop levels in Europe, particularly in NATO countries
- reducing troop presence in South Korea
- pausing weapons deliveries to Ukraine
Supporters of the restrictions say they preserve strategic stability. Critics say they tie the hands of the commander-in-chief and undermine Trump’s foreign policy mandate.
One senior GOP member privately complained:
“We should not be signing away the president’s authority to deploy, reposition, or withdraw our forces. This is a gift to the Pentagon bureaucracy.”
4. Pressure on Pentagon Leadership
The NDAA also includes a provision targeting War Secretary Pete Hegseth. Under the bill, Congress will withhold 25% of Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon releases raw footage of recent U.S. strikes against alleged narco-trafficking vessels near Venezuela.
The move is seen as a response to growing demands for transparency around counter-narcotics operations and rules of engagement.
Speaker Mike Johnson Defends the Bill
Despite opposition from some in his own party, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) strongly endorsed the bill, calling it a step toward rebuilding military readiness, restoring discipline, and removing what he called “woke ideological experiments” at the Pentagon.
Johnson highlighted several key conservative victories:
- 4% pay increase for enlisted troops
- Elimination of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) offices and programs
- Crackdown on antisemitism across military institutions
- Elimination of $20 billion in outdated Pentagon programs and offices
- New counter-China initiatives across technology, procurement, and intelligence
“We are strengthening our military, cutting waste, standing up to China, and protecting the rights of our service members,” Johnson said during a press conference.
“This is a win for the American people.”
Still, some conservatives counter that the bill does not go nearly far enough in dismantling bureaucracy or limiting foreign entanglements.
Non-Defense Provisions Spark Additional Controversy
The bill also contains several domestic policy measures. One of the most notable is a new FBI disclosure requirement, championed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH).
Under this provision, the FBI must disclose when it is investigating individuals connected to a presidential campaign — a reform aimed at preventing repeats of past controversies involving political surveillance and misuse of FISA authorities.
Privacy advocates praised the measure, while Democrats slammed it as political meddling.
Why Democrats Opposed the Bill
While Republicans were fractured mainly over foreign policy and surveillance issues, Democrats were united in their opposition for different reasons:
- elimination of Pentagon DEI policies
- expanded border enforcement measures
- lack of environmental protections
- insufficient Ukraine funding
- new constraints on domestic programs
- concerns about Hegseth’s oversight restrictions
One Democratic member said:
“This bill guts diversity programs, undermines military cohesion, and plays politics with foreign policy.”
Progressives also objected to increased funding for nuclear modernization and missile programs.
A Clash of Visions for American Power
The debate surrounding the NDAA reveals a deeper philosophical divide in Congress — and potentially the country — over what America’s role in the world should be.
Republican Divisions
- Traditional national security conservatives argue for strong NATO commitments, forward deployments, and robust deterrence against China and Russia.
- Libertarian and populist conservatives argue for reduced foreign aid, limited overseas presence, and stronger domestic focus.
The two groups increasingly clash, especially over Ukraine and Pentagon oversight.
Democratic Divisions
Democrats are similarly split between:
- national security Democrats who support a strong U.S. global presence
- progressives who want to significantly cut military spending and redirect funds to domestic programs
The Senate’s Role and What Comes Next
Since House and Senate leaders already crafted a negotiated package, Senate passage is expected — though not guaranteed.
Senators in both parties have their own reservations:
- Some Republicans want stricter border provisions and harsher limits on Ukraine aid.
- Some Democrats want stronger environmental, labor, and human rights language.
- Others simply oppose the scale of defense spending altogether.
Still, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer signaled confidence:
“We will pass the NDAA promptly. This is vital legislation.”
Once through the Senate, the bill will head to President Trump, who is expected to sign it.
A Defense Bill Defined by Drama, Division, and a Shifting Congress
The 2025 NDAA fight is widely seen as a preview of the internal ideological battles that will shape Congress over the next year.
The final vote — 312 to 112 — masks profound division:
- A Republican Party torn between traditional hawks and a rising non-interventionist wing
- A Democratic Party fighting over DEI, Ukraine, and military funding levels
- Growing distrust of federal agencies
- Intensifying scrutiny on the Pentagon’s spending, transparency, and global posture
And yet, amid the chaos, the bill moved forward — propelled by the reality that the Pentagon must be funded, even when Congress can barely agree on how.
As Washington prepares for the Senate vote and President Trump’s signature, one thing is clear: this year’s NDAA was not just a spending bill. It was a political battlefield, a referendum on America’s priorities, and a window into the deepening ideological realignment shaping both parties.