The House recently held a vote, resulting in a narrow 215-214 decision that makes it easier for qualified military personnel and Department of Defense civilians to carry personal firearms on military bases, should they request permission from their commanders. Interestingly, three Democrats sided with most Republicans in support of the bill, while three Republicans—along with Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley—voted against it.
An amendment proposed by Rep. Jeff Krank (R-Colo.) aims to shift the balance, ensuring that it wouldn’t allow for automatic approval to carry firearms, but rather establish a presumption in favor of approval by installation commanders for those considered qualified.
This vote comes in the wake of a tragic incident where, less than a year ago, an Army sergeant reportedly used his own handgun to fatally shoot five fellow soldiers at Fort Stewart, Georgia. All victims survived as other soldiers managed to intervene. Notably, possessing personal firearms on military installations was prohibited at the time.
Meanwhile, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for this year has been passed annually without fail for over 60 years, often receiving bipartisan support. However, the recent changes regarding firearms and transgender policy may jeopardize Democratic backing, which could leave Republican leaders depending more heavily on their slim majority to push the bill through while possibly creating a stalemate in negotiations with the Senate.
Another contentious matter involved Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) amendment prohibiting Tricare from covering transition-related medical expenses for military members and their dependents. This provision, which expands upon previous restrictions set during the Trump administration, was approved by a 219-208 margin—five Democrats supported it while one Republican opposed it.
Furthermore, the House voted 221-203 in favor of another amendment spearheaded by Mace, which would prevent transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports at Department of Defense educational institutions serving military families. However, a separate amendment from Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) seeking to enshrine Trump’s 2025 executive order banning transgender individuals from military service did not pass, losing by a vote of 217-212.
On top of that, a proposal to cut funding for the Pentagon’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative faced rejection. While 76 Republicans backed the amendment, there remains considerable intra-party resistance to military aid for Ukraine.
In a contrasting motion, the House decisively rejected a proposal aimed at barring foreigners from U.S. military academies, which would have ended a long-standing program known for training officers from allied nations. They also voted to scrap a pilot program intended to utilize audio-based technology for drug testing personnel.
Narrowly, the House went ahead with plans that would ensure the operation of California’s Santa Ynez pipeline system, crucial for transporting crude oil to refineries that serve military installations.
This entire conversation unfolds as lawmakers work on proposed amendments to the NDAA for the upcoming fiscal year. With more than 320 amendments considered—eight more than prior—debate will pick back up on Wednesday, leading to what is expected to be a final vote on the bill after deliberating the remaining proposals.
Specifically, this year’s NDAA proposes an authorization of roughly $1.15 trillion for national defense—an increase of about $252 billion from the previous year. It includes pay raises for military personnel, boosts in weapons production, and emphasis on investments in emerging technologies like hypersonics and missile defense.
While the NDAA sets policies and spending authorizations, it doesn’t provide funding directly; a separate measures needs to pass to fund the outlined initiatives. Additionally, it proposes changing the Department of Defense’s name to the Department of the Army, which would also alter references within federal law accordingly.
The timeline for this legislation was complicated by a Republican dispute over the SAVE America Act, which aims to mandate proof of citizenship for voting and ID requirements for federal elections. After clearing the House in February, the act stalled in the Senate due to a lack of votes to overcome a filibuster.
Initially, Republican leaders explored merging the election law with the NDAA as a procedural strategy, but that idea was met with contention. Ultimately, changes were enacted to expand amendments from 312 to 320, enabling an integration of the election law with the NDAA before sending it to the Senate. Nevertheless, the SAVE America Act is anticipated to encounter significant opposition in the Senate.
Lastly, the Senate’s own NDAA is facing its hurdles. Senate Democrats recently blocked their defense bill in response to actions regarding Iran, which adds layers of complexity as both chambers work towards a final agreement. Concurrently, the Pentagon is requesting additional funding to address needs resulting from the Iran conflict and replenish military stockpiles, with a proposed package totaling about $87.6 billion.
Meanwhile, House Republicans are considering a new proposal for around $73 billion to bolster both armed services and intelligence programs, but this too faces pushback from fiscal conservative factions, leaving its progression uncertain.
