Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations Bill

2025-06-12

Loading video...

Summary

The Appropriations Committee convened to mark up the Defense Appropriations Measure for fiscal year 2026, with Chairman Cole emphasizing the goal of completing the bill, including all amendments and a final vote, by the end of the day.[ 00:24:31-00:25:41 ]

The schedule was adjusted around events like the White House Congressional Picnic and a memorial service for former Representative Charlie Rangel, but the commitment to finishing the defense bill was firm.[ 00:25:52-00:27:01 ] The agriculture bill markup was in recess and intended to resume, while the Homeland Security bill was postponed to a later date.[ 00:25:43-00:25:44 ] [ 00:27:52-00:28:00 ]

Lack of Detailed Budget Information

A significant concern raised by multiple members was the unprecedented lack of a full and detailed budget request from the Trump administration for fiscal year 2026.[ 00:32:04-00:32:19 ]

[ 00:36:28 ] Speakers highlighted the absence of "J books" and specific spend plans, which are deemed crucial for thorough oversight and informed decision-making on the complex defense budget. This deficit of information was characterized as "appropriations malpractice" that could lead to waste and uncertainty, especially after the previous year's continuing resolution.[ 01:12:21 ] There was expressed frustration with Secretary Hegseth and OMB for failing to provide the necessary details, which hampered the committee's ability to properly assess investment opportunities and reductions.[ 00:32:04-00:32:19 ]

Defense Spending and National Security Priorities

The committee's recommendation proposed $831.5 billion in defense discretionary funding, matching the FY25 appropriation, with substantial investments planned for force modernization, maritime and air dominance, innovation, and missile defense.[ 00:30:35-00:30:51 ]

[ 00:41:10-00:41:52 ] The bill also aims to support service members and their families, including a pay raise and quality of life provisions.[ 00:30:50 ] [ 00:42:02 ] The discussion emphasized global threats, such as sophisticated cyber capabilities and vulnerable space domains, from aggressive regimes like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.[ 00:28:56-00:30:14 ] [ 00:40:25-00:40:54 ] The bill also included measures to streamline functions and achieve $3.6 billion in savings by reducing civilian personnel.[ 00:31:49-00:31:52 ]

"Poison Pill" Riders and Social Issues

Several minority members strongly opposed the inclusion of partisan policy riders, particularly those impacting reproductive healthcare access for service women and disenfranchising LGBTQ+ service members. Concerns were raised that these provisions would undermine morale, negatively affect recruitment and retention, and could lead to another full-year continuing resolution. Critics argued that such measures prioritize political agendas over military readiness and the well-being of service members and their families, who are disproportionately affected by state-level restrictions on healthcare access.

Support for Ukraine

A significant debate occurred regarding the elimination of $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in the bill.[ 01:11:31 ]

An amendment to restore this funding was proposed, with proponents emphasizing the moral imperative to support Ukraine against Russian aggression and the broader implications for international security and alliances.[ 03:33:49 ] Opponents expressed concerns about the war's "winnability," the need for European allies to contribute more, and overall fiscal responsibility.[ 03:38:03-03:39:14 ]

Misuse of Military for Domestic Purposes

Members expressed concern about the administration's deployment of National Guard and Marines for domestic duties, particularly in Los Angeles for border-related tasks, citing a lack of clear legal authority and potential negative impacts on the military's mission and budget. An amendment was proposed and accepted to reaffirm the Posse Comitatus Act, ensuring that military funds are not used in contravention of the law that restricts the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

Ethics and Emoluments Clause

An amendment was introduced to prohibit the President from accepting a luxury airliner as a gift from a foreign power (Qatar), arguing it violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution and raised ethical and financial concerns about retrofitting costs.[ 02:14:30-02:15:19 ]

Proponents highlighted the constitutional prohibition against officials accepting gifts from foreign states without congressional consent and the potential for foreign influence. The amendment was ultimately not adopted.

Erasing History and DEI Initiatives

An amendment was proposed to prevent funds from being used to unilaterally change the names of Navy ships honoring civil rights leaders or to remove historical information about diverse service members from Department of Defense websites and educational materials. This was framed as a politically motivated attack on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which critics argued would harm morale, recruitment, and effectively whitewash American military history. Opponents of the amendment argued that naming ships is an executive prerogative and should reflect military tradition rather than social agendas.[ 04:59:01-04:59:16 ]

The amendment was not adopted.

Medical Research Funding

Concerns were raised about significant cuts, totaling $400 million, to the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), which fund critical research for diseases affecting service members. While a manager's amendment included increased funding for breast cancer research, broader concerns about overall cuts to military health research remained.[ 02:09:07-02:09:18 ]

An amendment to restore funding for several affected diseases was ultimately withdrawn after an agreement to work on the issue in conference.

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting began with an attempt at a collegial and collaborative tone, with acknowledgments of staff hard work and bipartisan efforts on a manager's amendment.[ 00:28:28-00:28:42 ]

[ 00:35:54-00:36:18 ] [ 02:07:01 ] However, as debates progressed, particularly on issues related to budget transparency, social riders, and historical representation, the tone became increasingly frustrated, contentious, and politically charged, with strong moral appeals from the minority members.[ 00:36:58 ] [ 05:34:13-05:34:15 ] Despite these divisions, the chair consistently attempted to maintain order and move the proceedings forward, indicating a underlying commitment to the legislative process.[ 07:44:18 ]