WASHINGTON — The House passed the $884 billion National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2025 today, despite a sizable Democrat contingent opposing the typically bipartisan measure due to the last minute-inclusion of a transgender care ban.
The bill was voted through 281-140, with 124 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting against the measure.
The compromise NDAA keeps to the budgetary spending caps imposed by last year’s debt ceiling deal, which set a $895 billion limit for all national defense related spending for FY25. Some of that spending is not covered in the jurisdiction of the NDAA.
The focal point of this year’s bill is a 14.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted servicemembers and 4.5 percent raise for all servicemembers, as well as a laundry list of provisions intended to improve troop’s quality of life — a political slam dunk for both sides. However, Democrats were infuriated by a last minute addition of language by House Speaker Mike Johnson that would ban Tricare from covering gender dysphoria treatments “that could result in sterilization” for transgender children of servicemembers.
The House Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, Washington Rep. Adam Smith, announced on Tuesday that he would vote against the bill despite having helped helm it, due to the anti-transgender provisions.
During a Saturday interview with Breaking Defense, Smith said he would have been in favor of adding language to study the effects of medical treatment for transgender minors, but that “it is not debatable that there are some minors with gender dysphoria who benefit from the treatments that this bill would ban.”
“You are denying health care to the children of service members that they need to serve a partisan agenda. And I think that’s extraordinarily problematic,” he said.
For a larger rundown of the bill’s funding recommendations and policy mandates, read this: What to know about what’s in the compromise NDAA
During a press conference earlier today, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he had not taken an official position on the NDAA and would leave it for each member to make their own decision on a case-by-case basis. In floor speeches ahead of the bill’s passage, most senior HASC Democrats expressed support for the bill.
HASC Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told The Hill on Tuesday that Johnson did not consult him about including the care ban. Although Rogers said he agreed with the substance of the language, he sees the addition of the provisions as unnecessary due to the election of President Donald Trump.
“My preference would have been that we just let the president, on Jan. 20, deal with these [culture issues],” Rogers said, “which he’s already indicated he’s going to do.”
But in remarks ahead of the vote, Rogers said that the bill represents a “bicameral compromise” and that “each corner has some wins and some losses.”
The Republican-controlled Rules Committee, which set the terms of the bill’s passage on Monday, voted against bringing an amendment to the floor that would have allowed members to reverse the transgender care ban, as well as another amendment that would have given governors greater control over the transition of National Guard units to the Space Force.
The bill authorizes $883.7 billion for fiscal year 2025, including $849.9 billion for Department of Defense programs. It also approves $33.3 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and $512.4 million for defense-related activities.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass despite some Democrats’ concerns about the transgender care provisions, as well as disappointment from some top GOP defense hawks who had hoped the Senate’s version of the bill — which lifted the NDAA topline to $911.8 billion, pushing overall national defense spending to $923.3 billion — would ultimately prevail.
“The failure to include a topline increase is a tremendous loss for our national defense,” said Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee who is in line to take the gavel in January.
“Many senior flag officers, defense strategists, and other experts continue to note that this is the most dangerous moment since World War II,” he said in a statement Monday. “Not only does this NDAA thwart the bipartisan will of the Senate, but it signifies a profound missed opportunity to strengthen President-elect Trump’s hand when he takes office.”