Overview
In December 2025, Congress completed work on the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), authorizing a record $901 billion in national security spending. The House passed the final compromise 312–112 on December 10, and President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on December 18 in a low-profile move without an Oval Office ceremony. The enacted package cements a 4% pay raise for service members, provides $800 million for Ukraine over two years through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), advances Trump priorities such as eliminating Pentagon DEI programs and supporting the “Golden Dome” missile-defense effort, and retains policy riders that helped drive intra-party and bipartisan friction.
The law also codifies congressional resistance to major shifts in alliance posture by limiting the Pentagon’s ability to reduce U.S. forces in Europe below 76,000 and by restricting steps that would weaken NATO command arrangements tied to the U.S. European Command role. With authorization complete, the main remaining battleground shifts to implementation and appropriations—especially whether spending levels and Ukraine-related lines are fully funded—and to oversight flashpoints, including lawmakers’ demands for strike evidence and reporting from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The U.S. Congress is the federal legislature, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. It writes and passes the National Defense Authorization Act annually, a must‑pass bill that sets military policy and authorizations, and also controls the separate appropriations that actually fund the Pentagon and related agencies.
The House is the lower chamber of Congress and must originate appropriations bills. Under Republican control, it has pushed for strict adherence to Trump’s budget topline, sharp reductions in foreign aid, and rollbacks of Pentagon DEI and gender‑related policies.
The Senate, controlled by Republicans but with a strong centrist bloc, has been the primary check on Trump’s attempts to cut Ukraine aid and alter US force posture in Europe and Asia.
The Pentagon is responsible for executing the policies and programs authorized in the NDAA, including USAI funding, troop deployments, readiness initiatives, and compliance with new reporting and oversight requirements.
Ukraine’s government depends heavily on Western military support to sustain its defense against Russia’s ongoing invasion. U.S. decisions through the NDAA and appropriations directly affect its battlefield capabilities and long‑term planning.
Timeline
-
Trump signs FY2026 NDAA into law without public ceremony
Executive ActionPresident Trump signed the FY2026 NDAA authorizing $901B, including $800M in Ukraine support over two years and new constraints on reducing U.S. forces in Europe.
-
Hegseth says U.S. will not publicly release full unedited boat-strike video
OversightDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon does not plan to release a top-secret, unedited strike video to the public, amid intensifying congressional scrutiny tied to NDAA oversight provisions.
-
House passes final FY2026 NDAA compromise (312–112)
LegislationThe House approved the negotiated $901B FY2026 NDAA, sending the compromise package to the Senate for final action.
-
Reuters details the NDAA’s record topline and partisan tensions
MediaReuters reports that the NDAA authorizes $901B, tops Trump’s request, includes $400M for Ukraine, cuts DEI programs, authorizes border troop deployments, and repeals Iraq AUMFs. Democrats consider stalling the bill over Trump’s domestic troop use until a hearing is promised.
-
Global coverage highlights Ukraine and Europe dimensions of NDAA
International ReactionNews outlets in Europe and Ukraine emphasize that the NDAA extends USAI funding at $400M per year through 2027, tightens oversight of allied burden‑sharing, and restrains Trump’s ability to withdraw troops from Europe, framing it as a win for Kyiv and NATO hawks.
-
NDAA conference committee unveils $901B compromise
LegislationHouse and Senate negotiators release a 3,000‑page compromise NDAA authorizing $901B in national security spending, a 4% enlisted pay raise, USAI reauthorization at $400M per year for 2026–27, repeal of the 1991 and 2002 Iraq AUMFs, troop‑withdrawal constraints, and DEI rollbacks and border troop authorizations. IVF coverage expansion and major housing investments are dropped.
-
Congress leverages NDAA to demand boat-strike videos and overdue reports
OversightAs NDAA negotiations near completion, lawmakers insert provisions withholding a quarter of the defense secretary’s travel funds until unedited videos of Latin America boat strikes and delayed reports—including on Ukraine—are provided to oversight committees.
-
Senate passes more expansive $925B NDAA amid shutdown
LegislationThe Senate passes its NDAA version 77–20 during a government shutdown, with a higher topline, expanded Ukraine support, and fewer culture‑war riders, setting up a difficult conference with the House.
-
House passes $892.6B NDAA over Democratic protests
LegislationThe House approves its NDAA at the administration’s requested $892.6B topline in a 231–196 vote. The bill includes cultural policy riders, a 3.8% pay raise for troops, repeal of outdated AUMFs, and continued but more limited Ukraine assistance, drawing Democratic opposition.
-
Senate Appropriations backs $1B for Ukraine in Pentagon spending bill
AppropriationsThe Senate Appropriations Committee approves an $852B Pentagon spending bill including about $1B for Ukraine, with $800M for USAI, starkly contrasting with Trump’s request to eliminate some Ukraine funding streams and with a House bill lacking similar aid.
-
Senate Armed Services Committee approves $925B NDAA with higher Ukraine funding
Committee ActionSASC passes its NDAA version authorizing $925B in defense spending and increasing USAI to $500M, extended through 2028, positioning the Senate to the right of both the administration and House on topline and Ukraine support.
-
FY2026 NDAA introduced in the House
LegislationRepresentative Mike Rogers introduces H.R. 3838, the FY2026 NDAA, in the House Armed Services Committee, marking the formal start of that year’s defense policy process.
-
Trump submits FY2026 defense budget request of $892.6B
BudgetThe administration asks Congress for $892.6B in national defense spending for FY2026, essentially flat compared with 2025, signalling a desire to restrain topline growth even as global threats and Ukraine costs mount.
-
Trump signs Executive Order 14169 pausing most foreign aid
Executive ActionOn returning to office, President Trump signs an order initiating a 90‑day pause on foreign development assistance to reevaluate U.S. aid, exempting only certain humanitarian and narrowly defined programs, heightening anxiety over future Ukraine funding.
-
DoD announces 66th Ukraine aid package and full allocation of remaining funds
Executive ActionThe Pentagon announces another drawdown package for Ukraine and notes it will allocate all remaining USAI funds by year’s end, underscoring pressure for new authorizations and informing subsequent FY2026 NDAA planning.
-
Early efforts to repeal Iraq war authorizations gain traction
LegislationThe Senate passes a standalone bill to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Iraq AUMFs, reflecting a growing bipartisan desire to end open‑ended war authorizations, though the effort stalls before being folded into later NDAA debates.
-
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggers massive U.S. aid
ConflictFollowing Russia’s invasion, the U.S. rapidly expands military aid to Ukraine through presidential drawdown authority and USAI, eventually surpassing $56B in security assistance and making Ukraine a central focus of NDAA debates.
-
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) created
LegislationCongress establishes USAI as a dedicated Department of Defense program to provide training, equipment, and support to Ukraine’s security forces, laying the groundwork for later large-scale assistance during the full-scale Russian invasion.
Scenarios
NDAA Passes Broadly Intact, Cementing Record Spending and Baseline Ukraine Aid
Discussed by: Mainstream U.S. outlets (Reuters, Politico), defense analysts noting the NDAA’s long 'must-pass' track record
Under this scenario, the House and Senate both approve the compromise NDAA with only minor last‑minute adjustments, and Trump signs it despite private frustrations over troop‑withdrawal constraints and Ukraine provisions. The 4% enlisted pay raise, $901B topline, DEI rollbacks, border deployments, repeal of Iraq AUMFs, and USAI at $400M in 2026–27 all take effect. Appropriations ultimately align with the authorization after some brinkmanship, ensuring that the topline and Ukraine funding are mostly realized. This outcome would signal that traditional defense coalitions—Republican hawks, many Democrats, and the defense industry—remain capable of steering core national security policy even during a turbulent populist presidency.
Appropriations Fight Erodes Ukraine Support and Delays Key NDAA Programs
Discussed by: Ukraine-focused outlets and analysts tracking the gap between authorization and appropriation for USAI and other aid lines
Here, Congress passes the NDAA but becomes bogged down in separate appropriations battles over Ukraine funding, border spending, and domestic offsets. House hardliners attempt to use defense appropriations to trim or fence off USAI money, citing Trump’s skepticism of long‑term Ukraine commitments. Senate Republicans and Democrats defend the funding but may accept tighter conditions, reporting mandates, or phased disbursements. Short‑term continuing resolutions could freeze Pentagon spending at FY2025 levels, delaying implementation of some NDAA authorizations, including parts of the pay raise and new procurement. Ukraine would face uncertainty about USAI drawdowns in 2026–27, and allies would question U.S. reliability even as the formal authorization remains on the books.
Negotiated Rollback of Culture-War Provisions in Exchange for Faster Passage
Discussed by: Policy advocates and some congressional Democrats and moderates critical of DEI cuts and IVF coverage removal
Facing sustained criticism over stripping IVF coverage expansion for troops and aggressively dismantling DEI programs, Senate moderates and a handful of House Republicans push for a follow‑on 'corrections' bill or omnibus that restores some personnel and health provisions. In talks with the White House, they argue that these rollbacks undermine recruitment and retention. Trump and Johnson may agree to limited restorations in exchange for Democratic support on other priorities or to avert a prolonged defense‑funding impasse. The NDAA’s core topline, troop‑withdrawal constraints, and USAI funding remain intact, but the sharpest cultural provisions are softened, reflecting the political limits of weaponizing the defense bill for social policy.
Major Clash Over War Powers and Troop Withdrawals Triggers Veto or Last-Minute Revisions
Discussed by: Commentary on congressional war-powers assertions and Trump’s stated desire to reduce U.S. overseas deployments
In this less likely but high‑impact scenario, Trump objects strongly to the NDAA’s constraints on reducing troop levels in Europe and South Korea and to the repeal of Iraq AUMFs, viewing them as encroachments on executive authority. He threatens—or issues—a veto, demanding that troop floors and certification requirements be weakened or removed. Congress then faces a choice: override the veto, which would require significant Republican defection, or quickly negotiate a narrower version that softens constraints while preserving most of the topline and Ukraine aid. Such a showdown would echo previous clashes over Trump’s use of emergency powers and defense funds but with war‑powers questions more squarely at the center.
Historical Context
Reagan-Era Defense Buildup
1981–1986What Happened
During Ronald Reagan’s first term, the U.S. dramatically increased defense spending, funding new nuclear systems, naval expansion, and advanced technologies as part of a strategy to pressure the Soviet Union. Annual Pentagon budgets climbed sharply as a share of GDP, and Congress largely acceded despite concerns about deficits and procurement waste.
Outcome
Short term: The buildup contributed to record budget deficits but also bolstered U.S. military capabilities and bargaining leverage, shaping arms-control negotiations later in the decade.
Long term: Historians still debate how much the buildup hastened the Soviet collapse, but it entrenched a pattern in which large defense budgets became politically resilient, even in times of fiscal stress.
Why It's Relevant
The 2026 NDAA’s record $901B topline and bipartisan support for higher spending echo the Reagan era’s willingness to expand defense outlays amid perceived great‑power competition, despite mounting concerns over debt and domestic priorities.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (1991 & 2002) and Its Repeal Efforts
1991–2023What Happened
Congress authorized military force against Iraq in 1991 for the Gulf War and again in 2002 for the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. These AUMFs remained on the books long after major combat operations ended, and administrations cited them to justify various operations in the Middle East. In the 2010s and early 2020s, bipartisan coalitions pushed to repeal them, with the Senate passing repeal legislation in 2023 but failing to secure final enactment at that time.
Outcome
Short term: The AUMFs enabled rapid military action against Iraq and sustained operations but also contributed to concerns about 'forever wars' and unchecked executive war powers.
Long term: Their eventual repeal—folded into later defense legislation like the 2026 NDAA—marks a symbolic shift toward reasserting congressional authority and closing legal chapters of U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Why It's Relevant
The 2026 NDAA’s repeal of the 1991 and 2002 Iraq AUMFs reflects a long‑running push to constrain open‑ended authorizations and parallels earlier moments when Congress tried to claw back war powers after extended conflicts, informing how lawmakers now seek to hem in Trump’s deployment authority.
Trump’s First-Term Battles Over Border Wall Funding and Ukraine Aid
2018–2020What Happened
In his first term, Trump repeatedly clashed with Congress over diverting Pentagon funds to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and temporarily freezing congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, which contributed to his first impeachment. Congress responded with limitations in appropriations and NDAA language but often stopped short of fully blocking his maneuvers.
Outcome
Short term: Some wall construction proceeded via emergency reprogramming of defense funds, and Ukraine aid was ultimately released, but the episodes underscored weaknesses in congressional oversight and controls.
Long term: These conflicts set precedents and political memories that shape current NDAA provisions: lawmakers now embed more explicit constraints and reporting requirements on border-related deployments, Ukraine assistance, and war powers.
Why It's Relevant
The 2026 NDAA’s combination of border troop authorizations, renewed Ukraine aid, and tighter reporting and troop‑withdrawal rules can be seen as Congress learning from and reacting to Trump’s earlier use of defense authorities for domestic and foreign policy objectives.