{"id":196,"date":"2026-06-05T11:40:50","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T11:40:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanindustryreview.com\/?p=196"},"modified":"2026-06-05T11:40:50","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T11:40:50","slug":"fiscal-2027-ndaa-approved-by-house-armed-services-committee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanindustryreview.com\/?p=196","title":{"rendered":"Fiscal 2027 NDAA approved by House Armed Services Committee"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The House Armed Services Committee approved its fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act late Thursday after a series of politically charged debates about the Iran war, Pentagon acquisition rules, defense spending and vestiges of the Confederacy in the military.<\/p>\n

Read more Immigration bill passes without curbs on \u2018anti-weaponization\u2019 fund<\/a><\/p>\n

After contending with about 900 amendments over the course of 14 hours, the committee approved the sweeping measure in a resounding vote of 44-12.<\/p>\n

The House is expected to take up the bill by the July recess.<\/p>\n

The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to mark up its version next week.<\/p>\n

The chairman\u2019s mark of the House bill endorsed about $1.15 trillion for defense programs, mostly at the Pentagon. The funds must still be appropriated in separate legislation.<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump asked Congress to send $350 billion more via a reconciliation bill, for a total request of $1.5 trillion.<\/p>\n

That amount of money would be the most ever spent on national defense in the U.S., and many Democrats assailed the proposed spending level as profligate, particularly in the context of cuts to nondefense programs and a ballooning national debt.<\/p>\n

Amendments galore<\/h2>\n

The last few hours of the markup were dominated by a handful of passionate debates.<\/p>\n

The most contentious and lengthy debate of the day was over an amendment by Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., that would restore the Army\u2019s 2023 decision to give nine of its bases new names not associated with the Confederacy, as recommended by a congressionally chartered naming Ccmmission the year before.<\/p>\n

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth undid the commission-driven changes in 2025.<\/p>\n

The House included a similar Strickland provision in its fiscal 2026 NDAA, but that was not included in the final measure. The vote on Thursday was 29-27 in favor of Strickland\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., who served on the commission, said the Trump administration\u2019s names for the bases \u201cwill not stand the test of time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Strickland, who is African American, fought back tears as she spoke of her father serving in a segregated Army. She said keeping the Confederate-linked names would disrespect Black men who have served.<\/p>\n

\u201cI ask you one more time: Who are we as a nation?\u201d she said. \u201cAnd more importantly, who are you?\u201d she said, pointing at some of her GOP colleagues.<\/p>\n

Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., who served at one of the bases in question, Fort Bragg, disagreed with Strickland. He said the person a base is named after does not matter to soldiers, but continuing the name of a base retains its tradition.<\/p>\n

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, asked: \u201cWhere does it end? Are we going to dynamite a couple faces off of Mount Rushmore? It is a slippery slope.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another feisty debate on Thursday night preceded the committee\u2019s 29-27 vote to adopt an amendment by Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, to codify the Trump administration\u2019s preferred name for the Pentagon: the Department of War.<\/p>\n

Jackson argued that the name \u201csends an unmistakable message to our adversaries\u201d of U.S. strength and resolve.<\/p>\n

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the committee\u2019s ranking member, offered a withering rebuttal.<\/p>\n

\u201cI wish our adversaries were that stupid,\u201d Smith said.<\/p>\n

Right to repair<\/h2>\n

The committee adopted by voice vote an amendment from Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., that would revive efforts to give the military the right to fix its own equipment, an issue that emerged as a flashpoint in last year\u2019s NDAA debate.<\/p>\n

Read more Democratic division in the shape of Lebanon<\/a><\/p>\n

The underlying bill contains some \u201cright to repair\u201d language, but amendment supporters argued that did go far enough. Harrigan, who supported Goodlander\u2019s proposal, said the amendment would fix a \u201cgenuine readiness\u201d concern.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have planes that cannot fly. We have ships that cannot sail. We have vehicles that cannot drive and tanks that cannot crawl. And in some of our services that number is approaching 50 percent of the force,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

While lawmakers and defense officials maintain \u201cright to repair\u201d legislation could save billions of dollars and allow the military to more quickly fix its equipment, defense contractors have fiercely lobbied against the efforts and argued the legislation would require companies to relinquish their intellectual property.<\/p>\n

In opposing the amendment, Rep. Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., the committee\u2019s chairman, highlighted that several industry groups have urged the committee to reject the measure.<\/p>\n

He argued the amendment \u201cregrettably creates a much larger problem\u201d than it solves because it would \u201cforce companies to choose between protecting their IP and working with the Department of Defense.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another adopted amendment that was a redux of a fiscal 2026 provision came from Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J. His amendment, which was adopted 30-26, would block implementation of a 2025 executive order that would take away certain collective bargaining rights for federal workers, including Pentagon civilians.<\/p>\n

The White House strenuously objected to that provision last year.<\/p>\n

Promotions controversy<\/h2>\n

The committee knocked down a flurry of Democratic amendments, a host of which were ruled out of order, typically over jurisdictional issues.<\/p>\n

The committee voted down, 26-30, another Strickland amendment responding to recent reports that Hegseth has removed women and Black servicemembers from officer promotion lists.<\/p>\n

Specifically, her amendment would have empowered only the president to remove officers from the lists generated by promotion selection boards and shorten the time to notify Congress of any removals from 30 days to five days. Right now, the secretary and deputy secretary of Defense can remove names for promotions below the one-star general or admiral level.<\/p>\n

Scott, in supporting Strickland\u2019s amendment, said he wrote a letter to Hegseth about the removals, and he expressed frustration that the secretary has not explained his decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not saying that his actions weren\u2019t justified; maybe they are, \u201cScott said. \u201cBut if they are justified, then he should give a public reason why they were removed from the list.\u201d<\/p>\n

Democratic defeats<\/h2>\n

Also on the list of defeated Democratic proposals:<\/p>\n