Leading House defense hawks’ newly released $1.14 trillion military policy bill shows where top lawmakers are planning to draw the battle lines over the Pentagon’s FY2027 budget request.
The draft NDAA, known as the chairman’s mark, seeks to reassert Congress’ place in military force posture decisions and buck the Pentagon’s approach to priority programs — all while tacitly endorsing President Donald Trump’s reconciliation gambit.
The House Armed Services Committee is set to hold its marathon markup of the NDAA on June 4. While members are out on recess this week, their 505-page draft bill does a lot of talking. Here’s what we learned:
1. Top lawmakers are still upset about U.S. personnel moves in Europe.
The NDAA draft would add further guardrails to curb additional withdrawals of American troops from Europe. This comes in the wake of a bipartisan uproar over the Pentagon’s now-scuttled plans to cancel an Army deployment to Poland.
The draft legislation mandates that the Defense Department assess whether redeploying U.S. forces to NATO’s eastern flank is feasible in the event of any drawdowns.
But many of those provisions lack teeth, such as restrictions on the defense secretary’s travel budget, something a senior committee aide acknowledged Tuesday. The aide said lawmakers are expected to offer amendments to that effect next week.
2. They’re letting the White House fully assume reconciliation risks.
The NDAA text would authorize approximately $1.14 trillion in base defense spending, in line with the Trump administration’s request.
But the legislation doesn’t touch the $350 billion the White House is trying to get through a party-line reconciliation process. Lawmakers largely avoided mixing the two funding streams, the senior committee aide said.
Instead, the panel approached its NDAA on the assumption that Congress would pursue a defense reconciliation package, something senior GOP lawmakers have warned may not be possible.
3. They have concerns about the development of the Trump-class battleship.
The bill would slow-walk construction of the proposed Trump-class battleship, a warship that would serve as the centerpiece for the president’s so-called “Golden Fleet.”
While the plan would authorize the full $1 billion DOD requested in advance procurement funding for the first Trump battleship, committee leaders added a hurdle to the contracting process.
Before proceeding with a construction contract, the Navy would be required to certify that the battleship’s planned systems have reached “a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”
4. They’re skeptical about DOD pursuing more private equity stakes.
Lawmakers want to see the Pentagon use “other tools” to expand the missile propulsion business, following scrutiny of DOD’s plans to take a $1 billion equity stake in solid-rocket-motor maker L3Harris.
Such investments, a senior committee aide said, are useful in areas like critical mineral refining and processing, places where an industry didn’t already exist.
But the committee “remains concerned” about their use in the solid rocket motor space, according to the bill text.
5. They’re overriding parts of the Pentagon’s original procurement plans.
The proposal redirects $1.2 billion more toward procurement, above and beyond what the Pentagon requested for some programs.
For example, the bill would authorize $500 million in incremental funding for a second Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. That’s a big deal for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other lawmakers.
The draft plan would also significantly increase funding for two legacy Army helicopter programs. The Army sought to cut those buys in the budget, but the text would fund an additional six Black Hawks and seven Chinooks.
