The U.S. Senate just pushed through a colossal defense bill in the middle of a government shutdown, proving that even a stalled Washington can muster some grit when national security is on the line.
The Daily Caller reported that on Thursday, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a whopping $879 billion package to fund the military and shape defense strategy, with a solid 77-20 vote despite weeks of deadlock and a shuttered federal government.
This isn’t just a budget line item; it’s a military blueprint might, directing everything from troop funding to foreign policy priorities.
And yet, the timing couldn’t be more ironic—Congress couldn’t agree on keeping the lights on past October 7, but somehow found bipartisan spine for defense. Call it priorities, or just good old-fashioned survival instinct.
That same night, the Senate tackled a flurry of amendments, greenlighting seven while tossing out nine others.
One notable rejection was Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s proposal to require a governor’s consent before federalizing a state’s National Guard, which flopped with a 47-50 vote. Seems like central control still has its defenders, even if it rankles state-level autonomy advocates.
“As the Republican governor of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt said today, and I quote, ‘As a Federalist believer, one governor against another governor, I don’t think that’s the right way to approach this,’” Van Hollen argued on the Senate floor.
Nice try, Senator, but banking on federalism in a crisis-response debate feels like bringing a pocketknife to a tank fight—noble, but outgunned.
On the brighter side, a bipartisan win emerged with an amendment from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Sen. Todd Young to repeal outdated Iraq war authorizations from 1991 and 2002. It’s a rare moment of agreement that acknowledges Iraq as a partner today, not a foe. Maybe sanity isn’t entirely extinct in D.C.
The NDAA itself isn’t shy about pushing back on progressive priorities, embedding directives to scrap diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates at the Pentagon.
It also limits certain medical procedures at military facilities and halts race or sex-based admissions at service academies. For those weary of social experiments in uniform, this feels like a long-overdue course correction.
Looking abroad, the bill ramps up support for Ukraine, deepens Middle East alliances, and boosts industrial ties with Taiwan. It’s a clear signal that America’s gaze is fixed on countering global threats, not just navel-gazing over domestic culture wars. Still, one wonders if these commitments stretch an already strained military thin.
Then there’s the hard line on China—think bans on buying their solar panels, semiconductors, or vehicles, and even barring Chinese-made cars from Department of Defense grounds.
It’s a muscular stance against economic reliance on a rival, though critics might argue it’s easier to ban products than to replace them affordably. Practicality, meet patriotism.
Not every idea cut, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s attempt to block Department of Defense funds for foreign-owned aircraft, aimed squarely at thwarting a presidential transport purchase tied to Qatar.
“It’s outrageous that President Trump wants to fly around the world like a king while Americans are getting hammered by tariffs, paying more for health care, groceries, rents, and electricity,” Schumer fumed. Stirring words, but rejecting luxury jets won’t lower grocery bills—let’s keep the focus on policies that hit closer to home.
The House, which passed its own version of the NDAA back in September with zero Democratic backing, now faces the task of reconciling differences with the Senate’s take.
Expect some fireworks as the armed services committees haggle over details. Will bipartisan momentum hold, or will partisan trenches deepen?
Amid all this, the government shutdown looms like a bad hangover, a reminder that Congress stumbled on basic funding before October 7. Defense may have scored a win, but the broader fiscal mess still festers. It’s a peculiar kind of leadership—saving the military while the rest of the ship takes on water.
For many Americans, the NDAA’s passage is a reassuring nod to national strength in uncertain times, even if it comes with controversy over social policies. Stripping out what some see as ideological overreach in the military feels like a return to core missions—defending the nation, not reshaping society.
