Unveiling the 2026 NDAA: America's Trillion-Dollar Defense Gamble Exposed - Triumphs, Turmoil, and Untold Fixes
An Independent's Raw Breakdown of the Good, Bad, Ugly, and What Congress Got Wrong in the Battle for National Security
As an independent voter who’s tired of the partisan circus in Washington, I always approach bills like the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with a mix of hope and skepticism. The NDAA isn’t just some obscure defense policy document—it’s the blueprint for how America spends nearly a trillion dollars on national security each year. For FY 2026, this beast of a bill clocks in at over $925 billion, authorizing everything from troop paychecks to missile defenses. The House passed its compromise version on December 10, 2025, in a bipartisan vote, and the Senate’s earlier version (S.2296) is now headed to reconciliation. It’s the 65th straight year this has happened, proving that when it comes to defense, Congress can still play nice. But as someone not beholden to either party, let’s break it down honestly: the good stuff that makes sense, the bad that’s wasteful or misguided, the ugly that’s downright divisive, and what I think should have been added or scrapped to make it better for everyday Americans.
The Good: Practical Wins for Security and Service Members
Let’s start with the positives—there are plenty, and they show why the NDAA often sails through despite gridlock elsewhere. First off, the bill prioritizes the people who actually serve: It includes a 4% pay raise for troops in the House version (Senate had 3.8%), which is a step up from last year’s 3.4% and helps combat inflation eating into military families’ budgets. That’s real money for the 1.3 million active-duty personnel and their dependents, plus expansions in childcare, housing upgrades, and even IVF coverage for military couples struggling with infertility. As an independent, I appreciate this—it’s not flashy, but it’s essential for recruitment and retention in a volunteer force facing shortages.
On the strategic front, the NDAA smartly focuses on great-power competition, especially with China. It fully funds $1 billion for Taiwan’s defense, including joint training and drone tech, and $1.5 billion for the Philippines—key allies in the Indo-Pacific where tensions are rising. There’s also $800 million over two years for Ukraine, which keeps U.S. support flowing without endless blank checks, and full backing for Israel’s Iron Dome system amid Middle East instability. These aren’t handouts; they’re investments in deterrence that could prevent bigger conflicts down the road.
Modernization gets a nod too: Authorizations for five new Columbia-class submarines, 34 F-35 jets, and emerging tech like biotech and unmanned systems show Congress is thinking ahead. The Biosecure Act provision bans federal funding for risky Chinese biotech firms, a commonsense move in an era of pandemics and espionage. And repealing outdated war authorizations for Iraq (1991 and 2002) cleans up old baggage, while streamlining procurement by ditching over 100 obsolete rules could save time and money. From my independent perch, this is the NDAA at its best: Bipartisan, forward-looking, and focused on real threats without overreaching.
The Bad: Bloat, Bureaucracy, and Missed Opportunities for Efficiency
But no $925 billion bill is perfect, and the NDAA’s bad side lies in its sheer size and some questionable priorities. The topline funding is a 1% bump from last year, but that’s still massive—more than the combined defense budgets of the next nine countries. As an independent concerned about fiscal responsibility, I see waste here: Why prohibit retiring aging A-10 aircraft or RQ-4 drones until 2030 when they’re outdated and costly to maintain? It smells like pork for defense contractors and congressional districts, not strategic necessity.
Bureaucracy persists too. While the bill streamlines some acquisition processes, key reforms were dropped in the final version—like enhanced transparency on pricing, oversight of major programs, and Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) for innovative contracts. These could have saved billions by curbing overruns, but lobbyists likely won out. And the symbolic push to rename the Department of Defense to the “Department of War”? It’s a nod to historical roots, but feels like a distraction in a bill already packed with real policy.
Aid allocations have flaws as well. The $800 million for Ukraine is capped and tied to U.S. weapons production, which is good, but repealing “Caesar” sanctions on Syria raises eyebrows—why ease up on a regime tied to human rights abuses without clearer strategic gains? Overall, the bad here is inefficiency: A bill this big should trim fat more aggressively to free up funds for domestic priorities like veteran mental health or cyber defenses.
The Ugly: Social Culture Wars Creeping into Defense Policy
The ugly part? The NDAA’s unfortunate detour into social issues that have little to do with national security. The bill bars transgender women from participating in women’s athletic programs at military academies, a provision that feels shoehorned in amid broader GOP efforts to limit transgender rights. As an independent, I see this as divisive pandering—why drag culture wars into a defense bill when the military’s focus should be on readiness, not identity politics? It risks alienating diverse recruits at a time when enlistment is down.
Repealing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) provisions, like eliminating the Chief Diversity Officer role, is another ugly spot. While some DEI efforts have been criticized as bureaucratic, scrapping them wholesale ignores how a diverse force strengthens the military. And the last-minute drama in the House procedural vote shows how these inserts nearly derailed the whole thing. Ugly indeed: A must-pass bill shouldn’t be a battleground for unrelated agendas.
What Should Have Been Added or Taken Out: A Common-Sense Overhaul
From my independent viewpoint, the NDAA is solid but could be sharper with some tweaks. What to add:
• Cybersecurity Boost: With hacks like the Change Healthcare breach exposing vulnerabilities, add more funding for cyber defenses—say, $2-3 billion for AI-driven threat detection and supply chain security. The current bill touches on it but needs teeth to counter China and Russia.
• Veteran Mental Health Expansion: Build on the pay raises with mandatory zero-copay PTSD/suicide prevention programs, tied to the autism provisions for broader developmental support. Veterans deserve it, and it’s bipartisan gold.
• Climate Resilience for Bases: Add $500 million for fortifying installations against extreme weather—ignored here despite rising threats.
What to take out:
• Social Policy Riders: Strip the transgender sports ban and DEI repeals—they belong in separate bills, not defense authorization.
• Outdated Mandates: Remove protections for retiring old aircraft/drones; let the Pentagon decide based on needs, not politics.
• Symbolic Fluff: Ditch the DoD rename—it’s a distraction from real reforms.
These changes would make the NDAA leaner, more focused, and truly independent of partisan games.
In the end, as an independent, I give the 2026 NDAA a B grade: It keeps America secure and supports our troops, but wastes opportunities on bloat and battles that don’t belong. Congress got it done bipartisan-style, but next year, let’s prioritize threats over theater. What do you think—should we push for these fixes in 2027?