National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 (NDAA 2027) is a United States federal law which specifies the budget, expenditures and policies of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) for fiscal year 2027. Analogous NDAAs have been passed annually for over 60 years.
.svg)
| National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 | |
|---|---|
| |
| United States Congress | |
| |
| Introduced | May 13, 2026 |
| Status: Pending | |
Legislative history
In June 2026, the House Armed Services Committee passed the markup of the NDAA 2027.[1]
On June 29, 2026, the House Rules Committee released a list of amendments to the Act ruled "in order" to vote on.[2] The list did not include Amendment 2 introduced by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie to strip Section 219 from the Act.[3]
On June 30, 2026, Khanna wrote on X, "Congress has blocked the amendment @RepThomasMassie and I introduced to stop the integration of our military with Israel’s."[4] He added, "It is unconscionable to not even have a vote. We will be continuing on and will not be intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby."[4][5]
In a July 2026 "Dear Colleague" letter, Senate Democrats wrote, "As Senate Democrats, we should not be providing votes compelling him (President Donald Trump) to deepen the U.S. relationship with Netanyahu's extremist government."[6] The letter was signed by Chris Van Hollen, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, Peter Welch, and Bernie Sanders.[6] The letter also noted the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, which includes provisions to expand intelligence sharing with Israel.[6]
On July 14, 2026, Senate Democrats blocked a motion to advance the NDAA 50 to 46. The motion required 60 votes to pass.[7] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that "Republicans want the Senate to take up the NDAA, the defense bill, as though none of this is happening, as though Congress can debate the nation’s central national security bill while ignoring the nation’s most urgent national security crisis."[8]
Provisions
United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative
The United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative was introduced as the core provision of the United States-Israel FUTURES Act and subsequently incorporated into both House and Senate versions of NDAA 2027.[9][10] The House version's provision was titled Section 224 and subsequently retitled as Section 219.[11]
Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie introduced Amendment 2 to the NDAA 2027, which strikes 219 from the Act.[12][13]
Amendment 2 was subsequently supported by Adam Smith, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, who had previously supported Section 219.[13][14] Smith said, "In the context of these ongoing conflicts, Section 224 carries meaning beyond the plain text substance of the provision."[14] He added, "I want to advocate for peace and pressure Israel to meaningfully work with partners in the region to bring these conflicts to an end."[14]
In July 2026, Massie announced plans to re-introduce an amendment removing Section 219 from the Act.[15]
Compensation
The Trump administration proposed a tiered military pay raise for junior service members.[16][17] The provision was adopted by the House Armed Services Committee and rejected by the Senate Armed Services Committee.[17]
Anti-boycott restrictions
Amendment 151 of the NDAA 2027 "Extends existing anti-boycott protections to international governmental organizations (IGOs), such as the UN. These protections are already in place for boycotts instigated by foreign countries."[18][19] Amendment 362 would require the Secretary of Defense to certify Department of Defense contractors do not participate in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel.[18][19]
Reaction
Josh Paul, a former State Department official and head of think tank A New Policy wrote that under Section 219, Israel being positioned "to become a supplier to the U.S. military is just a further example of [it] using [its arms] sector as a tool of influence."[20]
Support
In an opinion for The Jerusalem Post, Meital Stavinsky, president of South Florida Women in Defense, described the NDAA 2027 as a "congressional recognition of this unique relationship", referring to US-Israel military ties.[21] Stavinsky advocated for the upgrading of US-Israel military ties to "a Five Eyes-equivalent or analogous statutory and administrative framework providing greater reciprocity, accelerated technology security review, stronger industrial security pathways, and fully integrated defense industrial cooperation."[21]
In an opinion written by the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal titled "The Military Danger of the Anti-Israel Panic", the Board criticized Representative Adam Smith's support of Amendment 2 to trip Section 219 from the NDAA 2027, writing, "anyone can see that the politics of Israel have changed in the Democratic Party and even among some Republicans," adding "The rising anti-Israel obsession is a gift to U.S. adversaries."[22]
Opposition
A coalition of 14 anti-war organizations, foreign policy, and civil liberty organizations (including the American Civil Liberties Union, J Street, Code Pink and Win Without War) urged lawmakers to opposed the NDAA unless senators were guaranteed a vote on an amendment barring more funds for the Iran war.[23]
In an opinion piece published in progressive news site Common Dreams on July 13, 2026 by Ismail Allison and Robert McCaw of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they wrote "these bills would connect the US and Israeli militaries in unprecedented ways and make it exceedingly difficult for any future president to unwind this partnership with a foreign government."[24][25]
Writing in his Substack Forever Wars, Spencer Ackerman wrote that, "Should the NDAA pass with Section 219/1217 intact, the aircraft-carrier theory of the U.S.-Israel relationship will become more like a supercarrier. And the point of all this is to reduce the exposure of Israel's American patronage to small-d democratic accountability, similar to how AIPAC floods congressional races with money to insulate its beneficiaries from the concerns of their constituents."[26]
