The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the annual bill that sets policy and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense (DOD). Congress has passed an NDAA for sixty-four consecutive years, and appears to be on track to do so again this year. The Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee—the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the NDAA bill—have completed their work on their respective bills, and both chambers plan to put their bills before the House of Representatives and Senate for full consideration and passage of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 NDAA in early September 2025. 

The annual NDAA presents Congress with a comprehensive opportunity to reorient the DOD toward its fundamental, constitutional purpose of defending the homeland, American citizens, and their rights, while excising the radical and divisive ideologies that have been festering within the Pentagon for decades. To that end, Citizens for Renewing America published an extensive primer explaining the need for major reforms to eliminate destructive policies and initiatives that threaten the nation’s safety.¹ Congress should codify the executive actions President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have taken to restore America’s military and eliminate woke and weaponized policies. The House and Senate versions of the NDAA bill both have some good baseline provisions related to eliminating radical ideologies, but there is still significant room for improvement. 

Strengths of the FY 2026 NDAA

The Senate FY 2026 NDAA bill (S. 2296) and the House’s version (H.R. 3838) make strides in eliminating radical ideologies from our nation’s military and restoring the importance of merit in admission to military academies. Each bill contains several provisions that were specifically recommended in the primer.

Statutory Elimination and Defunding of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

While the language is slightly different in each, the House and Senate’s NDAA bills eliminate all statutory policies, requirements, initiatives, and positions related to DEI from within the DOD. This includes the elimination of its Chief Diversity Office, the elimination of diversity goals and guidelines from the national defense strategy, and the elimination of the requirements to collect data and metrics related to prioritization of quotas based on immutable characteristics. 

The House version goes a step further and includes language that explicitly prohibits funding for DEI purposes, while the Senate’s iteration includes provisions for eliminating the woke, weaponized, divisive, and radical policies and practices from within the DOD. 

Room for Improvement: The House and Senate need to reconcile the respective provisions on the statutory elimination of DEI throughout the DOD. The final version of the NDAA should also include the House’s provision that explicitly strips funding from all DEI programs.

 Discrimination in the Military Service Academies

The House and Senate NDAA bills contain different provisions aimed at restoring the use of merit and ending race, sex, and gender prioritizations at the service academies. The Senate’s version says that the service academies may not consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in admissions decisions. The House’s version focuses on merit with language that reforms the criteria the service academies use when considering applicants. These reforms include more heavily weighing standardized test scores and deemphasizing subjective attributes when considering an applicant’s admission into one of the service academies. 

The Senate’s NDAA also includes a provision that prohibits the participation of biological males in any athletic programs designated for women at the service academies. 

Room for Improvement: While the House and Senate’s respective provisions addressing the service academies are separately good, both provisions need to be included in the finished product to achieve maximum policy impact. The final language needs to include an explicit prohibition on using race or sex in admissions decisions and a requirement that merit, as determined by standardized tests, be the deciding factor in admissions decisions to the military academies.

Transgender Policies

The Senate version of the NDAA prohibits the use of any funding to facilitate sex change surgeries and prohibits the use of any military medical treatment facility to perform sex change surgeries. But this prohibition does not extend to other types of sex transition treatments or procedures, such as the administration of hormone “therapies” and other pharmacological interventions. The House has no provision related to a prohibition on transgender medical services. 

Room for Improvement: If Congress does not completely ban all transgender medical services—surgeries and treatments—it should include a provision that restores the understanding of gender dysphoria as a mental illness that is a disqualifying medical condition for active duty service, as was the case in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) before DSM-5, the latest revision.

Other Notable Provisions

• The House’s version of the NDAA includes a prohibition on the use of funds to endorse or promote critical race theory throughout the DOD. This includes at the military academies, in service member training at the DOD, and in additional military educational programs. The Senate’s version has no related provision. 
  • Room for Improvement: Congress should include this provision in the final bill.
    
    
• The House’s version of the NDAA includes a provision that requires the exclusive use of racial neutrality and merit in all DOD personnel actions. These include promotions, assignments, training, and command selections. The Senate does not include this explicit language requiring racial neutrality in all personnel decisions.  
  • Room for Improvement: Congress should include this provision in the final bill.
    
    
• The House’s version of the NDAA eliminates the authorization of climate change programs and directives throughout the DOD. 
  • Room for Improvement: Congress should include this provision in the final bill.

Room for Improvement in the FY 2026 NDAA

In its current form, the Senate NDAA has several problematic provisions that Congress should address before sending a final bill to the president’s desk. The most pressing of these concerns are the cost of the legislation, several provisions related to Ukraine, and a few areas where both the House and the Senate missed the opportunity to eliminate woke and divisive policies from the military. A number of other provisions should also be addressed to improve the bill. These areas are outlined below:

Cost

The Senate NDAA authorizes $924.7 billion, which is $32.1 billion more than the President’s FY 2026 budget request.² The Senate’s bill fails to take into account the $150 billion mandatory defense spending increase included in the One Big Beautiful Reconciliation (OBBB) bill. It is unclear why the Senate Armed Services Committee overlooked this increase, but with the nation’s debt at $37 trillion, this is an area Congress should address before this process is complete. 

Fitness Standards

Both versions of the NDAA neglect to address the need to reform fitness standards to ensure servicemen and women are capable and ready to confront the nation’s adversaries. Congress should include standards that ensure sex-neutral fitness standards are included in the NDAA. 

Provisions Related to Ukraine

The Senate’s version of the NDAA contains several concerning provisions related to Ukraine. The bill “reaffirms that it is the policy of the United States to assist Ukraine in maintaining a credible defense and deterrence capability and to bolster defense and security cooperation with Ukraine to build a Ukrainian military that is capable of defending Ukraine and deterring future aggression.” The bill includes an extension of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through December 31, 2028, with a spending increase for the program of $500 million for FY 2026. It also requires the secretary of defense to provide support in the form of intelligence to Ukraine.  

President Trump and his administration are currently trying to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The Ukraine provisions in the Senate NDAA arguably undermine the progress made and commit the United States to even more funding and support of this war. 

Endless War Incentives

Section 1232 in the House’s NDAA extends authority to reimburse or provide assistance to any cooperating nations that provided support for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Paying foreign nations for their involvement in wars keeps American foreign policy in an endless war mindset and undermines the president’s commander-in-chief capabilities. Similarly, Section 1234 extends authority to assist in countering the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.  Without clear parameters, this provision risks dragging the United States into yet another open-ended conflict in the Middle East; instead, Iraq should step up and defend its own territorial integrity. Both provisions should be rescinded.

Undermining the President’s Authority

Several provisions in the Senate’s version of the NDAA tie the president’s hands on matters in which he may need flexibility to better support U.S. foreign policy and U.S. military personnel: 

• Section 1033 puts additional reporting requirements on the use of DOD assets in assisting the Department of Homeland Security’s detention efforts. This provision places an administrative burden on the DOD’s ability to aid the president and his administration in detaining and deporting illegal aliens. 
  
  
• Section 1225 prohibits the reduction in U.S. military force posture in Europe or the relinquishment of U.S. command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe position without reporting to Congress. This provision only undermines the president’s leverage in negotiations with European leaders over increasing their contributions to the cost and military burden of NATO. 

• Section 1229 requires that at least 15 percent of authorized and appropriated funds for the International Security Cooperation Program be made available for use by the United States European Command (USEUCOM). Section 1229 calls for an alarming increase in security cooperation funding—more than eightfold—in FY 2027 compared to FY 2026. This massive surge not only undermines fiscal responsibility but locks the Pentagon into a rigid resource commitment, limiting its ability to adjust priorities within USEUCOM. Even more concerning, this provision represents a significant shift in DOD policy and risks encroaching on the president’s constitutional role as commander in chief and lead architect of U.S. foreign policy, potentially leading to unchecked expansion of security engagements abroad.

• Sections 1217 and 1233 seek to limit the authority of the president and secretary of defense to reduce the number of troops and bases in particular regions of the world. Both of these provisions, though addressing different regions of the globe, limit the president’s authority as commander in chief of the Armed Forces and tie his hands when he needs to make decisions on the strength and location of U.S. assets. 

• Section 919 limits the ability of the president to consolidate, disestablish, or otherwise eliminate geographic combatant commands without reporting to Congress. While this provision may seem reasonable at first glance, the requirements and timeline on reporting to Congress constrain the president and secretary of defense’s ability to quickly move deployed troops where they’re needed. This is another provision that undermines the president’s authority as commander in chief. 
  
  
• Section 1263 establishes a program that promotes the participation of foreign students in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. The national security rationale for such a program is thin, at best, with the risk far outweighing the ostensible reward. Bringing foreign students into these programs risks exposing sensitive U.S. training protocols to outsiders who may or may not be friendly to America’s interests. This provision undermines the ability of the Commander-in-Chief to execute his mission and should be removed. 

Flag Requirements 

Neither version of the FY 2026 NDAA currently contains language that addresses which flags can fly at and over U.S. military bases, U.S. embassies, and other government buildings. The final version of the NDAA should include language that prohibits the display of any flags at DOD facilities except for the American flag, the official flags of U.S. states, and the District of Columbia, military service flags, general officer flags, flags representing presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed civilians, senior executive service or military department flags, the POW/MIA flag, flags of allied or partner nations (when used for protocol), flags of organizations to which the United States belongs, and appropriate ceremonial, command, unit, branch flags, or guidons.

Deviant Activity Prohibitions

Neither version of the FY 2026 NDAA contains language that prohibits the use of taxpayer funding for drag shows and cabaret performances at DOD facilities and on DOD property, as well as statutory prohibitions on unit sponsorship or endorsement of such activities. Congress should enact common-sense safeguards that make good use of taxpayer dollars, ensure that DOD personnel remain mission-focused, and promote a warrior culture dedicated to defeating America’s enemies when necessary.

Social Media Prohibitions

Neither version of the FY 2026 NDAA contains language that prohibits units below the division level of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, major command level of the U.S. Air Force, and fleet level of the U.S. Navy from operating websites and social media accounts. Such activities often disrupt unit cohesion, jeopardize operational security, and are frequently used to highlight unit elements extraneous to the mission at hand that risk skirting DOD-wide directives. There is zero national security rationale for such social media accounts to exist.

Conclusion

Congress has thus far completed work on the FY 2026 NDAA ahead of schedule. This leaves time for lawmakers to get things right by enacting critical reforms and recommitting the United States military to the task of defending the homeland. Both the House and the Senate should amend their existing bills to eliminate those provisions harmful to the integrity of the military and its command structure, cut wasteful spending, and thoroughly remove divisive ideologies. 

Endnotes

1.   Wade Miller and Will Thibeau, “Primer: Key Policy Reforms for the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act,” Center for Renewing America, May 19, 2025, https://citizensrenewingamerica.com/issues/primer-key-policy-reforms-for-the-fy2026-national-defense-authorization-act/.

2.   Russell T. Vought, “Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request,” The White House, Office of Management and Budget, May 2, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf.