House Passes $895 Billion Defense Bill Amid Controversy Over Gender-Affirming Care Provision
The House has approved the $895 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with a controversial provision restricting gender-affirming care for military children. The bill also includes major wins for U.S. defense, but faces strong opposition from Democrats.
House Passes $895 Billion Defense Bill Amid Controversy Over Gender-Affirming Care
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the $895 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025 in a 281-140 vote, approving funding for the U.S. Department of Defense. However, the passage of this significant national security legislation came with heated debate, particularly surrounding a controversial provision related to gender-affirming care.
What’s Inside the NDAA?
This 1,800-page bill is a vital piece of legislation that normally enjoys broad bipartisan support. Yet this year, the NDAA faced significant pushback due to provisions targeting gender-affirming care for military children and restrictions on critical race theory in military academies.
While House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries acknowledged that the NDAA contains several positive bipartisan initiatives, he also raised concerns about certain provisions that, he argued, politicized the defense bill.
“We see a lot of good things in this bill, but there are also some troubling provisions that we feel should be addressed,” said Jeffries. As Democrats weighed their positions on the bill, 81 members joined 200 Republicans in supporting the bill, while 16 Republicans voted against it.
The Controversial Gender-Affirming Care Provision
One of the most divisive issues surrounding the NDAA was the inclusion of a provision restricting gender-affirming care for military children. The provision specifies that medical treatments for gender dysphoria that could lead to sterilization would not be provided to children under 18 as part of military health programs.
This provision faced strong opposition from Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who called the measure “wrong” and divisive. Smith noted that this language injected partisan conflict into what had traditionally been a bipartisan defense bill.
“It’s disappointing to see Speaker [Mike] Johnson pander to the most extreme factions of his party, undermining the traditionally bipartisan nature of the NDAA,” Smith said.
House Republicans and Speaker Mike Johnson’s Agenda
For Speaker Mike Johnson, the NDAA is a win for the defense budget, emphasizing measures like a 14.5% pay raise for junior service members and increased military collaboration with Israel. Johnson also touted enhanced U.S. defense initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region, calling it essential to maintaining the military's global superiority.
Johnson defended the provisions on gender-affirming care, describing them as part of a broader effort to curb “political correctness” within the military, saying the bill addresses "critical wins for our troops" and ensures national security readiness.
However, the provisions restricting gender-affirming care and banning critical race theory teachings at military academies have raised questions about the bill’s larger political motives, with critics saying it could harm military morale and recruitment.
The NDAA’s Future in the Senate
With the House passage now complete, the NDAA heads to the Senate, where it will likely face additional scrutiny, particularly regarding the controversial provisions. While the bill includes important defense funding, the gender-affirming care provision could continue to spark heated debate among lawmakers.
Despite the divisiveness, the bill’s passage is a critical step in ensuring that the Department of Defense has the resources it needs for fiscal year 2025. As the NDAA now moves to the Senate, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will have to negotiate the language of the bill to secure approval and avoid a government shutdown.
Conclusion: Political Implications for the 2024 Election
The debate surrounding the NDAA comes at a pivotal time in U.S. politics, as President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have increasingly leaned into anti-trans rhetoric as part of their campaign messaging leading up to the 2024 election. The provisions in the NDAA related to gender-affirming care and military personnel seem to reflect this growing political divide.
As the 2024 election approaches, these cultural and political issues are expected to continue to shape the debate in Congress and on the campaign trail, with both Republicans and Democrats using such legislation as a rallying point for their respective bases.