US House passes $1.15 trillion defense bill with major boost to US-‘Israel’ military ties
Note: AI technology was used to generate this article’s audio.
The US House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), authorizing a historic $1.15 trillion for military spending.
The bill passed by a vote of 216-212, largely along party lines, with most Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.
Republicans argued the massive increase—up significantly from the previous year's roughly $900 billion authorization—is essential to support ongoing operations, modernize forces, and provide benefits for troops.
This includes pay raises of up to 7%, barracks and family housing improvements, and funding for weapons systems amid active conflicts.
A key flashpoint was a provision substantially expanding US-‘Israel’ military technology cooperation. Section 219 (formerly 224) establishes a United States-‘Israel’ Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, directing the Pentagon to appoint an executive agent to coordinate research, development, testing, industrial ties, and supply chain integration.
It authorizes around $750 million for cooperative programs, including missile defense like Iron Dome, Arrow, and counter-drone efforts.
"These investments will create opportunities... and strengthen our nation’s ability to confront emerging threats," said Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.), one of six Democrats who crossed party lines to support the bill.
Democrats raised strong objections to the bill's scale and priorities.
Many criticized continued funding for the war with Iran, which has already cost the Pentagon $37.5 billion, at a time when the Trump administration is cutting domestic social programs.
They also opposed deeper integration with ‘Israel’ amid concerns over Gaza.
GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, who pushed unsuccessfully to remove the ‘Israel’ provision, warned it would merge US and ‘Israeli’ military supply chains.
The bill now faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where partisan divisions over spending, the Iran conflict, and foreign policy priorities could complicate negotiations.
A compromise version would still need to pass both chambers before reaching the president. This marks an early but contentious step in the annual NDAA process.
