N※N

Media and Entertainment
Source : (remove) : Truthout
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Media and Entertainment
Source : (remove) : Truthout
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

5 House Democrats Join Most Republicans to Pass $832 Billion Military Bill

House Passes Massive $832 Billion Military Spending Bill with Bipartisan Support, Sparking Outrage from Progressives

In a move that underscores the persistent bipartisan consensus on military expansion in Washington, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025, authorizing a staggering $832 billion in military spending. The bill, which sets the policy and funding framework for the Pentagon, passed with overwhelming support from Republicans and a handful of Democrats, highlighting the challenges faced by anti-war advocates in curbing the nation's ever-growing defense budget. This development comes amid ongoing global conflicts, domestic economic pressures, and debates over fiscal priorities, raising questions about the allocation of taxpayer dollars in an era of rising inequality and unmet social needs.

The vote, which took place on the House floor, saw 281 members in favor and 140 opposed. Notably, five House Democrats crossed party lines to join the majority of Republicans in supporting the measure. These Democrats, whose identities reflect a mix of moderate and defense-hawk leanings, included representatives from districts with significant military installations or defense industry ties. Their decision to back the bill, despite vocal opposition from progressive colleagues, illustrates the entrenched influence of the military-industrial complex in American politics. On the flip side, a substantial number of Democrats—over 100—voted against it, aligning with a smaller group of Republicans who expressed concerns over fiscal conservatism or specific provisions within the legislation.

At its core, the NDAA is an annual must-pass bill that outlines the Department of Defense's priorities, from personnel pay to weapons procurement and international alliances. This year's version allocates funds for a wide array of programs, including the modernization of nuclear arsenals, the development of advanced fighter jets, and the expansion of military bases both domestically and abroad. Proponents argue that such investments are essential for maintaining U.S. global dominance, particularly in the face of perceived threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama, praised the bill as a "critical step in ensuring our armed forces remain the strongest in the world," emphasizing its role in deterring aggression and supporting allies like Ukraine and Israel.

However, critics contend that the $832 billion price tag—representing a significant increase from previous years—exemplifies misplaced priorities. Adjusted for inflation, this budget surpasses Cold War-era spending levels and dwarfs investments in education, healthcare, and climate initiatives. Progressive voices, including members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have decried the bill as a giveaway to defense contractors at the expense of everyday Americans. Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat and caucus chair, lambasted the legislation, stating, "While families struggle with skyrocketing costs for housing and groceries, we're funneling billions more into endless wars and weapons systems that often sit unused. This isn't defense; it's corporate welfare."

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its inclusion of provisions that roll back certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the military. These measures, pushed by conservative Republicans, aim to eliminate programs promoting racial and gender equity, which critics say are vital for building a more representative and effective fighting force. Additionally, the NDAA maintains funding for controversial projects, such as the F-35 fighter jet program, which has been plagued by cost overruns and technical issues, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions over its lifecycle. The bill also boosts support for Israel's military operations, allocating millions for Iron Dome missile defense systems amid the ongoing Gaza conflict, a point of division that has fueled protests on U.S. campuses and streets.

The five Democrats who voted in favor—whose names include figures like Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Mary Peltola of Alaska, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, and Don Davis of North Carolina—represent districts where military spending directly impacts local economies. For instance, Golden's district hosts naval shipyards, while Peltola's Alaska is home to major Air Force bases. Their support underscores the political calculus in swing districts, where opposing defense bills can be portrayed as weakness on national security. Yet, this bipartisanship has drawn ire from anti-war groups like CodePink and Win Without War, who argue that it perpetuates a cycle of militarism. "This vote shows how deeply the war machine is embedded in our politics," said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink. "Even with a Democratic president, we're seeing record military budgets that fuel conflicts abroad and neglect peace-building at home."

Historically, the NDAA has enjoyed broad support since its inception in 1961, passing every year without fail. But recent iterations have grown increasingly bloated, with the 2024 version clocking in at $886 billion—a figure this year's bill nearly matches despite calls for restraint. The Biden administration, while requesting a slightly lower amount, has largely endorsed the framework, prioritizing competition with China through initiatives like the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which receives billions in funding. This alignment reflects a broader shift in Democratic foreign policy, moving away from the anti-interventionist stances of the post-Iraq War era toward a more hawkish posture.

The bill's passage also intersects with domestic politics, particularly as the 2024 election looms. Republicans, who control the House, used the NDAA to advance cultural wedge issues, such as restrictions on transgender healthcare for military personnel and limits on abortion access for service members. These amendments, while not directly tied to defense spending, have alienated some moderates and progressives, leading to accusations that the bill is being weaponized for partisan gain. Democrats attempted to strip these provisions during committee markups but were largely unsuccessful, resulting in a final product that progressives view as regressive.

Beyond the immediate fiscal implications, the $832 billion authorization raises broader questions about U.S. foreign policy and its global footprint. With over 750 military bases in more than 80 countries, the U.S. spends more on defense than the next 10 nations combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. This dominance, critics argue, contributes to endless wars, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses. For example, the bill's funding for drone programs and special operations has been linked to civilian casualties in regions like the Middle East and Africa, where U.S. interventions continue under the radar.

Environmental advocates have also sounded alarms, pointing out that the Pentagon is the world's largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases. The NDAA's emphasis on fossil fuel-dependent technologies, such as jet fuel for aircraft carriers, exacerbates climate change, even as the bill includes token nods to green energy transitions within the military. Groups like the Sierra Club have called for a reevaluation of defense spending in light of existential threats like global warming, arguing that true security lies in diplomacy and sustainable development, not militarization.

As the bill moves to the Senate, where it is expected to pass with similar bipartisan backing, the debate intensifies. Senate Armed Services Committee leaders, including Democrat Jack Reed and Republican Roger Wicker, have signaled support for a robust defense posture, potentially leading to even higher funding levels through amendments. President Biden, who has signed previous NDAAs into law, is likely to approve this one, continuing a pattern of executive deference to congressional defense priorities.

In the end, the House's approval of this colossal military bill reflects a Washington consensus that prioritizes guns over butter, even as public opinion polls show growing fatigue with endless wars. A recent Pew Research survey indicated that a majority of Americans favor reducing military spending to address domestic issues like healthcare and education. Yet, with powerful lobbies and electoral pressures at play, meaningful reform remains elusive. Progressives vow to continue the fight, pushing for amendments in the Senate or future budget battles, but the passage of this NDAA serves as a stark reminder of the uphill battle against the status quo of American militarism.

This development not only shapes the immediate future of U.S. defense policy but also signals to the world the nation's unwavering commitment to military might. As global tensions simmer—from Ukraine's battlefields to the South China Sea—the question remains: at what cost does this pursuit of security come, and who truly benefits? For now, the answer lies in the billions flowing to the Pentagon, leaving social programs and peace initiatives in the shadows. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full Truthout Article at:
[ https://truthout.org/articles/5-house-democrats-join-most-republicans-to-pass-832-billion-military-bill/ ]