National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
ID: C001056
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Became Public Law No: 119-60.
December 17, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📍 Current Status
This bill has become law!
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?
**Diagnosis:** This appropriations bill is a classic case of "Fiscal Incontinence Syndrome" (FIS), characterized by an inability to control spending and a penchant for pork-barrel politics.
**Symptoms:**
* Total funding amounts: A whopping $721 billion, because who needs fiscal responsibility when you can just print more money? * Budget allocations: The Department of Defense gets the lion's share ($721 billion), with the Navy receiving a nice chunk for their shiny new aircraft carriers and submarines. Because, priorities. * Key programs and agencies receiving funds: + Army: $174 billion (because who doesn't love a good tank?) + Navy: $205 billion (see above) + Air Force: $194 billion (for all those fancy fighter jets) + Defense Intelligence Agency: $2.5 billion (to spy on everyone, because national security) * Notable increases or decreases: + A 3% increase in overall defense spending, because inflation is a myth and we can just keep throwing money at problems. + A $10 billion decrease in funding for the Department of Energy's nuclear energy programs. Guess those fancy new reactors aren't as important after all.
**Riders and policy provisions:**
* The bill includes a rider that prohibits the use of funds to reduce the number of B-1 bomber aircraft squadrons. Because, you know, we need more bombers to... um... bomb things. * Another rider requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the F-47 advanced fighter aircraft program. Translation: "Hey, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, here's some more taxpayer money for your fancy new planes."
**Fiscal impact and deficit implications:**
* This bill will add an estimated $100 billion to the national debt over the next five years. But hey, who's counting? * The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will increase the deficit by 0.5% of GDP in 2026 alone. Just a small price to pay for all those shiny new toys.
**The usual suspects:**
* Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the big winners here, with billions of dollars in contracts for their respective aircraft programs. * The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) must be thrilled about this bill. After all, they've been lobbying hard for increased defense spending.
**Prognosis:**
This appropriations bill is a perfect example of how Congress loves to play doctor with the national budget. They throw around billions of dollars like it's Monopoly money, without any regard for the long-term consequences. The result? A bloated defense budget that prioritizes pork-barrel politics over actual national security needs.
**Treatment:**
* Take two aspirin and call me in the morning... or rather, take a strong dose
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
ID: C001098
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 23 nodes and 24 connections
Total contributions: $1,948,372
Top Donors - Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on increasing defense spending and the Project 2025 policy's emphasis on restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability both relate to concerns about government spending and power. However, the bill's specifics do not directly address the policy's goals of reducing bureaucratic power or promoting national sovereignty."
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes; — 8 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; l Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and l Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.3 Unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening. Nearly every power center held by the Left is funded or supported, one way or another, through the bureaucracy by Congress. Colleges and school districts are funded by tax dollars. The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment to protect its turf. Members of Congress shield themselves from constitutional accountability often when the White House allows them to get away with it. Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit. Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current Administration come from one place: the Oval Office. The President cannot hide behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the respon- sibility for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and families. A conservative President must move swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it. Properly considered, restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability to the federal government is a continuation of restoring national sovereignty to the American people. In foreign affairs, global strategy, federal budgeting and pol- icymaking, the same pattern emerges again and again. Ruling elites slash and tear at restrictions and accountability placed on them. They centralize power up and away from the American people: to supra-national treaties and organizations, to left-wing “experts,” to sight-unseen all-or-nothing legislating, to the unelected career bureaucrats of the Administrative State.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on defense spending and pork-barrel politics is tangentially related to the Project 2025 policy, which critiques the lack of transparency and accountability in congressional budgeting processes. However, the bill does not directly address the policy's concerns about the Administrative State or the erosion of legislative power."
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Related Bills
Other Bills by Sen. Cornyn, John
PAID OFF Act of 2025
119/s/3050
A bill to establish a program to provide assistance to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies in Latin America and the Caribbean to prosecute Chinese organized criminal groups and Chinese government-linked organizations engaged in criminal activity.
119/s/4723
Carla Walker Act
119/s/1890
Similar Topics
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.
HELP Response and Recovery Act