House deploys $831.5 billion defense bill while sidestepping Ukraine, igniting fiscal and foreign aid firestorms – NaturalNews.com

• House approves $831.5 billion defense bill amid controversy over Ukraine omission and trillion-dollar spending.
• Major provisions include next-gen weapons funding, shipbuilding programs and a 3.8% military pay raise but excludes Ukraine aid.
• Partisan vote shows tensions over defense spending priorities, foreign aid cuts and fiscal responsibility.
• Critics warn delays in weapons systems could let adversaries “close the technology gap” amid a record $1T defense budget.
• Civilian Pentagon positions will decrease by 45,000, sparking Democratic ire over “indiscriminate” staffing reductions.

In a deeply politicized 221-209 vote Thursday, the House of Representatives approved a $831.5 billion defense spending bill brimming with funding for advanced submarines, stealth bombers and missile systems, but also sparking partisan fury over its omission of aid to Ukraine and sweeping cuts to Pentagon civilian employees. The measure, which forms the fiscal underpinning of U.S. defense strategy through September 2026, now faces Senate scrutiny as lawmakers grapple with trillion-dollar military budgets—and the consequences of where the money flows.

The legislation—touted as an essential tool to counter global threats from China and Russia—allocates billions toward contentious priorities, including $10.4 billion for two Columbia?class ballistic missile submarines, $3.8 billion for B-21 stealth bomber production, and $37 billion for new naval vessels. But its refusal to fund Ukraine’s war against Russia drew sharp bipartisan rebukes, while cost-cutting measures and ideological riders alienated Democrats wary of Republican priorities.

Key government priorities: Building battleships, not bridges to Kyiv

The bill’s architecture reflects competing visions for U.S. military power. Nearly $71.7 billion is earmarked for the Navy and Marines, $61.6 billion for the Air Force and $55.7 billion for the Army, while $15.3 billion supports the National Guard. Central to the Navy’s $13.6 billion shipbuilding program is funding for two Virginia-class attack submarines, two aircraft carriers (CVN-80 and CVN-81) and upgrades for existing carriers—a reflection of aggressive modernization efforts countering China’s maritime ambitions.

“This bill helps us stay ahead of adversaries evolving across the Pacific and Middle East,” declared Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.). It also prioritizes President Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense system with $60 million for Israel’s Iron Dome and $100 million for the Arrow 3 program. Yet critics argue the bill’s narrow focus could undercut deterrence.

“What matters is whether this money produces weapons and ships fast enough,” said a retired military analyst, noting that delays in acquiring next-gen systems have allowed adversaries to “close the tech gap.” The Pentagon’s reliance on “cost-consciousness” through cheaper, existing technologies—rather than cutting-edge R&D—has raised concerns about long-term readiness.

Ukraine aid exclusion sparks outcry, with Republicans divided

The bill’s most contentious absence looms over its 2026 allocations: not a single dollar for Kyiv, despite Ukraine’s escalating frontline struggles. Amendments by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to strip $1.6 billion in broader foreign aid—including funds for training Iraqi troops and disaster relief—also flopped. Greene, who received backing from only 75 colleagues, accused lawmakers of “handing your tax dollars to foreign countries, adding to our $37 trillion debt.”

Democrats swiftly condemned the Ukraine omission, with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) declaring, “This bill dangerously ignores history at our own peril.” Even some Republicans expressed unease. Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) insisted U.S. spending “must increase further to maintain security,” while three GOP members—including Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)—voted “no,” citing federal overspending. Burchett linked the $1 trillion defense haul (when combined with July’s “Big, Beautiful Bill”) to corporate profiteering: “War is good for business,” he said, echoing calls for fiscal restraint.

Pay raises for troops, layoffs for civilians signal contradictions

The bill tries to balance incentives for service members with austerity for federal employees. A 3.8% military pay raise—welcomed by troop advocacy groups—comes alongside plans to slash nearly 45,000 Pentagon civilian jobs, saving $8.1 billion over two years. Republican leaders framed the cuts as modernization, but Democrats decried the move as “reckless.”

“This isn’t efficiency—it’s abandonment of the workers who keep the military running,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.). Critics accuse the GOP of copying former President Elon Musk’s controversial “Department of Government Efficiency” cost-cutting schemes, which critics claim degraded agency functionality.

The measure also restricted Pentagon funds for “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs and abortion access for troops, further enraging House Democrats. But Reps. Don Davis (D-N.C.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) crossed the aisle to vote “yes” on the bill’s core funding, displaying the murkier lines of defense policymaking in polarized times.

Trillion-dollar horizon: Why this budget matters now

The $831.5 bn bill, when added to the FY2026 budgets for other departments, pushes total Pentagon-related spending to nearly $1 trillion—a dollar amount equaling roughly 6% of U.S. GDP. This marks a historic escalation of military spending reminiscent of Cold War heights, but its implications are clearer against today’s multipolar landscape.

Analysts warn that the bill’s focus on shipbuilding and bombers may overlook near-term needs, such as resupplying depleted munitions stocks after Ukraine’s war or bolstering deterrence in the contested South China Sea. Meanwhile, Republican fiscal hawks argue such spending fuels inflation and debt—though their party’s leadership has readily supported the increase.

“This isn’t just about Russia or China,” said Rep. Calvert (R-Calif.), the defense subcommittee chairman, defending the bill. “It’s about securing our future when adversaries are racing forward.” Yet as the U.S. invests in next-gen tools, the lag between Pentagon requests and production reality remains unresolved—a gap that, as critics stress, adversaries will exploit.

A bill divided over weaponry and morality

The House’s defense vote laid bare the chasm between national security imperatives and domestic fiscal realities. For proponents, the bill funds the carriers and missiles needed to dominate contested seas and skies. For opponents—on both sides—the measure reflects runaway spending, moral compromises and a Pentagon no longer in touch with American wallets or needs.

With the Senate expected to debate its own version later this fall, the core question remains: Can a fragmented Congress align its priorities before rivals catch up in the tech race? The answer, Pentagon planners say, lies not just in how much it spends—but how wisely.

Sources for this article include:

YourNews.com

X.com

Stripes.com