Senate approves $924.7 billion defense bill amid bipartisan push, raising questions over military expansion and surveillance powers – NaturalNews.com

• The Senate passed the FY2026 NDAA with $924.7 billion in defense authorization, marking a continued expansion of military budgets despite economic concerns. The bill includes a 3.8 percent pay raise for troops and funds advanced weaponry like nuclear submarines, F-35 jets and amphibious ships.
• The bill passed 77-20, demonstrating strong bipartisan backing despite failed amendments to rein in executive power, surveillance overreach and wasteful spending – such as blocking funds for retrofitting a Qatari-gifted Boeing 747 as a potential Air Force One replacement.
• The 2002 Iraq War AUMF was repealed, a move championed by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) to restore congressional war powers. Another amendment expanded Pentagon authority to counter drone threats near military bases.
• The NDAA extends U.S. military support for Ukraine through 2028, approving $500 million in intelligence-sharing and lethal aid, deepening involvement in the proxy war against Russia.
• Critics like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) argue the NDAA reflects misplaced priorities, with defense consuming over half of discretionary spending while domestic programs face uncertainty. The bill now heads to a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile differences before final approval.

In a rare display of bipartisan unity, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Thursday, Oct. 9.

The measure authorized a staggering $924.7 billion in defense spending – a figure that underscores Washington’s relentless push to expand military capabilities despite mounting national debt and economic instability. The 77-20 vote, with only a handful of dissenters, signals broad congressional support for an ever-growing defense budget – even as critics warn of unchecked military-industrial influence and the erosion of civil liberties under the guise of national security.

The NDAA, a sprawling 1,454-page legislative behemoth, serves as the annual blueprint for U.S. military policy, authorizing everything from troop pay raises to the acquisition of next-generation weaponry. While the bill does not directly allocate funds – those decisions fall to separate appropriations legislation – it sets the legal framework for how future defense dollars will be spent.

This year’s version includes a 3.8 percent pay increase for service members, the purchase of five Columbia-class nuclear submarines, 15 amphibious landing ships, and 34 additional F-35A fighter jets, further cementing the Department of War’s dominance in global military projection. BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine explains that the NDAA dictates the budget, policies and priorities of the War Department – effectively shaping military spending, operations and global interventions.

Yet the bill’s passage was not without controversy. Behind closed doors, lawmakers clashed over amendments that sought to curb executive overreach, rein in surveillance authorities, and challenge the administration’s foreign policy maneuvers.

Among the most contentious was the failed attempt by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to block funding for the retrofitting of a Qatari-gifted Boeing 747-8, which President Donald Trump has eyed as a replacement for Air Force One. Schumer condemned the move as a wasteful expenditure, arguing that “retrofitting this foreign-owned luxury jet to make it fully operational will cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. That’s money that shouldn’t be wasted.”

Similarly, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) pushed an amendment to prevent the president and state governors from deploying National Guard troops across state lines without local approval – a measure aimed at curbing the federalization of state militias, as seen during Trump’s deployment of troops to Washington, D.C., amid civil unrest. That amendment, too, was defeated, highlighting the Senate’s reluctance to constrain executive military authority, even when it encroaches on state sovereignty.

One of the few successful bipartisan amendments came from Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), who secured the repeal of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq – a legal relic from the George W. Bush era that has been used to justify endless military engagements in the Middle East. Kaine, a long-time critic of expansive war powers, hailed the repeal as a step toward reasserting congressional oversight over military action.

Another amendment, spearheaded by Cotton and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), granted the Pentagon expanded authority to counter drone threats over military installations—a response to the growing number of unauthorized drone sightings near sensitive sites, including Langley Air Force Base. Gillibrand warned that current laws leave “gaps that endanger our military bases and the men and women who serve there,” a concern that resonated across party lines in an era of evolving asymmetric threats.

U.S. military support for Ukraine EXTENDED through 2028

The bill’s passage also extended U.S. military support for Ukraine through 2028, authorizing an additional $500 million for intelligence-sharing and lethal aid—a provision that underscores Washington’s deepening commitment to the proxy war against Russia, despite little public debate over the long-term strategic implications. Meanwhile, efforts to rename the Department of Defense as the “Department of War”—a symbolic but politically charged move floated by the Trump administration—were omitted from the final text, as only Congress holds the authority to alter the department’s legal name.

The NDAA’s advancement comes at a time when the federal government remains partially shut down due to partisan gridlock over broader spending bills, raising questions about how lawmakers can justify near-unanimous support for record military spending while basic domestic programs face funding uncertainties. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the 20 dissenting votes, has been a vocal critic of the NDAA’s bloated price tag, arguing that it reflects a broken prioritization of endless war over fiscal responsibility.

The NDAA now heads to a conference committee, where House and Senate negotiators will reconcile differences between their respective versions. The House’s iteration, passed last month, authorizes a slightly lower top-line figure of $893 billion, setting the stage for potential clashes over funding priorities. Once a compromise is reached, both chambers will vote on the final text before sending it to the president’s desk.

As the defense bill barrels toward enactment, its critics – both within Congress and among the public – are left grappling with broader questions about the unchecked growth of the military-industrial complex. With defense spending now consuming well over half of discretionary federal outlays, the NDAA’s passage serves as a stark reminder of Washington’s bipartisan addiction to militarism, even as the nation’s fiscal and moral foundations show signs of strain.

Watch the Health Ranger Mike Adams debunking the myths about the NDAA below.

This video is from the Newstarget channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

NTD.com

BrightU.ai

TheHill.com

AA.com.tr

Brighteon.com