Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 4016 are substantively identical, with the only changes being updates to the legislative status information, indicating the bill's progression from being engrossed in the House to being placed on the Senate calendar. No substantive policy changes were made between v2 and v3.
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Dec 8, 2025
Bottom line
The bill funds the entire Department of Defense for fiscal year 2026, including significant investments in personnel, operations, and modernization, while also embedding a wide array of policy directives and spending reductions.
What it actually does
This bill provides appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It allocates funds across military personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, research and development, health programs, and other defense-related activities. Additionally, it includes numerous general provisions that establish policy directives, transfer authorities, and restrictions on various DoD activities, ranging from procurement practices to social policies and foreign assistance.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for maintaining national security, supporting military personnel and their families, and ensuring the United States' technological and strategic advantage over adversaries. They emphasize the need for robust funding to modernize equipment, invest in cutting-edge research, and sustain global operations, thereby protecting American interests and allies worldwide. The bill's targeted investments and strategic reductions aim to enhance efficiency and readiness.
Opponents contend
Opponents may contend that the bill's overall spending levels are excessive or that specific allocations do not align with strategic priorities. Critics often raise concerns about the inclusion of numerous policy riders unrelated to appropriations, arguing that these provisions bypass regular legislative processes and can be controversial. Some may also argue that the stated reductions are insufficient or that certain programs funded are wasteful or ineffective.
The bill is exceptionally long and detailed, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Its complexity, coupled with the reliance on external 'explanatory statements' for detailed project adjustments, makes it challenging for the public to fully grasp its implications within a typical legislative review period.
Title I
Military Personnel Appropriations
This title appropriates funds for the pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, and travel for active duty members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force, as well as personnel in the Reserve and National Guard components. It also includes payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, ensuring compensation and benefits for service members.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these appropriations are fundamental to supporting the men and women in uniform, ensuring their readiness, and maintaining morale. Adequate funding for personnel is seen as a critical investment in the nation's defense capabilities and a commitment to those who serve.
Critics contend
While direct opposition to military personnel funding is rare, critics might argue for greater scrutiny of personnel costs, efficiency in benefits administration, or the overall size of the force relative to strategic needs, rather than the principle of compensation itself.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension involves balancing competitive compensation and benefits for military personnel with overall budget constraints and other defense priorities, such as procurement and research. Decisions on personnel levels and pay raises directly impact the total defense budget.
Title II, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Defense-Wide Operations and Maintenance
This provision appropriates over $53 billion for the operation and maintenance of various Department of Defense activities and agencies not covered by individual military departments. It includes funds for emergencies, extraordinary expenses, APEX Accelerators, classified activities, and support for foreign security forces, with several specific provisos regarding transfers and reporting.
Title II, Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund
Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund
This provision appropriates $357,516,000 to remain available until September 30, 2027, for assisting foreign security forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals participating in activities to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Assistance includes training, equipment, logistics, stipends, and infrastructure repair, with strict vetting and reporting requirements.
Title III, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Naval Shipbuilding and Conversion Programs
This title allocates over $36.9 billion for the construction, acquisition, or conversion of various naval vessels, including Columbia Class Submarines, Carrier Replacement Programs, Virginia Class Submarines, DDG-51 Destroyers, FFG-Frigates, and support ships. It includes funds for critical components, plant equipment, and completion of prior year programs, with availability until September 30, 2030.
Title IV, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
This provision appropriates over $36.4 billion for basic and applied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation activities conducted by various Department of Defense agencies. It supports advanced research projects designated by the Secretary of Defense, including maintenance and operation of facilities and equipment, with funds available until September 30, 2027.
Title VI, Defense Health Program
Defense Health Program Funding and Directives
This provision appropriates over $40.9 billion for the Department of Defense's medical and health care programs. It allocates funds for operation and maintenance (including TRICARE contracts), procurement, and research, development, test and evaluation. Specific provisos direct funding for congressionally directed medical research programs and HIV prevention, and require quarterly reports on the electronic health record program.
Sec. 8005
General Transfer Authority
This section grants the Secretary of Defense, with OMB approval, authority to transfer up to $6,000,000,000 of working capital funds or other military function appropriations (excluding military construction) between accounts. Transfers are limited to higher priority, unforeseen military requirements and cannot be used for items previously denied by Congress. The Secretary must promptly notify Congress of all transfers.
Sec. 8028
Buy American Act Compliance
This section mandates that Department of Defense entities comply with the Buy American Act, requiring the purchase of American-made equipment and products. It also states that if a person is convicted of intentionally mislabeling a product as 'Made in America,' the Secretary of Defense shall consider debarring them from DoD contracts. Congress expresses a sense that American-made products should be purchased if cost- and quality-competitive and timely.
Sec. 8105
Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative
This section allocates $500,000,000, available until September 30, 2027, for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative. These funds are to be used by the Secretary of Defense, with State Department concurrence, to provide assistance to Taiwan, including new procurement of defense articles, services, and military education and training. Quarterly reports to Congress are required.
Sec. 8124
Prohibition on F-35 Alternative Engine Integration
This section prohibits the use of any appropriated funds to integrate an alternative engine on any F-35 aircraft. This effectively mandates that the F-35 program continue with its current single engine supplier, preventing the development or adoption of a second engine option.
Sec. 8138
Restrictions on Gender Transition Procedures for Minor Dependents in EFMP
This section prohibits the use of funds to provide gender transition procedures (including surgery or medication) or referrals for such procedures to a minor dependent child enrolled in an Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). It also prohibits approving duty station changes through EFMP for the purpose of accessing such procedures for a minor child.
Sec. 8141
Prohibition on Critical Race Theory and Divisive Concepts
This section prohibits the use of funds to promote or advance Critical Race Theory (CRT) or any associated concept, or to teach or train any idea that condones discrimination based on race or sex, causes psychological distress based on race or sex, or regards the U.S. or its institutions as systemically racist/sexist, among other specific concepts. It aims to prevent the use of DoD funds for training or education that promotes these 'divisive concepts.'
Sec. 8147
Restrictions on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Initiatives
This section prohibits the use of funds to implement, administer, or carry out the Department of Defense's DEIA Strategic Plan or several related Executive Orders (EO 13985, 14035, 14091). It also prohibits executing activities that promote or perpetuate 'divisive concepts' related to race or sex, such as inherent superiority, systemic racism/sexism, or moral character determined by race/sex.
This section states that the detailed 'Explanation of Project Level Adjustments' tables in the accompanying explanatory statement and classified annex are legally binding, 'to the same extent as if the tables were included in the text of this Act.' It also specifies how these amounts interact with general transfer authorities.
Sec. 8006
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for appropriations bills, allowing appropriators to provide highly detailed spending instructions without making the bill text itself unwieldy. However, it also reduces immediate public transparency, as the detailed spending plan is not directly in the statutory language.
Case for: Supporters argue it allows for precise congressional direction on spending, reflecting detailed committee work and negotiations, while keeping the statutory text focused on top-line numbers and broad authorities. It provides flexibility in drafting complex appropriations bills.
Case against: Critics contend that making external documents legally binding reduces transparency and accountability. It makes it difficult for the public, and even many members of Congress, to fully understand the specific allocations and policy directives without access to and careful review of these supplementary materials.
Estimated impact: This provision affects the legal enforceability of billions of dollars in specific program and project allocations across the entire Department of Defense budget.
These sections impose specific 'Buy American' requirements for components in several Navy shipbuilding programs (TAO Fleet Oiler, FFG-Frigate, T-ARC(X) Cable Laying and Repair Ship, T-AGOS(X) Oceanographic Surveillance Ship). For example, Sec. 8091 mandates that auxiliary equipment, propulsion equipment, shipboard cranes, and anchor chains for TAO Fleet Oilers must be manufactured in the United States, and similar detailed lists apply to other ship types.
Sec. 8091 and Sec. 8092
Why it matters:While 'Buy American' is a common policy, these highly granular requirements for specific ship components are often included to protect particular domestic industries or suppliers. Placing them in general provisions of an appropriations bill ensures their enactment without the more focused debate that standalone legislation might entail.
Case for: Proponents argue these provisions strengthen the domestic industrial base, ensure critical supply chain resilience for naval assets, and support American manufacturing jobs. They are seen as vital for national security by reducing reliance on foreign sources for essential components.
Case against: Critics might argue that such specific mandates can increase costs, limit competition, and potentially delay shipbuilding programs if domestic suppliers cannot meet demand or offer competitive pricing. They could also be seen as protectionist measures that may invite retaliatory trade actions.
Estimated impact: These provisions impact the procurement strategies and costs for multiple multi-billion dollar Navy shipbuilding programs, influencing contracts for numerous component suppliers.
This section dictates the allocation of funds from the CHIPS for America Defense Fund for fiscal year 2026, specifying amounts for particular projects and activities as detailed in an external 'explanatory statement.' It also restricts the President's ability to allocate future CHIPS Act funds if a continuing resolution is in effect and requires detailed reporting.
Sec. 8121
Why it matters:This is a common method for Congress to exert granular control over specific funding streams, especially for new or high-profile initiatives like CHIPS Act funding. The restriction during a continuing resolution is a tactical move to maintain congressional leverage over spending decisions.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that CHIPS Act funds are directed precisely to congressional priorities for strengthening the defense industrial base, particularly in semiconductors. The restriction during CRs ensures Congress retains its appropriations power.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external documents for allocations reduces transparency. The restriction on the President's authority during CRs could hinder the Executive Branch's ability to respond flexibly to evolving needs in the semiconductor industry.
Estimated impact: This section directs the allocation of significant funds (hundreds of millions, potentially billions, depending on the CHIPS Act authorization) aimed at bolstering the US semiconductor and defense industrial base.
This section prohibits any discriminatory action by the Federal Government against a person based on their sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman. 'Discriminatory action' is broadly defined to include altering tax treatment, denying grants/contracts/loans, or denying entitlements/benefits.
Sec. 8139
Why it matters:This provision addresses a highly contentious social issue. Including it in a must-pass appropriations bill is a tactical maneuver to ensure its enactment, as it would likely face significant opposition and difficulty passing as standalone legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision protects religious freedom and ensures that individuals and organizations are not penalized by the government for holding traditional beliefs about marriage. They see it as safeguarding constitutional rights against government overreach.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision could enable discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals by allowing religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws, potentially undermining efforts to promote equality and inclusion within federal programs and services.
Estimated impact: This provision has broad implications for federal policy regarding religious freedom, non-discrimination, and the interaction of government with individuals and organizations holding specific religious or moral convictions on marriage.