Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2027
- Sponsor
- Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jun 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill provides comprehensive funding for the U.S. military for FY2027, while also embedding significant policy directives, including a controversial renaming of the Department of Defense and restrictions on various social issues.
What it actually does
This bill makes appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, across all major categories including military personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, and research and development. It also includes numerous general provisions that enact specific policy changes, impose restrictions, and authorize special funding mechanisms, notably redesignating the Department of Defense as the Department of War.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for maintaining national security, modernizing military capabilities to address evolving global threats, and ensuring the well-being of service members and their families. They would highlight investments in key programs like shipbuilding, missile defense, and advanced research, as well as support for allies and counterterrorism efforts.
Opponents contend
Opponents might criticize the overall spending levels, specific policy riders unrelated to core defense functions, and the administrative burden and symbolic implications of renaming the Department of Defense. Concerns could also be raised about restrictions on certain medical procedures, diversity initiatives, and the transfer of funds without explicit congressional approval.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Given its immediate reporting after introduction, the public and even many lawmakers would have limited time to fully digest its contents before legislative action.
Title I
Military Personnel Appropriations
This section 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 for Reserve and National Guard personnel. It also covers payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these appropriations are fundamental to maintaining a strong, ready, and motivated fighting force, ensuring that service members and their families are adequately compensated and supported for their sacrifices.
Critics contend
While direct military personnel funding generally receives broad support, some critics might question the overall size of the military or specific personnel policies, though direct opposition to pay and allowances is rare.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension involves balancing personnel costs with investments in modernization and readiness, especially in a constrained budget environment. Decisions on pay raises and benefits can impact recruitment and retention.
Title II
Operation and Maintenance Appropriations
This title provides extensive funding for the day-to-day operations of all military branches, defense agencies, and various defense-wide activities. This includes training, equipment maintenance, facility upkeep, and support for foreign security forces, as well as environmental restoration programs.
Title III
Procurement Appropriations
This title allocates funds for the acquisition, production, modification, and modernization of military hardware, including aircraft, missiles, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and ships for all branches of the armed forces. It also includes specific funds for the Defense Production Act and the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account.
Title IV
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Appropriations
This title provides funding for basic and applied scientific research, development, testing, and evaluation activities across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and defense-wide agencies. It includes specific allocations for countering missile threats (Golden Dome for America Fund) and for operational test and evaluation.
Title VI
Combat and Operational Medicine Program
This provision appropriates over $21 billion for medical and health care programs within the Department of Defense, including operation and maintenance, procurement, and research, development, test and evaluation. It specifically directs not less than $916.5 million for congressionally directed medical research programs and $15 million for HIV prevention activities in African nations.
Sec. 8005
General Transfer Authority
This section grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer up to $3,000,000,000 of working capital funds or other military function funds (excluding military construction) between appropriations or subdivisions. This authority is limited to higher priority items based on unforeseen military requirements and cannot be used for items previously denied by Congress. Transfers among military personnel appropriations do not count towards the limit.
Sec. 8010
Multiyear Procurement Contracts
This section sets conditions and limitations on the Department of Defense's ability to enter into multiyear procurement contracts. It prohibits initiating contracts over $20 million (or $500 million for systems/components) without prior congressional notification and requires full funding of units, no consideration of recurring manufacturing costs for unfunded units, and no advance payments. It explicitly authorizes multiyear contracts for specific systems like Columbia Class Oilers, Standard Missile-6, PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3, and others.
Sec. 8068
Israeli Cooperative Programs
This section allocates $500,000,000 for Israeli Cooperative Programs, specifically detailing funds for the Iron Dome defense system, the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program (including co-production), an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture (Arrow 3 Upper Tier co-production), and the Arrow System Improvement Program.
Sec. 8097
Modular Open Systems Approach for Software
This section mandates that any software developed, procured, or operated using covered funds (FY2027 or prior O&M, Procurement, or RDT&E funds) must adhere to a modular open systems approach (MOSA) as defined in 10 U.S.C. 4401. This includes having a Government-owned interface layer separate from vendor-specific application logic.
Sec. 8134
Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative
This section appropriates $1,000,000,000 to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative, to remain available until September 30, 2028. These funds are for providing assistance, including new procurement of defense articles, services, and military education and training to Taiwan.
Sec. 8144
Spending Reduction Account (Artificial Intelligence and Business Process Modernization)
This section reduces the total amount appropriated by this Act by $1,000,000,000. This reduction is intended to reflect savings resulting from business process modernization and the deployment of artificial intelligence. The reduction does not apply to salaries or expenses of civil service officers or employees.
Sec. 8154
Prohibition on Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures
This section prohibits the use of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for surgical procedures or hormone therapies for the purposes of sex-rejecting procedures.
Sec. 8155
Prohibition on Funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) Initiatives
This section prohibits the use of any funds appropriated or made available by this Act for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, training, programs, offices, officers, policies, or any program, project, or activity that promotes or advances Critical Race Theory (CRT), or any concept associated with CRT.
Sec. 8160
Redesignation of the Department of Defense as the Department of War
This section mandates a comprehensive renaming of the Department of Defense to the 'Department of War' and the Secretary of Defense to the 'Secretary of War' throughout Titles 10, 32, and 37 of the United States Code, and in any other law, regulation, map, document, record, or paper of the United States. It includes conforming changes for related terms like 'OSD' to 'Office of the Secretary of War' and 'DODEA' to 'Department of War Education Activity'.
Mandates that the obligation and expenditure of funds for specific programs, projects, and activities (and their dollar amounts) listed in the 'Explanation of Project Level Adjustments' tables in the explanatory statement and classified annex accompanying this Act are required by law, as if included in the text of the Act.
Sec. 8006
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for appropriations bills, allowing appropriators to provide highly detailed spending instructions and earmarks without cluttering the statutory text. It also allows for classified spending details to be handled separately.
Case for: Supporters argue it provides necessary specificity for how funds should be spent, allowing Congress to direct funding to specific projects and ensuring legislative intent is followed beyond broad appropriation categories.
Case against: Critics contend that this practice reduces transparency, as the actual spending details are not readily accessible in the public law, making it difficult for the public and even many lawmakers to understand specific allocations.
Estimated impact: Directs the expenditure of potentially billions of dollars across numerous specific projects and activities within the Department of Defense budget.
Reduces the total amount appropriated by the Act by $1,000,000,000, attributing these savings to business process modernization and the deployment of artificial intelligence. This reduction does not apply to civil service salaries or expenses.
Sec. 8144
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to claim a headline-grabbing 'savings' figure without having to make politically difficult decisions about specific program cuts. It shifts the burden of finding these savings onto the Department of Defense.
Case for: Proponents would argue it forces the DoD to find efficiencies and embrace modernization, demonstrating fiscal responsibility and encouraging the adoption of advanced technologies like AI to streamline operations.
Case against: Critics would argue that such an arbitrary, unspecified cut could lead to reductions in critical programs, create instability in budgeting, and is a political accounting trick rather than a genuine, planned efficiency measure.
Estimated impact: A $1 billion reduction in the overall defense budget, requiring the Department of Defense to identify and implement cuts or efficiencies of that magnitude across its programs (excluding civil service salaries).
Redesignates the Department of Defense as the 'Department of War' and the Secretary of Defense as the 'Secretary of War' throughout federal law (Titles 10, 32, 37 U.S.C.) and all official documents, with conforming changes for related terms.
Sec. 8160
Why it matters:This is a highly controversial and politically charged provision. Placing it within a must-pass appropriations bill makes it difficult to oppose without jeopardizing the entire defense budget. It likely aims to make a significant political statement by leveraging the appropriations process.
Case for: Proponents might argue that 'Department of War' more accurately reflects the military's primary mission and instills a sense of purpose and resolve, potentially signaling a more assertive U.S. foreign policy stance.
Case against: Opponents would contend that 'Department of Defense' better reflects the military's broader role in deterrence, peacekeeping, and humanitarian efforts, and that 'Department of War' is anachronistic, bellicose, and could harm diplomatic relations and public perception.
Estimated impact: Massive administrative costs and burden to update all legal texts, documents, signage, and digital systems. Significant symbolic and cultural impact on the military and its public image, potentially affecting international relations.