National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee
- Last action
- Nov 12, 2025
Bottom line
The bill is a comprehensive legislative package setting defense policy and funding levels for FY2026, with significant reforms aimed at modernizing the military, enhancing readiness, and addressing geopolitical challenges.
What it actually does
This omnibus bill, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026," authorizes appropriations for military activities of the Department of Defense, military construction, and defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2026. It also prescribes military personnel strengths for the year and includes extensive policy provisions across various domains, including acquisition reform, personnel management, health care, cybersecurity, and foreign relations, notably addressing strategic competition with China and Russia.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for maintaining national security, deterring adversaries, and ensuring the United States military remains the most capable force in the world. They emphasize investments in advanced technologies, support for servicemembers and their families, and strategic initiatives to counter threats from China and Russia, while also streamlining bureaucratic processes for greater efficiency.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that certain provisions may lead to excessive spending, perpetuate outdated military programs, or include controversial policy riders unrelated to core defense functions. Concerns may also be raised about the impact of specific foreign policy directives or the potential for unintended consequences from rapid technological adoption without sufficient oversight.
This is an exceptionally long and detailed bill, requiring substantial time for thorough review, far exceeding typical legislative review periods for such a comprehensive measure.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 121
Procurement Authority for Columbia-class Submarine Program
This provision authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to enter into contracts for the procurement of up to five Columbia-class submarines starting in fiscal year 2026. It specifies that any payments for fiscal years after 2026 are subject to the availability of appropriations and limits the liability of the United States in case of contract termination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this authorization is essential for maintaining the continuity of the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad, which is a cornerstone of strategic deterrence and national security. They emphasize the need for predictable funding to stabilize the industrial base.
Critics contend
Critics may raise concerns about the substantial long-term financial commitments required for this program, arguing that it could divert resources from other pressing defense priorities or domestic needs.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the imperative of maintaining a credible strategic nuclear deterrent with the significant fiscal costs and long-term resource allocation implications.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 124
Modification to Limitations on Navy Medium and Large Unmanned Surface Vessels
This section repeals previous limitations on the procurement of Navy medium and large unmanned surface vessels (USVs). However, it introduces new requirements, mandating a 720-hour continuous operational demonstration without maintenance before the Navy can accept delivery of these vessels or make full contract financing payments.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 137
Prohibition on Retirement of A-10 Aircraft
This provision prohibits the Air Force from retiring, preparing to retire, or otherwise divesting A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft if such actions would reduce the inventory below 103 aircraft for fiscal year 2026. A waiver is possible for specific units if a detailed recapitalization plan is certified to Congress.
Division A, Title II, Sec. 216
Prohibition on Contracts Between Certain Foreign Entities and Institutions of Higher Education Conducting Department of Defense-Funded Research
Beginning January 1, 2027, this section prohibits institutions of higher education that conduct DoD-funded research from entering into contracts with designated 'covered nations' or 'foreign entities of concern'. It includes provisions for waivers under specific national security interests and mandates reporting on such waivers to Congress.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 317
Provision of Bottled Water to Communities with Private Drinking Water Contaminated with Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from Activities of Department of Defense
This provision mandates that the Department of Defense continue providing bottled water to communities whose private drinking water wells were contaminated by PFAS from DoD activities, provided DoD was already supplying water before this Act's enactment. This obligation continues until the contamination is remediated or the community is connected to a municipal water system.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 547
Prohibition on Consideration of Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, National Origin, or Religion in Service Academy Admissions Decisions
This provision explicitly prohibits the United States Military Academy, Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy from considering an applicant's race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in their admissions decisions.
Division A, Title VIII, Sec. 801
Transition of Program Executive Officer Role to Portfolio Acquisition Executive
This section redefines the role of a 'program executive officer' (PEO) to a 'portfolio acquisition executive' (PAE), granting PAEs direct control over requirements, programming, and acquisition within their assigned defense capability portfolios. It aims to reduce external non-statutory guidance and empower these executives to develop, procure, and sustain military capabilities more efficiently.
Division A, Title IX, Sec. 901
Economic Defense Unit
This section establishes an Economic Defense Unit within the Department of Defense, led by a Director who reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The Unit is responsible for coordinating and executing economic competition activities to reinforce military advantage, including leveraging private capital, countering adversarial industrial base activities, and advising on economic competition strategies.
Division A, Title XV, Sec. 1511
Matters Relating to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles of the United States
This section sets a target for the LGM-35A Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) weapon system to achieve initial operational capability by September 30, 2033. It also mandates maintaining a total inventory of no fewer than 400 deployed ICBMs across at least 150 launch facilities and prohibits reducing ICBM responsiveness or quantity.
Division A, Title XVI, Sec. 1628
Guidance and Prohibition on Use of Certain Artificial Intelligence
This section mandates that all Department of Defense offices and components exclude or remove 'covered artificial intelligence' (AI developed by specific Chinese companies like DeepSeek and High Flyer) from all DoD systems and devices within 30 days of enactment. It also prohibits contractors from using such AI for DoD contracts, with waivers possible for national security purposes.
Division B, Title XXI, Sec. 2101
Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section authorizes specific military construction projects and land acquisitions for the Army in fiscal year 2026, both within and outside the United States. Projects range from barracks and dining facilities to specialized laboratories and maintenance shops, totaling over $2.1 billion in requested funds.
Division C, Title XXXI, Sec. 3101
National Nuclear Security Administration Authorizations
This section authorizes appropriations for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for fiscal year 2026, including significant funding for Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. It also specifically authorizes new plant projects such as the MESA Photolithography Capability and the NIF Enhanced Fusion Yield Capability.
Division F, Title IV, Sec. 406
Transfer of National Counterintelligence and Security Center to Federal Bureau of Investigation
This section mandates a plan and subsequent transfer of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to the Counterintelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The duties of the NCSC Director will also be transferred to the Assistant Director of the FBI for Counterintelligence, with a completion deadline of two years after enactment.
Division H, Title LI, Sec. 5114
Great Lakes Icebreaking Strategy and Pilot Program
This section requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to submit a strategy for the expedited design and construction of a new Great Lakes icebreaker. It also establishes a 5-year pilot program to assess the Coast Guard's ability to maintain tier one and tier two waterways open 95% of the time during ice seasons.
Division I, Title II, Sec. 5204
Whole-Home Repairs Act
This section establishes a pilot program for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide competitive grants to 'implementing organizations' (states, local governments, nonprofits). These organizations will then offer grants to eligible low-to-moderate income homeowners and forgivable loans to eligible landlords for 'whole-home repairs' addressing accessibility, habitability, and energy efficiency.
Division J, Title LXI, Sec. 5103
Language Incentive Pay for Civil Service Employees
This provision authorizes the Secretary of State to provide special monetary incentives to civil service employees who serve in domestic positions requiring critical foreign language skills. The amounts of these incentives are intended to be similar to the language incentive pay already provided to members of the Foreign Service.
Requires covered institutions to terminate contracts with foreign sources that are later designated as covered nations or foreign entities of concern within 120 days, or immediately request a waiver.
Division A, Title II, Sec. 216(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to address dynamic geopolitical situations, ensuring that existing relationships are severed if a partner's status changes. The placement might also be to avoid drawing immediate attention to the potential for disruptive contract terminations.
Case for: Ensures continuous protection of national security interests by mandating the severing of ties with newly identified adversarial entities, even for existing contracts, thereby preventing ongoing exploitation of U.S. research.
Case against: Could impose significant and unexpected financial burdens and operational disruptions on academic institutions that entered contracts in good faith before a foreign entity's designation, potentially leading to legal challenges or strained international relations.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant financial and operational impact on academic institutions with international research partnerships, requiring them to constantly monitor the status of their foreign partners.
Prohibits the Secretary of Defense from closing, mothballing, divesting, deactivating, or rendering inoperable any Army organic industrial base facility (depot, arsenal, ammunition plant, etc.) unless a similar or replacement facility has already been created and the action is specifically authorized by this section or an Act of Congress.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 326(a)
Why it matters:This reflects a legislative desire to protect critical domestic defense industrial capacity and associated jobs, which are often politically sensitive issues. The detailed conditions make it difficult for the executive branch to unilaterally close facilities.
Case for: Preserves essential domestic manufacturing and maintenance capabilities, ensuring military readiness and supporting local economies by preventing the loss of critical infrastructure and skilled labor.
Case against: Could lock the Army into maintaining inefficient or outdated facilities, hindering modernization efforts, diverting resources from more critical investments, and potentially wasting taxpayer money on underutilized assets.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on Army modernization plans and the future of specific industrial facilities and their workforces, potentially preserving thousands of jobs and billions in infrastructure value.
Exempts 'nontraditional defense contractors' (defined in Sec. 3014 of Title 10) from several specific Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) requirements and a section of Title 10, including those related to earned value management, cost accounting standards, and property administration.
Division A, Title VIII, Sec. 823
Why it matters:This is a common practice to streamline regulations for specific types of contractors (e.g., tech startups) to encourage their participation in defense acquisition. The technical nature of the references makes it less accessible to casual scrutiny.
Case for: Reduces bureaucratic burden and compliance costs for innovative nontraditional contractors, thereby encouraging their participation in defense acquisition and speeding up the adoption of cutting-edge technology by the DoD.
Case against: Could potentially reduce oversight and accountability for these contractors, increasing the risk of cost overruns, performance issues, or less favorable terms for the government if not carefully managed.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on the regulatory environment for nontraditional defense contractors, potentially affecting billions in contract value and influencing the types of companies DoD can engage with for advanced technologies.
Repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1, 1991) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
Division A, Title XII, Sec. 1219
Why it matters:While a major policy change, its placement within a larger foreign policy title might be intended to facilitate its passage as part of a broader package, potentially avoiding a standalone, highly contentious debate on war powers.
Case for: Reasserts congressional war powers, removes outdated authorizations that could be misused by future administrations, and reflects a shift in U.S. foreign policy posture in the Middle East, aligning legal authority with current operational realities.
Case against: Some may argue that repealing these AUMFs removes a necessary tool for presidential action in a volatile region, potentially signaling a lack of resolve or hindering future counterterrorism operations if new threats emerge.
Estimated impact: Significant constitutional implications for the balance of war powers between Congress and the Executive, and a symbolic shift in U.S. foreign policy regarding military engagement in Iraq.
Mandates a plan and subsequent transfer of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to the Counterintelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The duties of the NCSC Director will also be transferred to the Assistant Director of the FBI for Counterintelligence, with a completion deadline of two years after enactment.
Division F, Title IV, Sec. 406
Why it matters:This could be a tactical maneuver to enact a controversial organizational shift by framing it as an efficiency measure within a larger, must-pass intelligence bill, potentially avoiding more intense scrutiny or standalone legislative battles.
Case for: Supporters argue that consolidating counterintelligence functions under the FBI will streamline operations, improve efficiency, and enhance the overall effectiveness of the U.S. against foreign threats by centralizing expertise and resources.
Case against: Critics may raise concerns that this transfer could diminish the DNI's ability to provide integrated, community-wide counterintelligence leadership, potentially leading to a loss of strategic perspective or interagency coordination challenges due to the FBI's domestic focus.
Estimated impact: Significant organizational and operational impact on the U.S. intelligence community's counterintelligence efforts, affecting hundreds of personnel and potentially billions in budget allocations over time.