What stands out in the military policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of FY 2026, that became law in December 2025?
This NDAA authorizes a record $901 billion for the Pentagon—the largest military budget in U.S. history and $8 billion more than Trump requested. This is on top of the military provisions in the One Big Beautiful Act passed last year.
This spending entrenches a militarized vision of security that has repeatedly failed to keep people safe, at home or abroad. At a time when housing instability, hunger, climate crises, and affordability are harming families across the country, the NDAA commits resources toward weapons and war instead of crucial human needs.
Does it authorize the creation of new weapons of war? Or purchase more?
The NDAA authorizes all Pentagon spending which is a significant portion of the broader U.S. defense budget. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy have some national defense aspects.
For the Pentagon, the NDAA authorizes the restocking of weapons and funds research and development of new weapons and technologies.
What does this NDAA mean for our nuclear arsenal?
We do not have the specifics yet, but nuclear modernization has been underway for a long time. Modernizing all our nukes is a 30+ year effort. There is funding for our current nuclear weapons, but Congress is also continuing to fund the building of new weapons like the SLCM-N tactical nuclear weapon and the new Sentinel ICBMs.
Did the NDAA change our nuclear testing policy?
The NDAA keeps in place the prohibition on aboveground nuclear testing, but it leaves the U.S. open to underground nuclear weapons tests if other countries conduct similar tests. Returning to nuclear weapons testing would undermine decades of U.S. leadership and restraint.
It ultimately gives other countries a way to incite a tit-for-tat dynamic that can quickly escalate. The U.S. already maintains confidence in its nuclear arsenal through non-explosive, science-based programs. Returning to explosive testing is unnecessary, and it would introduce environmental, health, and geopolitical risks.
Are there indications in the NDAA that we are on the cusp of another arms race, especially with the expiration of the New START Treaty?
Upgrading our nuclear weapons arsenal is something we have been doing, just as other countries are doing as well. The indicator of an arms race will come more into the picture this year now that the New START treaty has expired.
Without that treaty, we are already seeing members of Congress pose questions to the administration and other experts about whether we should deploy more nuclear weapons beyond the current 1,550 nukes. They are also asking if we should build different types of nukes, increase funding to produce more, and increase nuclear testing in some way (not necessarily explosive testing).
What other changes in the NDAA should we be aware of?
The NDAA finally repealed the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force—which we have been advocating for a long time.
The NDAA also significantly changed the Selective Service, a government agency that keeps track of men eligible for military conscription. Instead of a voluntary process, all men aged between 18–26 will now be automatically registered using information gathered from other federal databases.
