$832 billion defense bill passed by the House
According to The New York Post, the House approved the Department of Defense Appropriations Act in a 221-209 vote on Friday. The outlet noted that only five Democrats voted in support of the bill, while every Republican representative supported the bill except Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.).
'Providing our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to keep America safe is one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of Congress. The passage of the FY26 Defense Appropriations Act advances our national security goals by investing in the platforms and programs that enhance America's military dominance,' Defense Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said in a Friday press release.
Calvert added, 'The bill makes innovation a priority by expanding programs I have championed that rapidly deploy cutting-edge, difference making systems into the hands of our warfighters. Our troops are the backbone of our national security and receive a well-deserved pay raise in this bill.'
READ MORE: New defense tech company reveals major power development
The New York Post reported that the House's Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a 3.8% pay increase for National Guard troops, active-duty military members, and reserve military members. According to Federal News Network, the bill also includes a 60% increase in the military's family separation allowance.
Federal News Network reported that the House's Department of Defense Appropriations Act would increase the military's separation allowance to $400 each month for U.S. service members. The outlet noted that while Fiscal Year 2024's defense bill previously authorized the Department of Defense to increase pay for military members who are involuntarily separated from dependents from $250 per month to $400 per month, the Pentagon has not yet increased the pay.
In a statement following the House Armed Services Committee's approval of the bill ahead of the full House vote on the legislation, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) explained that it has 'never been more important to have a ready, lethal, and capable fighting force' then at a time when the United States facing 'rapidly evolving' and 'complex' threats across the globe.
'Equipping an innovative and agile military requires an efficient and streamlined acquisition process,' Rogers added. 'The FY26 NDAA supports modernization and fundamentally reforms defense acquisition by cutting red tape, eliminating bureaucratic hurdles, and encouraging innovation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘They roll right over': Many Democratic voters call their party weak and ineffective, poll finds
WASHINGTON — Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' while Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally 'bad,' according to a new poll. The poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid.' But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong,' Krehbiel said. 'And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described the Democratic Party using such words as 'weak' or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what effect the Democrats' unease may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Mich., is a self-described political independent who said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He views the Republican Party as much worse, saying it 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' he said of Trump. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. He praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tenn., said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and nonaligned voters' distaste for both. So-called political independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Fla., said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new America Party, which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. Peoples, Sanders and Yoo write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York, Sanders and Yoo from Washington.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Push to ban lawmaker stock trading gets new life
The years-long effort to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is back in the spotlight following a House Ethics Committee report that took issue with transactions made by a member's spouse, and after a Senate panel advanced legislation to prohibit lawmakers from making transactions. And some lawmakers are vowing to keep the topic front and center into the fall as they look to make headways on a matter that has mystified Congress. Leading that effort is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who plans to file a discharge petition on legislation to prohibit lawmakers and their immediate families from owning, trading or controlling stocks, commodities or futures, directing lawmakers to divest their holdings within 180 days of the bill's enactment. If the procedural gambit is successful, the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), would hit the floor in the fall. But if the past is prologue, getting the measure over the finish line will be a tall task. Supporters, however, are optimistic they will find success. 'I think America is aware of what's going on,' Burchett told The Hill. 'They know it's not natural for somebody to, day in and day out, pick stock and have a 100, 200, 300 percent return, and they're tired of seeing Congress members making $170,000 a year retiring worth millions.' While the idea of banning members from trading stocks is widely popular among the public, some lawmakers for years have balked at the push, raising concerns about the level of pay for members — a $174,000 salary, which has been frozen since 2009, constituting a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. And even among those who support banning members from trading stocks, there is disagreement about the details. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last weekadvanced a bill that would bar not only members, their spouses, and their dependent children from buying and trading stocks, but also the president and vice president — with a carve-out for President Trump, since the requirement would not apply until the start of the elected officials' next terms. The hearing over the bill became contentious, with some Republicans on the panel arguing against a ban altogether, Democrats arguing in support and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asking why Trump should be exempt. Trump, who earlier in the day had said he liked the stock trading ban 'conceptually,' attacked Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for his support of the bill. Hawley later said Trump was under the mistaken impression it would apply to him. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who as leader of the House opposed a stock trading ban and after whom Republicans cheekily named a previous effort to ban trading — threw her support behind the bill as well. Pelosi had opened the door to supporting a stock trading ban in 2022, but her outright endorsement was nonetheless notable. But Burchett's bill that Luna hopes to force a vote on, as well as several other stock trade bills — such as the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act, from Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) — do not include the barring trades by the president. Despite those hangups, proponents of the ban are optimistic they can get it done this time around. 'It's an increasingly public fight that people care about,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a large supporter of a prohibition on lawmaker stock trading, told The Hill. 'And Congress is running out of runway with the people.' 'We will force votes,' he added. The difficulty in crafting a stock trading ban is personified in Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), who has caught heat for continuing to trade stocks despite saying he wants to ban member stock trading. Bresnahan, a businessman whose estimated net worth is in the multi-millions, has continued to report many stock trades despite writing a letter to the editor during his campaign calling to ban stock trading. Bresnahan has introduced a stock trading ban bill and says that he has no involvement with the trades that his financial advisers have made on his behalf. While he has said he wants to keep his current financial advisers and create a blind trust that would put a more stringent firewall between him and those trades, he has found problems in crafting that plan with the House Ethics Committee. Local public news organization WVIA noted that Bresnahan could simply ask his advisers to not make any more trades, but Bresnahan dismissed that idea. 'And then do what with it?' Bresnahan said to WVIA News. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?' Despite some critics, supporters of a stock trading ban are plowing full-steam ahead, hoping to make headway on the headwinds created by the House Ethics Committee. 'Members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks because their access to privileged, nonpublic information creates unavoidable conflicts of interest that erode public confidence in government,' Luna said in a statement. 'As lawmakers, we receive classified briefings, shape economic policies, and interact with industry leaders, giving us insights that can influence stock prices.' 'Even if no laws are broken, the appearance of profiting from this access fuels distrust among Americans,' she added. 'The American people do not trust the US government, and this is a step forward to building that trust.' The impetus for the current push was a report from the House Ethics Committee that said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) violated the lower chamber's code of conduct when his wife traded stocks for the company Cleveland-Cliffs — which has a facility in Kelly's district — after the congressman learned non-public information about the firm. On April 28, 2020, Kelly learned that the Commerce Department would make an announcement that would benefit Cleveland-Cliffs. The day after, the congressman's wife, Victoria Kelly, bought 5,000 shares of the company for $23,075. The department's news was ultimately made public on May 4. She sold all her shares of the company in January 2021 shortly after Cleveland-Cliffs acquired a steel manufacturing corporation, turning a $64,476.06 profit. 'Representative Kelly's conduct with respect to Cleveland-Cliffs and his wife's stock purchase raised significant concerns for the Committee, even if it did not rise to the level of insider trading or clearly violate conflict of interest rules,' the committee wrote in its report, later adding that Kelly 'has not demonstrated sufficient appreciation for the harm to the institution caused by the appearance of impropriety.' It is, to be sure, already illegal for members of Congress to make transactions based on information they receive through their job, and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which was enacted in 2012, requires that lawmakers report their stock trades within 30 days. But some ethics advocates believe the law should be stronger. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), while he said he is supportive of the efforts to ban stock trades, has noted the difficult position the restrictions could put on members and their families, given the salary for members of Congress has been frozen since 2009. That amounts to around a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. Most members make a salary of $174,000. 'If you stay on this trajectory, you're going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress,' Johnson said in May. 'I mean, just people just make a reasonable decision as a family on whether or not they can come to Washington and have a residence here, residence at home, and do all the things that are required.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
