Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Were there amendments or votes in 2025 that addressed progressive concerns about the NDAA?
Executive Summary
Progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups submitted and pressed numerous amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2024–2025 that sought to address diversity, veterans’ care, Pentagon spending, and LGBTQ+ protections, and those proposals generated floor activity and symbolic votes in 2025. While many progressive amendments were filed and debated—highlighting opposition to anti‑DEIA riders and calls for cuts to certain defense spending—most faced long odds in the Republican-controlled process and some controversial provisions, including anti‑trans measures, were adopted or advanced in 2025 votes [1] [2] [3]. The record shows active progressive engagement through submitted amendments, floor debates, and some roll-call decisions, but mixed outcomes when measured against progressive goals during the 2025 NDAA process [4] [5].
1. Hundreds of Progressive Amendments Flooded the Floor — A Show of Force, Not Always a Win
Progressive Democrats and allied groups filed hundreds to over a thousand amendments to successive NDAA texts across the FY2025 and FY2026 cycles, using amendment slots to push on issues from Pentagon budgeting and nuclear spending to war powers and DEIA programs. Reporting from September 2025 described Democrats flooding the FY2026 bill with amendments aimed at rebuking White House and Republican priorities, including DEIA rollbacks and scrutiny of Israel support; the House Rules Committee then set limits for debate and a floor vote [1]. Earlier coverage of the FY2025 process likewise documented more than 1,200 submitted amendments tied to progressive priorities, though the Rules Committee and chamber majorities determine which survive to final votes, meaning many proposals functioned primarily as statements of principle rather than guaranteed policy wins [6].
2. Veterans, Healthcare, and Accessibility Amendments Earned Bipartisan Attention
Some amendments aligned with progressive priorities found broader traction because they addressed tangible benefits for service members and veterans rather than purely ideological fights. In 2025 debates senators and representatives introduced and advanced measures such as the Major Richard Star Act text and proposals to improve access to care at military treatment facilities, along with efforts to create digital TRICARE complaint systems—amendments framed as practical veterans’ reforms and invoked in cloture and floor deliberations [2]. These items illustrate that progressive policy goals tied to veterans’ welfare could translate into substantive amendment language and votes that attracted bipartisan support, even as other progressive priorities remained contested.
3. DEIA and LGBTQ+ Issues Became Focal Points — Outcomes Mixed and Contentious
Progressives and civil‑rights aligned coalitions actively opposed efforts to curtail or eliminate Department of Defense DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) programs and fought anti‑trans riders, with letters and public statements urging Congress to reject restrictions enacted in prior NDAAs [7]. Despite these efforts, the 2025 legislative trajectory included votes where anti‑trans provisions were advanced or remained in conference texts; some Senate Democrats allowed a vote to proceed after initial objections, and the enacted or advancing language drew explicit criticism from progressives who called the measures discriminatory [3] [8]. The pattern shows vigorous progressive resistance and symbolic amendments, but mixed real‑world results on DEIA and LGBTQ+ protections during the 2025 cycle.
4. Budget and War Powers: Progressive Calls for Cuts and Oversight Met Limited Success
Progressives pressed the NDAA to reduce Pentagon spending, constrain nuclear modernization funding, and reclaim war‑powers oversight, submitting amendment packages and public statements urging major changes to defense allocations [6] [5]. Congressional Progressive Caucus leadership publicly opposed the FY2025 NDAA on grounds of excessive spending and blocked amendment opportunities, arguing the process denied progressive interventions [4]. Despite the volume of amendments and vocal opposition, many of these budgetary and war‑powers amendments remained symbolic or were sidelined by procedural controls, illustrating a recurring dynamic where progressive budgetary reform efforts clash with bipartisan and institutional defense priorities.
5. What the Vote Record Shows — Engagement, Some Bipartisan Wins, and Unresolved Conference Fights
The formal vote record in 2025 demonstrates active legislative engagement: cloture votes, hundreds of amendments listed for House and Senate consideration, and roll‑call decisions where Democrats sometimes split and some amendments addressing veterans’ needs passed or advanced [2] [3]. At the same time, provisions opposed by progressives—particularly anti‑trans riders—either cleared votes or persisted into conference negotiations, leaving final outcomes contingent on inter‑chamber compromise [3] [8]. The net effect is clear: progressives used amendment strategy and floor votes to force public reckonings on DEIA, veterans’ care, spending, and civil‑rights concerns, achieving select policy wins but facing systemic limits in altering the broader direction of the NDAA in 2025 [1] [4].