No one from the Massachusetts congressional delegation voted in favor of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act this week.
The bill (H.R. 5009) would allocate $895 billion for the U.S. military next year. It passed 281-140 in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, December 11; 200 Republicans supported the measure while 16 opposed it, and 81 Democrats voted for it, while 124 Democrats voted no.
One reason many Democrats opposed the bill is that the House version contains a provision that would prevent TriCare, the health care provided to active-duty military members and their families, from covering gender transitioning for minors; examples of this treatment include hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and genital and chest reconstructive surgery.
U.S. Representative Richard Neal (D-Springfield) said he likes a lot of provisions in the bill, but that he couldn’t support the bill because it doesn’t include gender transitioning.
“As a long serving member of Congress, and one who is proud to have two military bases in their district, I am appalled that the National Defense Authorization Act has become a political weapon for House Republicans,” Neal said in a written statement issued by his office. “Since 1961, the NDAA has historically been bipartisan legislation that not only ensures the strength and stability of our military, but also invests in research and development initiatives that address matters of global significance. Commonsense measures like 4.5% pay increase for servicemembers and authorizing projects that benefit the workforce at companies like General Dynamics and Warren Pumps have been a hallmark of the NDAA for decades.”
“However, House Republicans have once again politicized what has historically been bipartisan legislation by including extremist provisions,” Neal added. “Instead of prioritizing initiatives that will support servicemembers and their families, like those at Westover and Barnes, they are choosing to promote a culture war. Ultimately, these political stunts resulted in a bill I could no longer support. With the incoming administration and a new legislative session on the horizon, I implore Republicans to stop playing political games and get back to what the American people elected us to do: the difficult work of legislating. That means supporting our men and women in uniform, not promoting an extremist agenda.”
U.S. Representative Seth Moulton (D-Salem), who has recently faced criticism from liberals for his opposition to males competing in women’s sports, expressed a similar sentiment to Neal.
Moulton said in a written statement issued by his office.
Passing any truly bipartisan bill is incredibly challenging in today’s hyper-polarized Washington, but we have a remarkable record of doing so on the Armed Services Committee. Being an election year, this time took extra effort — on both sides — to get to a final NDAA that eliminated the poison pill amendments that politicize and weaken our military. But despite an agreement to deliver a clean version of the bill, Speaker Johnson injected his conservative partisan politics at the last minute before the bill came to the House floor.
Today, I voted against the rule to move the bill forward because I refuse to reward the Speaker for jamming ideological riders into such an important piece of legislation, essentially forcing members to choose between protecting a vulnerable population and paying our troops. This is bad faith policymaking and it sets a terrible precedent for the annual defense bill going forward. This provision plays politics with our nation’s defense.
Let me be clear, as a matter of principle, I believe Congress should not be legislating complex medical decisions that are best decided by medical science, doctors, patients, and their families.
Last year, six of the nine U.S. House members from Massachusetts backed an $886 billion National Defense Authorization Act. U.S. representatives Richard Neal (D-Springfield), Lori Trahan (D-Westford), Katherine Clark (D-Revere), Seth Moulton (D-Salem), Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston), and Bill Keating (D-Bourne) voted yes; while U.S. representatives Jim McGovern (D-Worcester), Jake Auchincloss (D-Newton), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Hyde Park) voted no. However, this year, everyone except McGovern, who missed the vote, voted no.
Auchincloss, Pressley, and McGovern generally vote against military budgets because they support decreasing defense spending.
For example, Auchincloss said the military should do more with less in a statement opposing the National Defense Authorization Act last year.
“I support a strong U.S. military, especially in this more dangerous world for democracy,” Auchincloss said in a December 2023 written statement. “I’m voting ‘No’ on the NDAA because the Pentagon, as the world’s biggest bureaucracy, should do 10% more with 10% less. As I said this summer, after my previous ‘No’ vote, that 10% savings would be enough to fund Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. That is not the course this Congress has taken, and so I will continue to fight for the president’s supplemental security funding for our democratic allies.”
The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate has not yet passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, and it’s unlikely that the Senate version will contain this same provision of denying gender transitioning for minors. However, Republicans will control the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and presidency next year, making such a provision more likely in the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act.
NewBostonPost has reached out to every member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation for comment and will update this article with comments, if they are provided.
New to NewBostonPost? This isn’t the kind of content you’d expect to find in a Massachusetts news outlet. But here it is. You can get more news and commentary that respects conservative values for two bucks — $2 for two months. Join the real revolution.
