Shortly after returning from the August recess, the House and Senate each began floor action on the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (FY26 NDAA). Before the break, both the House and Senate Armed Services committees (HASC and SASC) passed their versions of the bill, with a vote of 55-2 in the HASC on July 15 (H.R.3838) and by a vote of 26-1 in the SASC on July 11 (S.2296). The Senate then voted 83-13 to proceed to the NDAA on Sept. 4. The House passed its bill on Sept. 10 by a vote of 231-196. The Senate ultimately did not pass its version of the bill ahead of the Sept. 22 recess week, due to debate over votes on various amendments and limited floor time, as senators turned their attention to stopgap funding negotiations in an effort to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1. Using the SASC’s passed bill, with one manager’s package of amendments included, we expect the House and Senate will now move toward an informal conferencing process to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill once they return from recess. This process is expected to continue throughout the fall, with the House and Senate Armed Services committees likely targeting a compromise before the Thanksgiving recess and final passage before the December recess.
Both the Senate and the House NDAA focused on reforming the defense acquisitions process, with the goal of speeding up the internal process inside the Department of War (also called the Department of Defense (DOD)) and increasing production in the U.S. defense industrial base. Both HASC Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) focused on these issues, specifically naming this year’s bill the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (SPEED ACT), while SASC Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) used his FoRGED Act as the foundation of the SASC bill. Despite their similarities, the two sides will need to resolve significant differences during the informal conference process, including the $32 billion contrast in topline funding, with the HASC version authorizing $892.6 billion in discretionary spending and SASC authorizing $924.7
KEY OBJECTIVES
Some of the most notable efforts in this year’s bills include the following:
Acquisition Reform
The primary shared focus of this year’s NDAA versions has been to reform and improve the defense acquisition system. HASC and SASC leadership each introduced their respective bills with provisions to reduce defense acquisitions system red tape, enhance the delivery of innovative capabilities and enhance the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) and defense acquisitions workforce. The SPEED and FoRGED Acts, which serve as the foundation of this year’s NDAA, pursue these reforms through the five following pillars:
PILLAR I: ALIGNING ACQUISITION TO WARFIGHTING PRIORIES AND OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES
The first objective of the SPEED Act, included in H.R.3838, is to align acquisitions system leadership and expand the authority of Program Executive Officers (PEO) and Product Support Managers (PSM) in the acquisitions process. The bill requires acquisition leadership to work with the secretary to ensure all acquisitions workforce guidance is focused on key principles including mission alignment, resource effectiveness, innovation and iterative development (H.R. 3838, Section 1802). It also expands the capabilities of PEOs and PSMs by designating PEOs as senior officials with the authority to oversee the planning, oversight and execution of their assigned programs and PSMs as critical acquisitions positions to ensure their ability to contribute to life-cycle sustainment and produce support strategies (H.R. 3838, Section 1803).
The FoRGED Act language included in S.2296 addresses this objective through empowering PEOs by transitioning their role into Portfolio Acquisitions Executives (S.2296, Section 801). This is intended to provide them with broader authority over the requirements and acquisition process of a portfolio of related capabilities rather than individual programs. They would also be required to deliver acquisition strategies outlining how the department will develop and pursue these programs moving forward. The act also includes measures to empower the Combatant Commands to conduct experimentation, prototyping and technology demonstrations to better match developing capabilities to operational needs (S.2296, Section 807).
PILLAR II: ACCELERATING THE REQUIREMENTS PROCESS
This pillar of the SPEED Act reforms the current Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System to bypass process-heavy functions and ensure defense acquisition system requirements keep pace with evolving threats and technological evolutions. This is achieved by replacing the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) with a Joint Requirements Council (JRC) focused on assessing evolving threats and technologies, shaping future force design and identifying the military’s joint operational needs (H.R. 3838 Section 1811). All recommendations produced by the JRC will be submitted to the newly established Requirements, Acquisition and Programming Integration Directorate (RAPID) within 30‒60 days (H.R. 3838 Section 1812). RAPID will be co-led by the Joint Council staff and CAPE and ensure military and acquisition system stakeholders and experts assess solutions within 90 days for an ultimate decision on the program to be made by the deputy secretary to ensure solutions are pursued in a timely manner. The SPEED Act also includes language to create the Mission Engineering and Integration Activity (MEIA) to lead experimentation and ensure RAPID recommendations are feasible and aligned with joint systems and operational concepts.
In this regard, the FoRGED Act includes measures to streamline the requirements process via the JROC through enabling it to oversee broader capability portfolios and capstone goals, rather than individual requirements (S.2296, Section 802). It also seeks to eliminate outdated regulations through requiring automatic sunsets for reporting requirements and statutory repeals outdated regulations, unless exempted or renewed by Congress. This is intended to reduce workloads and ensure redundant or obsolete requirements do not persist past their relevance.
PILLAR III: STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN REGULATION AND EFFICIENCY
The SPEED Act would also increase the threshold defined by the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act to decrease compliance costs and contract delays while increasing competition within the defense industrial base. Currently, the act requires defense contractors working on contracts over $2 million without adequate price competition to submit detailed cost and pricing data. This process has increased burdens for nontraditional defense vendors and commercial tech firms lacking the familiarity and infrastructure to meet these demands from engaging with defense contracts. The SPEED Act would raise this threshold to $10 million, with HASC noting this increase would still cover over 80% of total contract dollars and reduce contracts subject to certification by over 60% (H.R. 3838, Section 1821). The committee expects this action will enhance contracting speeds and expand commercial participation within the DIB, thus decreasing costs and enhancing resilience and surge capacity.
Beyond the previously discussed portfolio-based approaches to acquisitions and requirements and the elimination of outdated regulations, the FoRGED Act pursues this objective through developing flexible and modern contract reforms. These include modifying contracts to introduce a “pay-as-you-go” or usage-based payment model that enables the department to provide vendors with fluctuating payments based on its usage of services (S.2296, Section 829). This will be most impactful as applied to contracts that include such services as data storage and computing power.
PILLAR IV: STRENGTHENING THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE AND LEVERAGING COMMERCIAL INNOVATION
This pillar of the SPEED Act further addresses the need to attract new participants within the DIB and overcome the gap between commercial defense prototypes and long-term adoption known as the “Valley of Death.” To achieve this, the SPEED Act language included in the House NDAA establishes the Bridging Operational Objectives and Support for Transition (BOOST) program (H.R. 3838, Section 1834). This will connect Defense Innovation Unit technologies and prototyping efforts with PEOs to assist in coordinating the planning and development of technologies with the needs of existing programs of record. The SPEED Act also establishes the Industrial Resilience Consortium (IRC) to further build public-private partnerships within the defense acquisition and DIB communities (H.R. 3838, Section 1842). The consortium will consist of manufacturers, tech developers, supply chain experts and research institutions focused on strengthening the DIB’s resilience and competitiveness through enhancing information sharing and collective understanding. HASC believes this effort will aid in identifying DIB vulnerabilities and gaps, areas for investments to enhance efficiencies, accelerate manufacturing and build private sector industrial capabilities to meet surge demands.
The FoRGED Act included in the SASC bill strengthens the DIB through measures to expand participation of nontraditional defense contractors and commercial companies. To achieve this, the act expands the definition of nontraditional defense contractors to include firms with high private-sector R&D investment, venture capital backing or growth-stage status, thus lowering the compliance burden for companies by exempting them from requiring unique contract clauses (S.2296, Section 821). The act also authorizes sole-source follow-on contracts for successful prototypes to improve efficiencies between initial experimentation and production phases.
PILLAR V: DEVELOPING A MISSION-ORIENTED DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
The final pillar of the SPEED Act begins work on improving the defense acquisitions system workforce in a manner that prioritizes speed, mission outcomes and responsible risk taking. The objective of this effort is to identify methods to acquire and develop talent to make informed tradeoffs and enable acquisition system leadership to act efficiently and decisively. To achieve this, the SPEED Act will require reports to assess the Defense Acquisition University and the department’s acquisition workforce (H.R. 3838, Section 841). It also recommends the comptroller general to review the management, training and development of the acquisitions workforce (H.R. 3838, Section 840).
Beyond empowering the program officers to conduct experimentation, prototyping and technology demonstrations and augmenting PEO capabilities, the FoRGED Act also calls for an independent study to enhance and retain the DIB workforce (S.2296, Section 862). The study includes an evaluation of training programs focused on improving their understanding of portfolio requirements and goals, flexible procurement methods and how to work with nontraditional and commercial vendors. Furthermore, the study would explore the criteria for promoting the acquisition workforce to favor professions that focus on innovation, speed and efficiencies rather than risk avoidance.
Key Procurement Programs
As the two versions of the bill advance through their respective chambers and proceed to the conferencing process, members will need to address differences in their authorization language and funding for key procurement programs. These include significant contrasts across such platforms as the Virginia-class submarine, the F-35 and the E-2D.
Regarding the Viriginia-class submarine program, the House version includes an amendment from Ranking Member of the Sea Power and Projection Forces Subcommittee Joe Courtney (D-CT) to increase funding for the Virginia-class submarine program by $1 billion for a total of nearly $1.82 billion. Their bill also includes a provision to authorize the advanced procurement of components to support the continuous production of the submarines. While the SASC version does not include this provision, it currently authorizes $200 million more in funding for the program for a total of nearly $2.02 billion.
The F-35 program has faced increased congressional oversight recently due to significant cost overruns and continuous modernization efforts. Despite these concerns, the House NDAA matched the president’s budget request for the purchase of 47 F-35s, while SASC increased the authorization to 57. Currently, the House and Senate Defense Appropriations committees (HAC-D and SAC-D) have included funding for 69 and 47, respectively.
HASC and SASC also faced a significant disagreement regarding the procurement of the E-2D Hawkeye. The procurement of four aircraft amounting to nearly $1.5 billion was included in the president’s budget, HASC’s version of the NDAA and by HAC-D. This effort was not matched by the Senate, with both SASC and SAC-D canceling the procurement entirely.
Indo-Pacific
The Indo-Pacific remains a key priority in this year’s NDAA, especially following the secretary’s public remarks describing China as an “imminent” threat. Both the HASC and SASC versions of the NDAA authorize $1 billion for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative, extend the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and include measures to counter China’s military expansion. However, the two bills differ in their specific provisions related to deterrence and force posture.
Both versions support Taiwan’s participation in multilateral coordination efforts. SASC’s NDAA explicitly encourages the secretary to invite Taiwan’s Navy to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise, a biennial international maritime exercise in the Hawaiian Islands, while the House version more broadly calls for coordination with U.S. allies to counter “regional aggression in the Indo-Pacific.” The House NDAA requires the administration to brief the committee on the potential consequences for the United States and Taiwan in the event of a blockade of Taiwan or the South China Sea. It also directs the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to assess its ability to respond to recovery, including hostage rescue, in a “contested environment.” The Senate version also mandates the secretary to establish a “credible deterrence” against cyberattacks targeting U.S. critical infrastructure and identify actions to strengthen Taiwan’s digital infrastructure, which is notable following the recent cyberattacks carried out by Chinese cyber espionage groups Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon.
Ukraine
U.S. weapon transfers and financial aid for Ukraine have remained contentious issues since President Trump’s election. President Trump has consistently advocated for European nations to play a larger role in Ukraine’s security and for the Untied States to scale back its support. This position is reflected in the Pentagon’s proposed FY26 budget, which allocates no funding to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) that enables Ukraine to procure military aid directly from U.S. defense contractors.
Members of Congress also remain divided on the level of support to provide to the Ukrainians. The HASC chairman’s mark of the NDAA initially included $300 million for the USAI, which was later amended during markup to add an additional $100 million. However, the House’s authorization leaves President Trump some flexibility, as the authorization is contingent on a presidential determination that the assistance serves U.S. national interests. The Senate version authorizes an additional $500 million for the USAI and does not include the same contingency language.
The House NDAA also includes a provision requiring the department to brief the committee on any decision to review, pause, suspend, reallocate or cancel the transfer of defense articles to Ukraine. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of learning lessons from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, including on one-way attack drones and unmanned aircraft systems, loitering munitions and radio frequency jamming. The Senate version contains additional provisions beneficial to Ukraine, including a directive for the department to develop a depot-level maintenance plan for Western military equipment and for the secretary
to provide intelligence, imagery and information support to Ukrainian forces.
Israel
Both versions of the FY26 NDAA seek to bolster Israel’s defense through continuing over $300 million in funding authorizations for such programs as the U.S.-Israel Anti-Tunnel Cooperation Program, continuing collaboration on countering unmanned aerial systems and supporting joint missile defense programs, including Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling. The House NDAA extended the War Reserve Stockpile Authority–Israel to 2029, which allows the department to continue to store munitions in Israel, although the contents of the stockpile are not publicly disclosed.
NEXT STEPS
Despite a packed congressional calendar, a looming government shutdown and a contentious political environment in Congress, the House and Senate are likely to begin an informal conference process following the Sept. 22 recess week. The conferenced bill is currently expected to be completed ahead of the Thanksgiving recess on Nov. 22 and final passage before the end of the year.
