By Rachel Torres • May 21, 2026 • 3 min read
By catherine_morales • May 21, 2026 • 3 min read
Senate Clears $925 Billion Defense Bill with Expanded Ukraine Aid Package
The U.S. Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026, a sweeping $924.7 billion defense policy bill that includes a significant expansion of military assistance to Ukraine — raising the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative authorization to $500 million and extending the program through 2028. The 70-20 vote sets the stage for a contentious conference with the House, which approved its own $893 billion version earlier this year.
The Senate’s passage of the NDAA late Thursday evening marks a critical milestone in the annual defense policy process, one that carries outsized implications for both U.S. military readiness and the ongoing war in Ukraine. The bill, spearheaded by Armed Services Committee leadership, authorizes $924.7 billion in total defense spending — a figure that reflects the Senate’s insistence on a higher topline than the House’s $893 billion version, a gap that will need to be bridged in conference negotiations.
For Ukraine, the legislation represents a meaningful, if measured, commitment. The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, or USAI, would see its authorized funding increase to $500 million for fiscal year 2026, with the program extended through 2028 — a signal that lawmakers envision sustained, long-term support rather than a one-off appropriation. The USAI program allows the Pentagon to contract directly with defense manufacturers to produce weapons and equipment for Ukrainian forces, distinct from presidential drawdown authority that pulls from existing U.S. stockpiles.
“This bill sends an unmistakable message to Moscow: the United States Senate stands with the people of Ukraine, and we will not waver in our commitment to their sovereignty and self-defense,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) following the vote. “The extension of USAI through 2028 ensures that our support is not subject to the whims of annual appropriations battles.”
The path to passage was far from smooth. The Senate voted down more than ten amendments and rejected 50 add-ons before reaching the final vote, a process that consumed the better part of the evening. Among the notable adopted amendments was a bipartisan measure, introduced by Republican Senator Tom Cotton and Democratic Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, granting the Pentagon additional authorities to counter drone threats targeting military installations — a provision that gained urgency following repeated drone incursions at U.S. bases overseas.
Perhaps most symbolically significant, the Senate adopted an amendment repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq — a war powers statute that has been invoked by successive administrations for military actions far removed from its original purpose. The repeal, which mirrors a provision in the House version, reflects a growing bipartisan consensus that Congress must reclaim its constitutional war powers authority. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) called the repeal “long overdue” and noted that it “restores the proper constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches on matters of war and peace.”
Conference Challenges: Reconciling Two Visions of Defense Spending
The Senate and House versions of the NDAA diverge on several key provisions beyond topline spending. The House bill, at $893 billion, reflects a more fiscally conservative approach championed by House Freedom Caucus members who pushed for reductions in what they characterized as Pentagon wasteful spending. The Senate’s higher figure includes additional investments in shipbuilding, nuclear modernization, and space-based capabilities that the House version did not fully fund.
The Ukraine aid provisions also differ in scope. While the Senate extended USAI through 2028 with $500 million in annual authorization, the House version included a shorter extension and a lower authorization level. Conference negotiations will need to reconcile these differences at a time when support for Ukraine aid remains a fault line within the Republican conference, with some conservative members arguing that resources would be better spent on domestic priorities.
“We have a responsibility to ensure that every dollar authorized for Ukraine is spent effectively and with appropriate oversight,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who supported the bill but has been a vocal critic of Pentagon waste. “The American people deserve transparency about how their tax dollars are being used, whether that’s in Kyiv or at the Pentagon.”
The conference process is expected to take several weeks, with Armed Services Committee leaders from both chambers expressing cautious optimism about reaching agreement before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1. However, the broader budget reconciliation process — which could reshape domestic spending levels across the federal government — adds an additional layer of complexity to the negotiations.
Rejected Amendments and Political Calculus
Among the most notable rejected amendments was a proposal by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to block funding for the modernization of a Qatari aircraft that former President Donald Trump had accepted as a replacement for Air Force One. The amendment failed on a largely party-line vote, with Republicans arguing that the aircraft transfer was a matter of executive privilege and not within the NDAA’s purview.
Other rejected proposals included measures to restrict U.S. military involvement in the Red Sea, limit certain weapons transfers to the Gulf states, and impose additional reporting requirements on the Department of Defense’s cybersecurity programs. The winnowing process reflected the leadership’s determination to keep the bill focused on core defense policy and avoid politically divisive amendments that could jeopardize final passage.
For Catherine Morales and other legislative affairs analysts tracking the NDAA, the 70-20 final vote margin is instructive. It demonstrates that even in a deeply polarized Senate, defense authorization remains one of the few areas where bipartisan cooperation is still possible — even if the margins have narrowed compared to previous years. The 20 dissenting votes came from a mix of progressive Democrats who opposed the overall spending level and conservative Republicans who objected to specific provisions, a coalition of inconvenience that underscores the challenges ahead in conference.
