Current status (as of August 2026): S. 2296 passed the Senate on October 9, 2025, by a vote of 77–20, was received in the House on November 12, 2025, and remains "held at the desk" — its latest recorded action reads, verbatim: "Held at the desk." The Congress.gov record lists no law for S. 2296, and its action history ends there: the House took no further action on it and it was not enacted. The FY2026 NDAA did become law, through a different legislative vehicle. The negotiated defense text moved as a House amendment to S. 1071, which the House passed 312–112 on December 10, 2025 (Roll no. 320) and the Senate agreed to 77–20 on December 17, 2025 (Record Vote 648). S. 1071 became Public Law 119-60 on December 18, 2025. Status re-verified against the Congress.gov record on August 31, 2026.

S. 2296, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (NDAA), is the Senate's version of the annual bill Congress uses to set defense policy. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported it as an original measure on July 15, 2025, and its sponsor is the committee's chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS). The Congressional Research Service describes the FY2026 cycle as running on two tracks, naming H.R. 3838 as the House vehicle and S. 2296 as the Senate one; this page tracks the Senate bill. We publish full analyses of S. 2296 and of S. 1071, the bill that became law.

Where S. 2296 Stands

The Senate Armed Services Committee reported the bill as an original measure on July 15, 2025 (Senate Report 119-39), and it was placed on the Senate calendar. Its path across the Senate floor was recorded as follows:

  • September 2, 2025: The Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed by a vote of 84–14 (Record Vote 500).
  • September 4, 2025: The motion to proceed to the bill was agreed to, 83–13 (Record Vote 503).
  • October 9, 2025: The Senate passed the bill, with an amendment, by a vote of 77–20 (Record Vote 570).
  • November 10–12, 2025: The Senate sent the measure to the House, which received it and held it at the desk.
  • December 10–18, 2025: The negotiated FY2026 NDAA text moved through a different vehicle, S. 1071, which passed the House 312–112 (Roll no. 320), cleared the Senate 77–20 (Record Vote 648), and became Public Law 119-60 on December 18, 2025. S. 2296 itself stayed at the desk.

An authorization bill is not a spending bill. The official summary of S. 2296 puts it directly: the bill "authorizes appropriations but it does not provide budget authority, which is provided by appropriations legislation." The Congressional Research Service makes the same point about the NDAA generally — "Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for defense-related activities" — and adds that the NDAA instead establishes or continues defense programs and activities and gives guidance on how appropriated funds are to be used in carrying them out. So the NDAA answers what defense programs are authorized and at what levels, while appropriations bills provide the actual budget authority.

What the FY2026 NDAA Authorizes

The official summary published with the reported bill on July 15, 2025 says S. 2296, among other elements, would: authorize the procurement of items including aircraft, ships, and missiles; authorize active-duty and reserve-component personnel strength levels; authorize specified military construction projects and extend the authorization of certain projects from previous fiscal years; require DOD to develop a strategy on the national security implications of emerging biotechnologies; require the Navy to implement certain processes to improve the material condition and combat readiness of Navy surface ships maintained and repaired at private shipyards; extend the Pacific Deterrence Initiative through FY2026; repeal various statutory provisions related to diversity, equity, and inclusion within DOD, including a provision establishing the position of Chief Diversity Officer of DOD; and authorize the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for FY2026.

That summary describes the bill as reported on July 15, 2025. The Senate then passed S. 2296 with an amendment on October 9, and the engrossed text that left the chamber is organized into ten divisions: Department of Defense Authorizations; Military Construction Authorizations; Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations; Funding Tables; Additional Provisions; the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026; Department of State Matters; the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025; the ROAD to Housing Act; and the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. The last six of those are not described in the official summary, which was written for the earlier version. CRS records the general pattern: because the NDAA is consistently enacted, it is "frequently used as a vehicle for legislation under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services."

The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Provisions

Section 920 of the Senate-passed bill, headed "ELIMINATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE," repeals a list of existing requirements: section 147 of title 10, United States Code, which established the Chief Diversity Officer of the Department of Defense; section 656, on diversity in military leadership; section 986, on identification of gender or personal pronouns in official correspondence; the strategic plan for diversity and inclusion required by the FY2020 NDAA; and the senior advisors for diversity and inclusion required by section 913(b) of the FY2021 NDAA. It also strikes diversity-consideration language from three selection-board statutes, rewrites the human relations training objectives in section 2001 to read "honor, excellence, courage, and commitment," and removes the words "disaggregated by gender, race, and ethnicity" from reporting requirements in section 113.

The enacted law does not repeal the same list. Section 901 of Public Law 119-60 also strikes the Chief Diversity Officer and section 656, and it amends section 113 as well — though differently, striking subsection (l) outright and changing what becomes the surviving reporting requirement from one "Accompanying each national defense strategy" to one made "On an annual basis," rather than removing the demographic breakdown. It leaves section 986 and the FY2020 strategic plan alone; it repeals the whole of section 913 of the FY2021 NDAA rather than only its subsection (b); and it repeals section 554 of that Act, which the enacted text describes as "Inspector General Oversight of Diversity and Inclusion in Department of Defense; Supremacist, Extremist, or Criminal Gang Activity in the Armed Forces." Neither section 554 nor the words "Supremacist," "Extremist" or "Criminal Gang" appear anywhere in the text the Senate passed.

Section 901 then adds something the Senate bill has no counterpart to. Headed "PROHIBITION OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE," it provides that the Secretary of Defense may not "maintain an office relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility or any substantially similar office," employ "a chief diversity officer or a substantially similar officer," "maintain or employ a position relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility" of any kind, publish plans, reports or surveys on those subjects, maintain "an agency equity team," maintain a "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility data dashboard," maintain "an employee resource group or an affinity group based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity," or establish or purchase a training course relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, "intersectionality," or "a critical theory relating to race, gender, or otherwise." A rule of construction preserves "Equal Employment Opportunity offices as historically organized and operated within the Department of Defense" and offices enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What "Held at the Desk" Means, and What Happened Instead

Each chamber writes its own NDAA; in the 119th Congress the House vehicle was H.R. 3838. When one chamber sends a passed bill to the other, the measure can simply sit. Describing Senate practice, CRS says such a measure "might be neither referred to committee nor placed on the calendar" and is instead held at the desk, "either simply being at the desk in the absence of any proceeding on it or after being ordered by unanimous consent to be held at the desk" — "sometimes pending a decision on referring them to committee, passing them without committee consideration, or obtaining clearance from all Senators." The House record for S. 2296 shows that shape: "Received in the House." and "Held at the desk." are both dated November 12, 2025, and no action of any kind follows them.

To become law, the two chambers must pass the same text. CRS states the requirement plainly: "The Constitution requires that the House and Senate approve the same bill in precisely the same form before it is presented to the President." Agreement can be reached through a conference committee or, as CRS puts it, "by the exchange of alternatives between the chambers." The FY2026 NDAA took the second route, under a different bill number. See how a bill becomes law for the reconciliation step.

S. 1071 did not start as a defense bill. Introduced on March 14, 2025 and referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, its official summary describes a measure requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to disinter one individual's remains from a national cemetery in Texas. The Senate discharged the committee and passed the bill by unanimous consent on August 1, 2025; the House received it and held it at the desk on August 8. On December 10 the House took it up under H. Res. 936, which provided for consideration of "H.R. 3668 and S. 1071 under a closed rule," replaced its entire text with an amendment in the nature of a substitute carrying the negotiated FY2026 NDAA, and passed it 312–112 (Roll no. 320). Three further recorded votes followed in the Senate: a motion to proceed to the House message was agreed to 75–22 on December 11 (Record Vote 646), cloture on the motion to concur was invoked 76–20 on December 15 (Record Vote 647), and the Senate agreed to the House amendment 77–20 on December 17 (Record Vote 648). It became Public Law 119-60 the next day. The Senate roll-call sheet for that final vote still lists the measure under its original Veterans Affairs title.

The two texts differ in scope. S. 2296 as passed by the Senate carries ten divisions; Public Law 119-60 carries eight — Department of Defense Authorizations, Military Construction Authorizations, Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations, Funding Tables, the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025, and Other Matters. The ROAD to Housing Act, division I of the Senate-passed bill, appears nowhere in the enacted law.

Who Supported S. 2296, Who Voted No, and Why

The Senate passed the FY2026 NDAA 77–20 on October 9, 2025, after invoking cloture on the motion to proceed 84–14 on September 2. Both votes were bipartisan and both carried a bloc of dissent. When the negotiated final text came back in December under a different bill number, the Senate agreed to it by the same 77–20 count — but not by the same 20 senators.

Why did supporters back the bill?

S. 2296 was reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee and is sponsored by its chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS). Opening Senate consideration on September 2, Wicker said the committee had advanced the bill by "26 yeses and only 1 nay," which he called "a nearly unanimous endorsement of this legislation," and said the bill was "focused on two things: rebuild and reform" and "supports the DOD's role in border security and rolls back statutory requirements for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the Pentagon." He put the committee-reported total at "a $924.7 billion top line."

The bill then stalled. Roll Call reported that the Senate NDAA "had been stalled since initial procedural votes in early September" as senators, seeking votes on their own amendments, objected to moving forward. On the morning of October 9, Roll Call reported, Wicker announced that Republicans and Democrats had agreed on an amendments package — 17 stand-alone amendments plus a package of 48 "less controversial amendments that was approved by voice vote" — and in the floor speech announcing the deal he said, "If we do not bring this to the floor today, this matter will not have time for deliberation on the Senate floor." Roll Call reported that "even after the amendments deal was announced, the bill faced one last hiccup": Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) "said Thursday afternoon that she would oppose expediting passage of the bill until Wicker agreed to hold a public hearing" on National Guard deployments, and that an hour later she "secured a commitment for that hearing, allowing Thursday's votes to proceed." The amendment votes and final passage followed the same day.

Support on the roll calls was bipartisan both times: the 84–14 cloture vote drew 49 Republicans, 34 Democrats and one independent in favor, and the 77–20 passage vote drew 50 Republicans, 26 Democrats and one independent. After the final version cleared the Senate in December, Wicker and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI) jointly commended its passage. Wicker said, "Not since the era of World War II has our nation faced an axis of aggressors across multiple theaters seeking to dismantle American influence," calling the bill "a reflection of that reality and an appropriate response" and saying it contains "the most sweeping upgrades to the Pentagon's business practices in 60 years." Reed said the bill "enhances military readiness, supports servicemembers and their families, modernizes combat platforms, and invests in critical technologies."

Why did 20 senators vote no?

The 20 no votes on October 9 came from 18 Democrats, one independent (Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont) and one Republican (Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky). The objections on the record fall into two strands. The first was the size of the bill. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said the Senate had voted to give "the Pentagon a trillion-dollar spending package" and said the money went to "wasteful and destabilizing programs." Roll Call put the Senate bill's own value at "roughly $914 billion, a figure that, like the House version, does not include some national security spending not covered in the bill." Sanders called up an amendment to cut 10 percent from the bill, excluding military personnel and the Defense Health Program, and direct the savings to dental care for veterans, saying "We are now spending over $1 trillion a year on the military," that "the Pentagon is the only major Federal Agency not capable of passing an independent audit," and that "While Congress has cut funding for housing, education, nutrition, this bill increases military spending by over 8 percent." Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) asked the Senate to reject the amendment, saying "our military budgets are already carefully balanced" and that "Indiscriminate cuts contemplated in this amendment would undercut our readiness." The amendment was rejected 10–88 on Rollcall Vote No. 568, having not reached the 60-vote threshold that applied.

The second strand was about domestic troop deployments rather than money. On the day of the vote, six senators — Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) — issued a joint statement announcing they would vote against the bill, saying, "We cannot support authorizing this Administration to continue its egregious and unconstitutional abuse of our servicemembers." All six voted no.

The December vote produced the same count and a different bloc. Four senators switched between yes and no across the two roll calls: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Durbin voted no in October and yes in December, while Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) voted yes in October and no in December. The 20 no votes in December came from 17 Democrats, one independent and two Republicans.

What the recorded amendment votes show

Roll Call reported that the 77–20 vote "came after a marathon voting session on amendments." Democratic amendments that were rejected included one from Duckworth limiting to 30 days the time troops can be deployed to support U.S. police without congressional authorization — "Her amendment was rejected 46-52" — one from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) requiring a state governor's approval for deployments in that state, which "was rejected 47-50, with Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., crossing party lines to support it," one from Merkley requiring visible identification for troops or officers involved in crowd control, which "fell short 47-50," and one from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) barring spending to procure or modify a foreign aircraft to carry the president, which "was rejected 46-50." Republican amendments that received votes included one from Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on flags flown at Defense Department facilities, rejected by voice vote, and measures from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on drone incursions and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on U.S. investment in certain technologies in China, both approved by voice vote.

In the House the record was shorter, because S. 1071 was considered under a closed rule and no amendments were in order. The one recorded alternative was a motion by Rep. Norcross to commit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services, which "Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 209 - 216 (Roll no. 319)." The House passed the bill minutes later, and Norcross voted for it.

Primary Sources

Drafted from primary source documents by LegislationPatch's automated research pipeline, then reviewed, verified, and edited by , Editor. Every figure and citation is checked against the official text before publication. See our editorial standards and AI disclosure.