Wait, Congress Got Something Done During the Shutdown?

An example of bipartisan cooperation in a month of dysfunction.

A quick note: I’m going to be punting this week’s paid subscribers post to next week, because I wanted to revive an old Friday tradition here at Wake Up To Politics: letting you in on bipartisan policies that are quietly advancing through Congress.

That means we’ll have two paid subscribers posts next week. And I want your help! One will be a Q&A post, so keep sending in your questions. My plan is for another to be a broader deep dive. I’ve got some ideas kicking around, but I want to know if there’s anything you’d be interested in seeing me address!

As always, you can send suggestions in the comments below, but I also wanted to create something for readers who don’t use the Substack app or who don’t want their name attached. So here’s a direct link you can use to send in questions or topic ideas. If people prefer this method, I’ll keep using it! Have a great weekend. — Gabe

---

One theme I frequently return to in these newsletters is that, even when it seems like Washington is mired in dysfunction, there are often flashes of government function, too, as long as you know where to look for them.

But surely that doesn’t hold true during a government shutdown, perhaps the most visible symbol of dysfunctional politics, right?

Wrong.

Last week, the Senate took a break from repeatedly rejecting bills that would reopen the government in order to take up another important piece of legislation: the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). After considering a series of amendments, the final package ended up being passed by the lopsided vote of 77-22.

“This is what collaborative, bipartisan legislation looks like,” Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) said. “And in highly charged partisan times, this ought to be refreshing news to the American people.”

In Congress, all policy priorities are supposed to advance on a two-track process: in theory, lawmakers first pass “authorization bills” that give a program the legal authority to exist (with the caveat that they usually have to be reauthorized every few years); then, they pass “appropriations bills” that actually disburse the funding for the programs that have been created.

Lawmakers always get around to the appropriations part of that equation — eventually. (The whole reason the government is currently shut down is that Congress failed to pass new appropriations bills by October 1, when the old ones expired.) But the process doesn’t always work how it should for authorizations. In the last fiscal year, Congress appropriated funds to 457 programs whose authorizations had lapsed, from the Federal Election Commission (authorization expired in 1981) to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (expired in 2023).¹

One exception, though, is the Defense Department. Lawmakers are vigilant about reauthorizing the Pentagon, having passed an NDAA every year for 64 years straight — and always with support across the aisle, an annual tradition of cooperation in a Congress more known for partisan food fights.

Nearly every quirk and detail of American military policy is painstakingly hashed out by Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the NDAA. Before being amended, the Senate package that passed last week weighed in at 1,454 pages, laying out everything from the U.S. inventory of intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs (no fewer than 400 at all times) to the size of the Navy (344,600 active duty personnel).

According to Wicker, the NDAA draft that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee this year (in a 26-1 vote) included 985 items written by individual senators. 96 more items (split evenly between Democratic and Republican proposals) were then added in two large tranches; on Thursday, before approving the final bill, the chamber approved several more amendments, bringing the final total to 1,098 items that individual senators had chipped in. “The NDAA may well be the last vestige of traditional legislating of the sort we learned about in school,” former House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) has written.

The defense policy bill isn’t quite at the finish line yet, though.² The House passed its own version (1,772 pages!) in September, in a 231-196 vote. (All but four Republicans were in support; all but 17 Democrats were opposed.) The House offering had a lower topline cost ($893 billion, to the Senate’s $925 billion) and more conservative social-policy provisions. The two proposals will now need to be reconciled through House-Senate negotiations in the weeks and months ahead.

Today, we’re going to look through the version of the NDAA that the Senate passed last week, with a focus on some of the interesting bipartisan provisions that could end up becoming law. I won’t include all 1,098 individual items, I promise — but hopefully this will give you a glimpse at some of the bipartisan lawmaking that’s still (somehow!) happening behind the scenes during a shutdown, even if there’s not enough of it.

If Congress ran a school

The word “education” isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, which means — thanks to the 10th Amendment, which gives any undelegated powers to the states — it’s mostly an issue handled at the state or local level.

But here’s an exception: the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), the arm of the Pentagon that oversees 163 schools on U.S. military bases across the world. This federally managed school system serves around 67,000 students, making it larger than the school systems of Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, or Detroit. (It also routinely ranks as one of the highest performing school systems in the country.)

That means the NDAA gives us a rare glimpse into how Congress would manage American schools, since the bill oversees one of the two school systems under direct federal control.³

One notable provision here: senators want to join a growing number of states in banning students from using cell phones at school. The Senate-passed NDAA would require the Defense Department⁴ to update its regulations on “student use of portable electronic mobile devices” in DoDEA schools in order to “prohibit disruption in the learning environment by minimizing the use of such mobile devices to the greatest extent practicable.” That idea was contributed by Sens. Jim Banks (R-IN) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

At the higher education level, the bipartisan Senate NDAA also includes a provision banning anyone “whose sex is male” from participating in “an athletic program or activity” at the military service academies “that is designated for women or girls.” (The provision adds that it shouldn’t be read to “prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport.”)

In addition, the Senate package prohibits the military service academies from considering “race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in admissions decisions.” The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision ended race-based affirmative action for most American universities, but — through a footnote — created an exemption for the military academies. This provision would close that loophole, which the Trump administration has already tried to do.

Do you like to travel, Mr. Hegseth?

At several points, the Senate NDAA restricts the pool of money set aside to fund travel for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or other officials, unless they follow through with certain requirements.

This is not a new tactic: it has been used in previous NDAAs, and appears in the House version, as well. But it’s an interesting glimpse into how formidable Congress’ power of the purse can be when lawmakers choose to wield it. Theoretically, if lawmakers are opposed enough to anything a Trump administration official (from the president on down) is doing, they have the power to take similar steps and shrink that person’s budget unless they comply with Congress’ wishes.⁵

Here’s one notable example of this tactic that appears in the Senate version, but not in the House version: Lawmakers threaten to hold one-quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget hostage, until he submits a “multi-year plan to fulfill the defensive requirements of the military forces of Taiwan,” a “plan for Department of Defense activities to strengthen United States extended deterrence commitments to the Republic of Korea,” and other reports that the Pentagon was supposed to hand over under previous NDAAs.

The Trump administration recently nixed a military aid package for Taiwan and has considered withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea; this is a way to force the Pentagon’s hand on its commitment to both missions.

Reining in Trump

Senate defense hawks’ fears about Trump potentially reneging on American allies also shines through at other points in the package.

Specifically: the package prohibits any Defense Department funds from being used to reduce the current U.S. troop levels in South Korea (28,500) or Europe (76,000), unless a slew of military officials sign off and certify that doing so is “in the national security interest of the United States” and that U.S. allies have been consulted on the move.

The Trump Defense Department has mulled withdrawing troops from both South Korea and Europe; this is an attempt by lawmakers to cut them off at the pass.

Three more provisions in the Senate NDAA along these lines:

• The package would prohibit the U.S. from “relinquish[ing] the role of the Commander of the United States European Command as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” something else that Trump has reportedly considered doing.

• It includes the requirement that the “Secretary of Defense shall provide intelligence support” to the “Government of Ukraine for the purpose of supporting military operations of the Government of Ukraine that are specifically intended or reasonably expected to defend and retake the territory of Ukraine.” (Emphasis mine.) The Trump administration briefly cut off intelligence support for Ukraine in March.

• And it would require that the president include a “reason for the removal” whenever he dismisses a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as Trump did in February.

Housing hitches a ride

A few months ago, I reported on the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, the first comprehensive housing package approved by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee in more than a decade (and approved by the panel 24-0).

The legislation does not mention the Defense Department once, so it might seem like an unlikely bill to be added to the NDAA. But the aforementioned Rep. Mac Thornberry once called the NDAA a “sturdy ox pulling a legislative wagon on which a lot of legislative baggage is carried”; it is one of the few bills members know will become law every year, so they try to add all of their unrelated pet priorities to it.

During a series of amendment votes, the Senate voted unanimously to add the ROAD to Housing Act to its NDAA. It is still far from guaranteed that the housing bill will be part of the final package that goes to the president’s desk — but the widespread support in the Senate is still a notable sign for a bill tackling a problem that has gone unaddressed in Congress for quite some time.

As a reminder, the ROAD to Housing Act combines 28 bipartisan proposals to boost the housing supply, including pegging housing grants to cities with better housing track records, creating a set of “best practices” frameworks for city zoning and land-use policies, streamlining the federal environmental review process for HUD housing projects, boosting housing for veterans, and encouraging more housing to be built near public transportation. Banking Committee chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took the lead on the legislation.

What else got added to the NDAA via amendment? A push by Sens. Todd Young (R-IN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) to revoke authorizations for the use of military force from the Gulf and Iraq Wars, to prevent future presidents from using them. (The House also included this provision in its NDAA.) A proposal by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) allowing lawmakers and their staffs to shield personal information on the internet. A grant program by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) to prevent youth substance abuse. A bill by Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) to block U.S. investments in certain technologies in China. And several other bipartisan programs.

The Senate rejected a few amendments, too, including Democratic attempts to prohibit the Trump administration from receiving a new Air Force One from Qatar (failed 46-50) and from deploying the National Guard without consent from governors (47-50).

What’s in a name

The 2021 NDAA (passed at the end of 2020) set up a commission to recommend new names for American military bases named for Confederate figures. President Trump, objecting to that provision, vetoed the bill in his final weeks in office, but his veto was overridden by the House and Senate.

The commission has since released its recommendations, which began to be implemented under the Biden administration — but the Trump administration is now ignoring, restoring the original names of the bases (but getting around the 2020 bill’s ban on Confederate names by saying the names instead honor other military personnel who had the same names).

The Senate NDAA would require the Defense Department to implement the commission’s naming recommendations for bases in Virginia.

---

There’s a lot more included in the 1,400+ page bill: A 3.8% pay raise for troops. Acquisition reform. New requirements for Defense Department flights near commercial airports, to try to avoid what happened at Reagan airport earlier this year. A provision ensuring that the military health care plan covers IVF for service members. Another ensuring that it doesn’t cover sex change surgeries. The creation of a sex offender registry for military bases.

And more.

Congress over the last few weeks certainly hasn’t been a shining example of getting things done. (In fact, just yesterday, a Republican attempt to take up the Defense appropriations bill was foiled in the Senate, 50-44). But the Senate-passed NDAA provides perhaps the best counter-example — a striking show of bipartisanship and cooperation, across a range of military policy priorities, even during a stretch of peak dysfunction on the Hill.

1. This is related to how difficult it is for Congress to agree on appropriations, by the way! If lawmakers were doing the work of authorization bills — like they do for the Defense Department — there would be less that would have to be hashed out at the appropriations stage, and they’d be able to agree on spending bills faster.

2. A note on terminology: you’ll often see the NDAA referred to as the “defense policy bill,” as opposed to the Defense appropriations bill, which is generally called the “defense spending bill.”

3. The other is the Bureau of Indian Education school system, which manages 183 schools on Native American reservations.

4. The NDAA only ever refers to the Pentagon as the Defense Department, by the way, never the War Department.

5. Of course, if Congress were to go full-bore in doing this, they’d probably need enough votes to override a presidential veto. There is also the risk of the president violating spending laws if they include conditions like this, which is the type of behavior that speedruns us towards chaos.