FY2025 NDAA: Summary of Funding Authorizations
CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
INSIGHTi
FY2025 NDAA: Summary of Funding Authorizations
Updated January 7, 2025
Of the $895.2 billion requested in the FY2025 President’s budget for discretionary activities within the national defense budget function, approximately $883.7 billion fell within the scope of proposed and enacted versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (NDAA; H.R. 8070; S. 4638; H.R. 5009; P.L. 118-159). While the NDAA by itself does not provide funding (i.e., budget authority), historically the legislation has served as an indicator of congressional views on funding for such activities.
During consideration of an FY2025 NDAA, Members of Congress proposed authorizing more, the same, or less funding than the President requested for such activities. The House-passed H.R. 8070 would have authorized the level of funding the President requested. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)- reported S. 4638 would have authorized approximately $25.1 billion more than requested. The enacted version of the legislation (P.L. 118-159), a House amendment to a Senate amendment to H.R. 5009, authorized the level of funding the President requested. See Table 1 and Figure 1.
This Insight summarizes funding authorizations in the FY2025 NDAA for U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) activities, atomic energy defense programs, and certain other defense-related activities.
Table 1. Summary of Funding Authorizations in Proposed and Enacted Versions of the
FY2025 NDAA
(in billions of current dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Title or
Division, and
Subfunction
Enacted
FY2024 NDAA
(P.L. 118-31)
FY2025
President’s
budget
requesta
House-passed
FY2025 NDAA
(H.R. 8070)
SASC-reported
FY2025 NDAA
(S. 4638)
Enacted
FY2025 NDAA
(P.L. 118-159)
Procurement $169.17 $166.38 $163.59 $176.37 $167.85
RDT&E $145.94 $143.16 $143.55 $146.01 $143.77
O&M $288.82 $296.33 $295.00 $305.24 $294.46
MILPERS $176.77 $181.88 $185.71 $182.30 $182.75
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12404
Congressional Research Service 2
Title or
Division, and
Subfunction
Enacted
FY2024 NDAA
(P.L. 118-31)
FY2025
President’s
budget
requesta
House-passed
FY2025 NDAA
(H.R. 8070)
SASC-reported
FY2025 NDAA
(S. 4638)
Enacted
FY2025 NDAA
(P.L. 118-159)
Other Authorizations
$42.52 $44.22 $44.45 $44.45 $43.50
MILCON $18.17 $17.55 $17.55 $20.66 $17.55
Subtotal, DOD- Military (051)
$841.4 $849.51 $849.84 $875.03 $849.87
Subtotal, Atomic Energy Defense Programs (053)
$32.38 $33.78 $33.32 $33.39 $33.28
Subtotal, Defense-Related Activities (054)
$0.44 $0.38 $0.51 n/ab $0.51
Total $874.21 $883.67 $883.67 $908.42b $883.67
Source: U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, conference report to accompany H.R. 2670, 118th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 118-301, December 6, 2023, pp. 1390-1395; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, report to accompany H.R. 8070, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 118-529, May 31, 2024, pp. 402-407; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, report to accompany S. 4638, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 118-188, July 8, 2024, pp. 418-422; explanatory statement to accompany House amendment to Senate amendment to H.R. 5009, pp. 498-501. Notes: RDT&E is research, development, test, and evaluation; O&M is operation and maintenance; MILPERS is military personnel; and MILCON is military construction and family housing. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Dollars rounded to nearest hundredth. a. Amounts in this column reflect those in explanatory statement to accompany House amendment to Senate amendment to H.R. 5009.
b. The SASC typically does not authorize appropriations for the Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Maritime Security Program and Tanker Security Program; the final version of the NDAA typically does.
House-passed H.R. 8070
H.R. 8070, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, would have authorized $883.7 billion, as requested, according to the accompanying committee report, H.Rept. 118-529. Together with amounts for certain defense-related programs not within the legislation’s purview or requiring additional authorization, the discretionary budget authority implication of the bill would have totaled $895.2 billion—consistent with the defense discretionary spending cap for FY2025 established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5).
During an April 30, 2024, hearing on the FY2025 DOD budget request, Representative Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), described the department’s request as inadequate to restore deterrence. “But this is the hand dealt to us by the Fiscal Responsibility Act that we all have responsibility for enacting,” he said. “As we move to mark up the FY2025 NDAA, we will play that hand that was dealt to us.” In preparation for House consideration of the legislation, Representative Barbara Lee submitted an amendment that would have reduced the amount authorized by the bill by $100 billion, excluding accounts related to the Defense Health Program, military personnel, and pay and benefits. The amendment was not considered for floor debate.
While the overall level of funding authorizations in H.R. 8070 would have matched the President’s request, amounts authorized for certain types of accounts would have differed from the request. For
Congressional Research Service 3
example, in terms of DOD titles, the legislation would have authorized $3.8 billion more than requested for military personnel (MILPERS) appropriations, largely to support a 19.5% pay raise for certain junior enlisted servicemembers and an expanded housing allowance benefit as part of a package of “quality of life” initiatives. The legislation would have authorized $2.8 billion less than requested for procurement appropriations, including the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account—with no funding authorized for the Navy to procure the seventh Constellation-class (FFG) frigate, a type of small surface combatant.
In a Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 8070, the Biden Administration “strongly” opposed changing the basic pay schedule before the completion of the Fourteenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) and expressed disappointment at the level of shipbuilding funding, among other areas of disagreement.
SASC-reported S. 4638
S. 4638 would have authorized $908.4 billion, $25.1 billion more than requested to “accelerate equipment recapitalization, increase military construction, address the highest-priority unfunded requirements of the military services and combatant commanders, decrease the Department’s facility maintenance backlog, and strengthen the defense industrial base.”
During debate of the bill in a closed session, the SASC voted 16-9 on a motion “to include a provision that would increase the topline by $25.0 billion.” Senator Roger Wicker, Ranking Member of SASC, filed the motion following the release of a plan calling for a “generational investment” in the U.S. military— with proposed funding increases of $55 billion in FY2025 and additional amounts to reach 5% of Gross Domestic Product in the future—to prevent conflict, recapitalize U.S. military equipment, and safeguard national security innovation. Senator Jack Reed, SASC Chair, said he voted against reporting the bill to the Senate because it included “a funding increase that cannot be appropriated without breaking lawful spending caps and causing unintended harm to our military. I appreciate the need for greater defense spending to ensure our national security, but I cannot support this approach.”
S. 4638 would have authorized more funding than requested across each DOD appropriation title, with $10.0 billion more than requested for procurement accounts; $2.9 billion more than requested for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts; $8.9 billion more than requested for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts, and $3.1 billion more than requested for military construction (MILCON) accounts.
P.L. 118-159
The enacted version of the legislation (P.L. 118-159) authorized the level of funding the President requested consistent with the FY2025 defense spending cap under the FRA.
The legislation authorized funding for certain DOD accounts that differed from the request. It authorized $1.5 billion more than requested for procurement accounts (e.g., Air Force aircraft, Army missiles, and other equipment), $0.9 billion more than requested for MILPERS accounts (e.g., 14.5% pay raise for enlisted personnel at the rank of E-4 and below), and $0.6 billion more than requested for RDT&E accounts (e.g., Navy shipbuilding programs). The legislation authorized the requested level of funding for MILCON accounts. It authorized $1.9 billion less funding than requested for O&M accounts, and $0.7 billion less funding than requested for the Defense Health Program. The net increases of $0.4 billion to funding authorizations for DOD activities and $0.1 billion to funding authorizations for certain other defense activities were offset by a net decrease of $0.5 billion to funding authorizations for atomic energy defense activities.
Congressional Research Service 4
A summary released by Representative Adam Smith, ranking member of HASC, stated the legislation adhered “to budget levels set by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.” In a press release, Senator Wicker said, “the failure to include a topline increase is a tremendous loss for our national defense.”
Figure 1. Congressional Changes to President’s Requested Funding Authorizations in
Proposed and Enacted Versions of the FY2025 NDAA
(in billions of current dollars of budget authority)
Source: See Table 1. Notes: See Table 1.
Author Information
Brendan W. McGarry Specialist in U.S. Defense Budget
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service 5
IN12404 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED