Oregon — U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., voted against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week, warning that the bill expands military spending while failing to impose new limits on presidential power over the armed forces — a position that places him well outside the bipartisan consensus that carried the legislation through the Senate.
The Senate passed the fiscal year 2026 NDAA by a 77–20 vote, authorizing roughly $900.6 billion in defense funding and clearing the bill for President Donald Trump’s signature. The measure advanced with support from a large majority of both parties and includes the most sweeping overhaul of Pentagon acquisition practices in decades, according to defense analysts and congressional leaders .
In a statement explaining his “no” vote, Wyden described the NDAA as “bloated” and argued it lacked safeguards against what he characterized as potential abuses by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, including the deployment of troops domestically, the removal of senior military leaders, and the use of defense authorities without congressional authorization.
However, the bill itself focuses primarily on structural and procedural reforms, particularly in how the Department of Defense acquires weapons and technologies, rather than expanding executive emergency powers.
Bipartisan Bill Emphasizes Acquisition Reform, Not Expanded Authority
The NDAA authorizes about $8 billion more than the White House requested, a difference supporters attribute largely to inflation adjustments, personnel pay raises, and industrial base investments rather than force expansion. The legislation mandates the Pentagon adopt a new “portfolio acquisition executive” model, replacing the longstanding program-by-program oversight structure that critics have blamed for cost overruns and slow procurement timelines.
Supporters argue the changes are intended to speed delivery of weapons systems, lower costs, and make it easier for commercial firms to work with the Pentagon — priorities widely shared across party lines. The bill also directs the Defense Department to prioritize off-the-shelf commercial solutions and reduces compliance burdens on smaller companies seeking defense contracts.
“These reforms will help the Pentagon tap into that energetic innovation ecosystem,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said ahead of the vote, calling the bill “the most sweeping upgrades to these business practices in 60 years.”
Wyden’s Claims Extend Beyond Bill Text
Wyden’s statement links his opposition to broader concerns about Trump’s past conduct, including the federal response to unrest in Portland in 2020. He described those actions as the military “occupying” U.S. cities — a characterization disputed by legal experts, who note that federal law enforcement agencies and state-controlled National Guard units, not active-duty military forces, were deployed at the time.
The senator also asserted that Trump has used the Department of Defense to conduct “deadly military operations without congressional authorization” to intimidate political opponents and immigrants. Wyden did not cite specific incidents or provisions in the NDAA that would enable such actions, and the bill does not expand authorities under the Insurrection Act or alter the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the domestic use of the armed forces.
Presidents already possess broad constitutional authority over senior military appointments, a power exercised by administrations of both parties. The NDAA does not alter that framework.
Provisions Wyden Supports Are Contained in the Same Bill
Despite opposing final passage, Wyden acknowledged supporting multiple components of the NDAA, including:
- A pay raise for servicemembers
- Repeal of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force related to Iraq
- Continued military assistance for Ukraine and Indo-Pacific allies
- A provision he authored requiring declassification of information about foreign governments assisting fugitives accused of crimes in the United States
All of those measures are included in the bill he ultimately voted against.
The NDAA also authorizes $400 million for Ukraine, $175 million for the Baltic Security Initiative, and major investments in shipbuilding, aircraft, and munitions — though actual spending levels will be determined later through the appropriations process.
Intelligence Oversight Concerns Left Vague
Wyden, a longtime advocate for intelligence oversight, criticized the bill for omitting whistleblower protections passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, his statement did not specify which protections were removed during negotiations or how their absence materially alters existing oversight mechanisms.
A Dissent Framed Around the Presidency, Not Procurement
While Wyden framed his opposition as a stand against executive overreach, the NDAA itself centers on procurement reform, industrial capacity, and force readiness, not new domestic deployment authorities or expanded presidential powers.
The result is a vote explanation that focuses less on the bill’s contents than on broader concerns about Trump’s return to office, a stance that distinguishes Wyden from most of his Senate colleagues but leaves unresolved how the legislation itself materially increases the risks he describes.
President Trump has said he intends to sign the bill, setting the reforms into law and continuing Congress’s six-decade-long practice of passing an annual defense authorization.
About the Author
Discover more from Right Now Oregon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
