Saturday, October 31, 2026Independent tracking of the National Defense Authorization Act

The hub for the National Defense Authorization Act — status, history, and analysis

Guide · Updated for the 119th Congress

FY2027 vs FY2026 NDAA: What Changed

TL;DR

The FY2027 defense authorization debate is bigger and later than last year's. The House topline ($1.15T) is roughly $250B above the enacted FY2026 bill ($901B) — though the two figures aren't apples-to-apples, since the FY2027 request reflects a restructured budget. Where FY2026 was defined by acquisition reform (portfolio acquisition under P.L. 119-60), FY2027 is defined by its political environment: right-to-repair provisions, a second destroyer fight, Iran-conflict language, and a Senate floor stalemate that has pushed the calendar well behind recent years.

Side by side

FY2027 proposals vs enacted FY2026 NDAA
FY2027 (pending)FY2026 (law)
House billH.R. 8800— (Senate-originated)
Senate billS. 4784S. 1071
Topline$1.15T (House) / $1.14T (Senate)$901B
Public lawNot yetP.L. 119-60
SignedPendingDec 18, 2025
Signature themeRight to repair, shipbuilding, Iran policyAcquisition reform (portfolio model)
StatusHouse passed; Senate stalledEnacted

What carried over from FY2026

  • Acquisition reform continues. P.L. 119-60 built the portfolio-based acquisition model; FY2027 sections tagged acquisition reform extend it.
  • Supply-chain and FOCI scrutiny. Foreign ownership controls tighten further in both FY2027 bills, building on the "biotechnology company of concern" provisions first enacted in P.L. 119-60.

What's new in FY2027

Explore every provision: 723 annotated FY2027 section pages, or compare House vs Senate text in the diff tool. Historical context: all past NDAAs back to FY2020.