The Senate just pushed through a hefty defense policy bill with a price tag of $924.7 billion, signaling a firm stance on military funding amid a government shutdown.

As reported by The Hill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) cleared the GOP-led chamber with a 70-20 vote late Thursday, after a deal was struck to break through weeks of legislative gridlock.

Now, with the House version pegged at a lower $893 billion, negotiators from both chambers face the tough task of forging a compromise during the upcoming conference process.

Senate Overcomes Stalls with Strategic Deal

The NDAA had been stuck on the Senate floor since early September, held up by a handful of senators refusing to budge on amendment votes. A breakthrough came Thursday when Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker of Mississippi brokered a deal for 17 stand-alone amendments and a bundle of nearly 50 others.

Wicker didn’t mince words on the urgency, stating, “We simply cannot delay this process any longer,” warning that without action, a tiny group of senators would end up drafting the final bill behind closed doors. His push for transparency in the process is a nod to the need for broader debate, something often lost in Washington’s backroom dealings.

By evening, senators powered through a slew of amendments, both partisan and less contentious, clearing the path for the bill’s passage. It’s a rare moment of movement in a chamber often paralyzed by petty standoffs.

Bipartisan Wins Amid Partisan Losses

Several amendments made the cut, including one from Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to repeal outdated military force authorizations for Iraq from 1991 and 2002. This kind of cleanup is long overdue, trimming fat from laws that no longer serve a purpose in today’s geopolitical landscape.

Another success came from a joint effort by Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, whose amendment bolsters Pentagon powers to tackle drone threats near military bases. Gillibrand highlighted the danger, noting, “Hundreds of drones have been spotted in the vicinity of military installations over the past few years,” exposing a gap in current laws that this measure aims to close.

Yet, not all proposals flew; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s attempt to block funds for retrofitting a luxury Qatari jet for President Trump as a potential Air Force One replacement was shot down. Schumer’s frustration was clear when he said, “That’s money that shouldn’t be wasted,” but the Senate wasn’t buying the argument against what some see as a pragmatic update to executive transport.

Contentious Roadblocks and Compromises

Other amendments, like Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s bid to limit National Guard troop movements across state lines without local consent, also failed to gain traction. Such proposals often sound good on paper but crumble under the reality of national security needs outweighing state-level objections.

Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington had stalled the bill over a measure scrutinizing U.S. investments in China, reportedly tied to concerns from Microsoft, a major employer in her state. She relented after assurances that her issues would be addressed, showing how corporate interests can still sway even the most critical defense debates.

Meanwhile, a divisive push by Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona to deny military funeral honors to Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, killed during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, was dropped before a vote. This sidestep avoids a firestorm over an already polarizing tragedy, though it leaves unresolved questions about how we honor or condemn actions tied to that day.

Path Ahead Requires Grit and Compromise

The Senate’s vote is a step, but the real test lies in reconciling the nearly $32 billion gap between their bill and the House’s leaner version. These negotiations, often a slog, will reveal whether lawmakers prioritize military readiness or fiscal restraint in a time of economic uncertainty.

Both chambers must navigate a minefield of partisan priorities, from drone defenses to outdated war authorizations, while ensuring the final NDAA reflects the nation’s security demands. It’s a tall order when every line item becomes a battleground for broader ideological fights.

In the end, this bill’s journey shows Congress can still function, albeit with gritted teeth, even during a shutdown. Let’s hope the conference process doesn’t devolve into another showcase of gridlock, because the stakes for our military and national defense are far too high for more delay.