With Congress back in session and most of the election results in, the to-do list for the lame duck session is coming into focus. So is the don’t-do list.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes national security funding and sets policy direction, is likely to pass by year’s end. However, Congress is expected to delay the actual Pentagon spending bill, likely passing another continuing resolution to extend funding through March, beyond the current December 20 deadline for Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations.

The political calculus is clear: with Republicans poised to take control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, many controversial policies in the House-passed NDAA—policies Senate Democrats hoped to negotiate out—are now largely moot. The incoming administration could achieve the same ends unilaterally, such as ending reimbursements for servicemembers who have to travel for an abortion, and eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at the Pentagon. While some issues remain, congressional leadership seems confident they can finalize an agreement that won’t differ significantly from an NDAA under the new Congress.

On the spending front, a new continuing resolution is more likely, allowing Republicans to shape the budget in the next Congress. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and other Pentagon leaders oppose this, warning that it would cap Pentagon spending at FY2024 levels and prevent funding for new programs until the FY2025 appropriations bill is enacted.

As Secretary Austin cautioned, “A lack of long-term funding delays missions, undermines readiness, and inflicts unnecessary disruptions on our military families and recruitment efforts. Furthermore, functioning under a CR impedes military readiness and makes it impossible in most cases to begin or accelerate new programs.” While Congress can include exceptions, or anomalies, in a continuing resolution to authorize spending beyond FY2024 levels, these are typically limited and do not cover the full scope of the Pentagon’s funding needs.

NDAA Trick Plays

Though major policy battles have mostly faded after the election, there are still some trick plays in the NDAA that taxpayers should be aware of. This week, Taxpayers for Common Sense sent a letter to congressional leadership urging restraint on the Pentagon’s topline and advocating for the removal of provisions that undermine taxpayer interests and national security.

On the topline, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the NDAA proposes a $25 billion increase in national security spending above the president’s budget request—funding that, if appropriated, would breach the spending caps set by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). Senate appropriators intend to circumvent the caps by labeling $21 billion of this increase as “emergency” funding, but we urged congressional leaders to honor both the spirit and letter of the law by resisting authorization of funds that would exceed the FRA’s limits.

We also recommended removing two provisions from the House-passed NDAA and one from the SASC version. In the House bill, Section 811 would expand the range of products and services designated as “commercial.” That’s a problem. This expansion poses risks for taxpayers, as commercial designations, which already extend to some products and services that aren’t actually commercially available, often exempt Pentagon contractors from sharing certified pricing data with the Department of Defense—even for products and services that aren’t actually available on the commercial market. Classifying more items as commercial would make it even harder for the Pentagon to ensure taxpayers are getting a fair deal.

Section 812 would compound this problem by raising the cost threshold for when the Pentagon can require prime contractors to obtain certified cost and pricing data from subcontractors. Currently, the Pentagon can request such data for subcontracted products and services over $2 million. This provision would increase that threshold to $5 million, making it easier for contractors who have a history of breaking up contracts so they fall below these thresholds to withhold critical cost and pricing data from the Pentagon. In effect, both provisions would limit the Pentagon’s ability to assess the true cost of a large number of products and services.

Finally, Senate Amendment 2627 in the SASC manager’s package would express congressional support for the Sentinel program—a costly initiative to replace the land-based leg of the nuclear triad with a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles. In May, we published a report recommending cancellation of this program, arguing that deterrence can be maintained without the land-based leg. Then in July, we criticized the Pentagon for certifying the program’s continuation, despite a new price tag that puts it 81 percent over budget. As the program is still being restructured and faces further potential cost increases, we believe Congress should, at a minimum, avoid endorsing expensive missiles that don’t make us safer.

Appropriations On-Side Kick

While lawmakers seem confident they can score on the NDAA before year’s end, they’re signaling an “on-side kick” approach on appropriations. But unlike on-side kicks in the NFL, which rarely succeed, congressional Republicans believe they’ll have the votes to recover the ball and pass their ideal Pentagon appropriations bill by March. The question is: what will that bill look like?

The biggest unknown is whether appropriators will ultimately follow the Senate’s approach to the topline—sidestepping the budget caps set by the FRA by labeling additional funds as “emergency” spending—or follow the House’s lead and stick to the caps. While the outcome is uncertain, the path they should take is clear. As we’ve written before, the Senate’s so-called “emergency” funding includes research projects that won’t impact military capabilities for years and longstanding issues within the military-industrial base—far from true emergencies. Opting for yet another continuing resolution over immediate appropriations only underscores the lack of urgency behind this “emergency” funding. Fiscally responsible lawmakers should reject this end-run around the budget caps, one of the few tools left to enforce fiscal discipline in Congress.

Other questions facing appropriators in the FY2025 spending bill will likely include how many submarines to fund, whether to prioritize new shipbuilding or extend the service lives of existing ships, and how to fund the Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter, currently under strategic review.

However those questions shake out, Congress is poised to pass the Pentagon’s spending bill about six months late—for the second time in two years. It’s a worrisome trend for taxpayers and national security practitioners alike.