Today, the president vetoed the annual policy bill that supports and underpins the US military. He is not angered over a select provision within the bill but rather at odds with those who want to keep legal spending caps in place.
This is, again, a fight over the nation’s rising debt and the size and scope of the federal government.
While this is indeed the “wrong” bill to veto given that it sets policy rather than cuts checks, it is the only one available to the president since Democrats have filibustered all appropriations bills and not allowed them to move through the Senate, much less to Obama’s desk.
Sorry for the morale-killing veto, troops, and the fact that this is not new to you. The military hostage-taking has been going on since the Budget Control Act negotiations, when the White House proposed sequestration and received Republican approval for the draconian cuts—which disproportionately targeted the military’s budget—as an automatic trigger should negotiations fail.
Since the imposition of BCA, there has been an unwritten agreement around Washington—thanks to this President’s stronger negotiating skills—that if Congress increases spending above those legal limits, the uptick must be equal for defense and non-defense priorities.
While four of the last five presidents (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush) have vetoed defense authorization bills at least once in their tenures, the key difference today is that a significant number of US forces are in harm’s way or close to it. The president’s veto does not send a helpful or supportive signal to those troops, to say the least.
Another key difference from previous recent vetoes is that in those cases, the offending provision (sometimes provisions) was promptly removed, thereby allowing the bill to re-pass quickly.
That will not happen this time absent a larger budget deal. Because the veto is not about a lone objectionable provision about Guantanamo Bay or something else. It’s about our growing government, decreasing bipartisanship, and governing stalemates in the absence of priority-setting by both parties.
What is the impact to those in uniform and the many civilians who support them? A lot, actually. Given that the Defense Department is the world’s largest organization at 3 million people, there are many new policies that go into effect each year that are critically important and time-sensitive like expanded policies regarding suicide prevention and sexual assault prevention and response.
Some additional policies that will be delayed as a result of the veto include: pay raises for those in uniform; setting the total size of the US military; acquisition reform; new retirement benefits for those who don’t make the military a full career (over 80% of the force); development of new recruiting incentives and bonuses; pilot programs to enhance career flexibility in the armed forces; establishment of an Army breastfeeding policy; procedures by which members of the Armed Forces may carry an appropriate firearm on a military installation; and more.
Unfortunately, the Republican Congress does not have enough votes to override the president’s veto on November 5th. So what can be done?
It is incumbent upon the House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairmen to personally continue to lead the charge, both publicly and privately, to encourage leadership to cut a budget deal with Obama and the Democrats as soon as possible—even if it has non-defense discretionary increases.
The only alternative is a long-term continuing resolution and that will wreak havoc on the military much worse and for much longer than the delayed enactment of this policy authorization bill.
Getting to “yes” on a two-year government budget is helpful for the military because it restores fiscal certainty and stability at needed higher spending levels and ensures the vetoed defense policy bill is passed directly after a budget bill.
In October 2015, President Obama vetoed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which included a military pay raise. His veto surprised many and left service members wondering what would happen to their scheduled raises and benefits.
As a military family myself, I wanted to provide some background on Obama’s controversial veto, what exactly was in the bill, and the potential impacts on troops’ wallets.
Why Obama Vetoed the Defense Bill
The main point of contention was that the 2016 defense bill allowed the Pentagon to get around mandated budget caps using an emergency war fund. Obama wanted sequestration fully repealed for both defense and non-defense spending, not just maneuvered around.
In his veto statement, Obama said:
“This bill resorts to gimmicks that do not allow the Pentagon to do what it needs to do I have repeatedly called on Congress to eliminate the sequester and make sure we’re providing certainty to our military so they can do long-term planning.”
Essentially Obama felt the bill didn’t go far enough to provide stable long-term funding that the military needed. However, many felt he should have still signed it to at least provide a pay raise for the troops.
What the Bill Included for Military Pay
The vetoed 2016 defense bill contained several military pay and benefits provisions:
- A 1.3% raise in basic pay for all members starting January 1, 2016
- An overhaul of the retirement system for new recruits
- Continued dual BAH payments for married couples
- Phased reductions in BAH over 4 years
- Modest increases in pharmacy co-pays
- Pay freeze for general/admirals and certain civilians
The bill aimed to modernize compensation while still providing a basic pay boost. But without Obama’s signature, these changes were put in limbo.
The Impact of the Veto on Troops’ Pay
Since the House lacked votes to override Obama’s veto, it meant that plans for the 2016 pay raise were stalled. Troops were still promised to be paid on time, but future pay was uncertain.
In the short-term, pay was protected by a continuing resolution funding the military until December 11, 2015. However, if a full-year budget wasn’t passed by then, paychecks could have been delayed.
Luckily, after much debate, Congress passed a new bill with revised terms that Obama signed in November 2015. This secured a 1.3% basic pay raise for 2016 and allowed the other provisions to take effect as planned without further issue.
Lessons Learned from the Controversial Veto
While Obama’s motives were questioned, the biggest takeaway was the need for bipartisan cooperation to provide stable funding and pay for the military. Short-term continuing resolutions and rejected proposals create unnecessary uncertainty for troops and their families.
Obama Vetoes $612 Billion Defense Bill
FAQ
How many vetoes did Obama use?
#
|
President
|
Total vetoes
|
42
|
Bill Clinton
|
37
|
43
|
George W. Bush
|
12
|
44
|
Barack Obama
|
12
|
45
|
Donald Trump
|
10
|
Did Congress pass military budget?
House Passes FY25 Defense Appropriations Act, Bolstering Military Capabilities and Supporting Our Servicemembers. Washington, D. C. – Today, the House of Representatives met to consider the Defense Appropriations Act, 2025 . The measure was approved by a vote of 217 to 198.
What is the Obama National Defense Authorization Act?
It was signed into law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama. In his signing statement, President Obama said that the Act would help with national security programs, the cost of health care for the Department of Defense, fighting terrorism in the US and around the world, and modernizing the military.
Did the military bill passed?
The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act has been passed by both the House and the Senate. It will soon be signed by the president. Among other things, the bill authorizes a pay raise for both service members and civilian defense employees.