FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act

FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act
Title	FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act
Enacted by	115th United States Congress
Signed by	President Donald Trump
Effective date	December 12, 2017
Public law	115–91
Introduced in	United States Congress
Passed house	December 2017
Passed senate	December 2017

FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act The FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018) is a United States federal statute enacted by the 115th United States Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on December 12, 2017, establishing policy, personnel, and spending authorizations for the United States Department of Defense, the United States Armed Forces, and related national security programs. The act integrated provisions affecting procurement, pay and benefits for United States military veterans, acquisition reform, and authorities for operations tied to the Global War on Terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security, and allied cooperation with partners such as NATO, Japan, and South Korea.

Background and Legislative History

The NDAA emerged from competing proposals advanced during the 115th Congress by leaders such as Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, and ranking members including Adam Smith and Jack Reed, following hearings with senior officials from the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and testimony from service chiefs representing the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and United States Air Force. Debates referenced prior statutes including the National Security Act of 1947, the Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, and the FY2017 NDAA, while committee markups involved amendments by legislators such as Lindsey Graham, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Conference negotiations between the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate resolved differences over authorization levels, policy riders, and oversight provisions ahead of final passage.

Key Provisions and Policy Changes

Major provisions included authorization of a base defense budget and Overseas Contingency Operations funding that directed procurement for platforms like the F-35 Lightning II, Virginia-class submarine, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and sustainment for the MQ-9 Reaper, while establishing policy changes on military personnel by implementing a 2.4% pay raise for service members and expanding sexual assault resilience measures driven by reports from the Special Victims' Counsel and the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. The statute addressed acquisition reform by amending authorities that affect the Defense Acquisition University, introduced pilot programs for rapid prototyping influenced by the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, and contained cybersecurity provisions referencing the National Security Agency, the United States Cyber Command, and coordination with the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The act also codified changes to counterterrorism detention policy, modified authorities for the Central Intelligence Agency and Special Operations Command, and included measures affecting nuclear posture, invoking links to the New START framework and reviews by the Nuclear Posture Review.

Funding and Budgetary Details

Authorized funding levels in the act specified topline spending that reconciled allocations for the Department of Defense Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement accounts with Overseas Contingency Operations funding, affecting appropriations overseen by the Congressional Budget Office, the House Appropriations Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill outlined procurement quantities and multiyear procurement authority for systems such as the KC-46 Pegasus, Zumwalt-class destroyer adjustments, and sustainment contracts with defense contractors including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Budget scoring, sequestration waivers, and emergency spending provisions engaged the Office of Management and Budget and prompted analyses by think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Heritage Foundation.

Implementation and Military Impact

Implementation required regulatory and policy changes enacted by the Secretary of Defense, service secretaries, and combatant commanders within commands such as United States Central Command, United States Indo-Pacific Command, and United States European Command, which affected force posture in theaters including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and operations related to counter‑ISIS campaigns. Personnel and readiness initiatives influenced training and retention policies across ranks from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff directives to unit-level implementation in the National Guard Bureau and the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, while acquisition timelines impacted fielding schedules for platforms operating from bases like Joint Base Lewis–McChord, Naval Station Norfolk, and Andersen Air Force Base.

Controversies and Legal Challenges

The act generated controversies over provisions regarding military justice reform, detainee transfer and detention authorities, and policy riders touching on social issues that provoked debate among lawmakers such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Susan Collins. Legal challenges and litigation touched on implementation of the act's stance toward transgender service members following executive actions by Donald Trump and reviews by the Department of Justice, producing court decisions in venues including the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Allegations related to procurement decisions, contractor performance, and oversight led to investigations involving the Government Accountability Office and Department of Defense Inspector General.

Amendments, Related Legislation, and Subsequent Revisions

After enactment, provisions were amended through subsequent annual NDAAs such as the FY2019 NDAA and FY2020 NDAA and through appropriations acts passed by the 115th United States Congress and the 116th United States Congress, while executive implementation guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and policy reviews including the National Defense Strategy and follow‑on Nuclear Posture Review refined priorities. Related legislation impacting topics in the act included proposals in the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as oversight reports from the Congressional Research Service and analyses by the Rand Corporation and Center for a New American Security.

Category:United States federal defense legislation