$900B Defense Bill Sparks Conservative Mutiny as GOP Rebellion Threatens Speaker Johnson
A sweeping $900 billion defense bill has thrown the House GOP into turmoil, as conservative members mount a rebellion that threatens not only the legislation itself but also the political standing of Speaker Mike Johnson. What is normally a routine exercise in passing the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has instead exposed deep fractures within the Republican conference.
The bill advanced earlier this week after the House Rules Committee approved it along party lines, clearing the way for a full vote. The NDAA, which shapes U.S. military policy and spending for the year ahead, includes troop pay raises, modernization programs, and new directives intended to counter geopolitical rivals. Yet despite the bill’s significance, it triggered fierce pushback from conservative hard-liners who argue that Johnson abandoned key promises.
At the center of the dispute are provisions that conservatives insist were stripped out without explanation. These include a measure to block the creation of a central-bank digital currency surveillance system, as well as several cultural-policy riders on which many right-leaning members had insisted. The omission fueled immediate outrage, with lawmakers warning that they could not support a bill that — in their view — ignored core conservative priorities.
The anger was clear during the procedural rule vote, which stretched far longer than usual and revealed just how fragile Johnson’s leadership has become. With only a razor-thin majority, the House GOP cannot afford many defections, and even a small group of dissenters can derail major legislation. Several conservatives openly accused Johnson of breaking promises and bowing to establishment pressure.
Despite the tensions, the bill ultimately passed the House with bipartisan support. More than 300 lawmakers voted in favor, while 112 opposed it — including 18 Republicans. That number, while not enough to sink the legislation, was large enough to signal a widening rift within the GOP and raised new questions about Johnson’s ability to lead a fractured majority.
Supporters of the NDAA argue that the bill is essential for national security, especially at a time when global threats continue to evolve. They emphasize the importance of troop readiness, modernization of military equipment, and efforts to maintain U.S. strategic advantages. Johnson himself has defended the bill as a responsible and necessary step to protect the country.
Conservative critics, however, remain unconvinced. They argue that the legislation expands federal spending while failing to address civil-liberty concerns, particularly those involving surveillance and government overreach. Some also complain that the bill does too little to push back against what they see as ideological influence within the Pentagon.
The conflict over the NDAA underscores a broader power struggle within the GOP as various factions compete to define the party’s direction. For Johnson, the episode highlights the delicate balance he must maintain to hold his conference together — and the political risks he faces if conservative dissatisfaction continues to grow.
As the bill moves on to the Senate, the internal Republican divisions show no sign of easing. The battle over the defense bill may be only the first of several high-stakes clashes that will test both party unity and Johnson’s control of the speaker’s gavel in the months ahead.