Cato Scholar on NDAA Passage

“This year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on balance sets back realism and restraint and handicaps the Trump administration from taking strategically necessary steps to prioritize America’s core national interests.

The bill deserves credit for finally repealing the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) and repealing sanctions on Syria, both of which pave the way for less military interventionism and more productive diplomacy in the Middle East.

However, the legislation’s significant constraint of the President’s ability to adjust posture, basing, and the role of the U.S. as security guarantor in Europe is a major, though not decisive, setback to burden shifting security responsibilities back to European allies. The President should consider issuing a signing statement, opposing the provision, and asserting its inclusion will not limit his ability to exercise his constitutional authority. Additionally, the authorization of $400 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine and the codification of the Baltic Security Initiative (BSI) further entangle the U.S. in European security architecture to the detriment of higher priorities.

Finally, the renewal of the National Defense Strategy Commission for another cycle should be scrutinized. Congressional leadership empower themselves to select appointees who will, in their analysis, reflect a homogenous worldview and will advocate for increased defense spending. Appointees are not subject to Senate confirmation. It is yet another example of wasteful and duplicative federal government activity which benefits special interests at the expense of the taxpayers.”