The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025 has hit a snag with Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expressing strong disapproval over a provision restricting transgender medical care for minors. The $895.2 billion bill, a product of bipartisan negotiation, outlines U.S. defense and national security priorities. However, the inclusion of a measure prohibiting certain gender-affirming care for children under 18, specifically those of military personnel, has drawn sharp criticism from Smith.

While acknowledging the bipartisan effort in crafting the NDAA for 64 consecutive years, Smith condemned the provision, stating that denying necessary healthcare based on bias is unacceptable. He accused House Speaker Mike Johnson of prioritizing political maneuvering over the well-being of transgender individuals and disrupting the traditionally bipartisan process. Smith urged Johnson to reconsider and allow a revised bill that supports military families and avoids targeting the transgender community.

Smith's opposition raises concerns about the NDAA's passage, which typically enjoys broad bipartisan support. The bill's first hurdle is the House Rules Committee, where its fate will be determined on Monday afternoon. Failure to pass in committee could force House leaders to bring it to the floor under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority for approval.

Johnson, however, defended the NDAA, highlighting the same provisions criticized by Smith. He praised the bill for focusing on military lethality and rejecting what he termed "radical woke ideology." This stark disagreement underscores the challenges facing the NDAA and the potential for a contentious debate as it moves forward.

The NDAA's fate hangs in the balance as lawmakers grapple with the controversial transgender healthcare provision. The upcoming House Rules Committee debate will be a critical test of whether the bill can garner enough support to proceed.