White House Criticizes Shipbuilding and Defense Measures in FY25 Defense Bill

 

The White House issued a statement on Tuesday critiquing various elements of the House’s fiscal 2025 defense policy bill ahead of upcoming votes.

While the statement commended the House Armed Services Committee for its bipartisan efforts on the $884 billion bill, it highlighted concerns over provisions related to shipbuilding, the formation of an Army drone corps, missile defense, and pricing transparency for defense contractors.

The White House also pressed Congress to establish an Indo-Pacific Security Assistance Initiative, which the bill lacks despite a Pentagon request for a program similar to the one aiding Ukraine.

“The administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to set appropriate and responsible levels of defense and non-defense spending to support the security of the nation,” stated the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, expressing a desire to collaborate on addressing concerns.

Despite its objections, the White House did not issue a veto threat but warned that this could change if the House adopts certain socially conservative amendments proposed by the Republican right-flank during this week’s votes.

Last year, Republicans adopted a similar strategy, turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan one with amendments from the Freedom Caucus. However, these provisions were removed during Senate negotiations, resulting in a bipartisan compromise bill for FY24 in December.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to mark up its version of the FY25 defense policy bill later this week.

House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s top Democrat, urged the Rules Committee to prioritize non-divisive amendments out of the 1,386 proposed.

“The bill we are presenting today is truly bipartisan,” said Rogers, noting that it advanced 57-1 last month. Smith added that efforts to restrict reproductive healthcare or LGBTQ rights would pose significant problems, as would any attempt to block the Department of Defense’s inclusivity efforts.

Shipbuilding Disagreements

Aside from potential social policy conflicts, the Armed Services Committee is at odds with defense appropriators over their draft spending bill, which overrides several provisions in the defense policy bill. For instance, the draft FY25 defense spending bill does not fund the policy bill’s $1 billion authorization for a second Virginia-class attack submarine, aligning with the White House and Navy’s decision to fund only one due to production delays.

“The authorization of incremental funding for a second [Virginia-class submarine] would result in a significant unplanned bill in FY26,” noted the White House statement. The Biden administration encourages Congress to support near-term submarine industrial base investments instead.

The Armed Services Committee argues that dropping a second Virginia-class vessel in FY25 will set back companies further down the submarine supply chain. The defense policy bill also cuts $1.17 billion in procurement of a frigate for FY25, drawing further White House objections.

Additionally, the White House opposed a provision blocking the retirement of guided-missile cruisers, arguing that ships like the USS Shiloh and USS Lake Erie are too costly to modernize and restore.

Army and Missile Defense

The White House strongly opposes the bill’s provision to create a drone corps within the Army, citing concerns over specialization and flexibility. It also opposes establishing a third continental missile interceptor site on the east coast by 2030, arguing there is no operational need for such a site, with 20 Next-Generation Interceptors to be fielded in Alaska by 2028.

Defense Contractor Pricing Data

The White House also objects to a provision raising the cap for obtaining certified cost or pricing data from subcontractors to $5 million, up from $2 million. This change would reduce the incentive for prime contractors to negotiate fair contracts with subcontractors, creating unnecessary taxpayer risks.

The Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, also opposes this provision, arguing it would allow prime contractors to provide outdated historical data to justify price hikes, complicating the contracting officers’ ability to determine fair pricing.