House Appropriations Committee Passes $1.072 Trillion Defense Bill, Votes to Rename Pentagon the 'Department of War'

The House Appropriations Committee advanced all twelve of its annual spending bills, with the defense measure passed June 24 representing a $234 billion increase over fiscal year 2026, according to the House Democrats' Appropriations Committee press release. The total: $1,072,210,299,000 in discretionary spending.

What's in the bill

Defense Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert, R-Calif., highlighted several specific investments in his opening remarks, as reported by the committee's own press release. The bill provides over $7.5 billion for hypersonic weapons and test infrastructure, $836 million for new low-cost munition systems with multiyear procurement authority, and a military pay raise of 7 percent for enlisted personnel ranked E-5 and below, 6 percent for E-6 to O-4, and 5 percent for O-4 and above, according to Rep. Steve Womack's (R-Ark.) office.

Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., framed the bill as correcting years of underinvestment. "Aging platforms, shrinking capacity, and vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored," with China's military expansion as the explicit driver, per the House Appropriations Committee press release.

The Defense Innovation Unit, the APFIT program, and the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network all receive prioritized funding, Calvert said.

The 'Department of War' rename

The provision drawing the most attention is a name change to the Department of Defense. Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., backed the renaming, saying "the historic title, Department of War, more directly reflects the warrior ethos and the department's responsibility to prepare for, deter, and when required, successfully wage war in the defense of the United States and its interests," according to Breaking Defense.

The strongest case against it is not symbolic. Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, ranking Democrat on the defense subpanel, cited a Congressional Budget Office study from January estimating the name change would cost up to $125 million — covering signage, letterhead, system updates, legal documents, and contracts across the entire department. Her pointed question: what existing programs get cut to cover it?

The GOP-backed amendment package was adopted in a 32-25 vote.

Where Democrats drew their lines

McCollum tried to zero out $1 billion in advanced procurement funding for the Trump-class battleship, arguing the Navy has not completed the ship's concept design. Her analogy: "If you were going to build a house yourself, would you pay for it before it had even been designed?" The amendment was defeated on a voice vote after minimal debate, per Breaking Defense.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the full committee's ranking member, offered an amendment that would have subjected the $152 billion in defense funds from last year's reconciliation bill — the One Big Beautiful Bill — to the same congressional oversight conditions as standard appropriations. That failed in a 27-32 vote.

DeLauro's broader criticism, per her committee statement: the bill pairs a record Pentagon budget with "nearly $13 billion in cuts to domestic programs" covering education, workforce training, and diplomatic funding. She also flagged the absence of any Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funding as a broken promise to allies.

The fair case for the spending level

Critics of the bill's scale deserve a fair hearing, and the concern is not trivial. A $234 billion single-year increase is larger than the entire defense budgets of most nations. If that money is poorly allocated — on undesigned ships, bureaucratic overhead, or political name changes — the national security benefit evaporates while the debt does not.

That said, Calvert's and Cole's underlying argument has substance. The United States has documented readiness gaps, aging aircraft and ship hulls, and a munitions stockpile that the bill aims to replenish. The hypersonic weapons investment and the pay raise for junior enlisted address documented capability and retention concerns. Whether this specific allocation closes those gaps efficiently is a separate question from whether the strategic need exists — and the strategic need does.

What happens next

The bill is the twelfth and final annual appropriations measure advanced by the House Appropriations Committee this cycle, completing the full set, according to Womack's office. Cole noted the committee's work gives Congress "a real opportunity to fund the government on time and in full" and provides "ample time to negotiate with the Senate and refine our work."

The 'Department of War' renaming provision still has a long path. It would need to survive a House floor vote, Senate passage, and presidential signature. Even then, the CBO's $125 million cost estimate would kick in — and no source in this markup identified a specific funding offset for it.