The author, a veteran of the Illinois Army National Guard and a member of Congress, explains why they voted against this year’s defense authorization bill. They argue the administration has misused the military by deploying thousands of troops domestically under disputed justifications, assigning them non-military tasks and risking their safety. Multiple federal judges have questioned the legality of these deployments; they’ve cost an estimated $341 million while at least $800 million in federal public safety funding was frozen or cut. The vote was intended to preserve legal limits on domestic troop use and protect military readiness.
A Veteran’s Case: Why I Voted No on the Defense Authorization Bill
I’m a veteran. Here’s why I voted against the defense authorization bill.
One of the proudest moments of my life was the first time I laced up my boots, donned my uniform and raised my right hand to serve in the Illinois Army National Guard. I carried the flag on my shoulder with humility, committed to protecting the rights and freedoms that have defined this country for more than two centuries.
Because serving was such an honor and because I care deeply about our armed forces, I made the painful — and unprecedented for me — decision to vote against this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I could not, in good conscience, enable an administration that has repeatedly deployed our troops domestically under questionable pretenses to continue receiving broader authority and resources for such actions.
Right now, thousands of service members have been sent to American cities under justifications that many federal judges and observers have found unreliable. In Washington, D.C., National Guard troops have been assigned duties that do not advance military readiness — spreading mulch, picking up litter — tasks that nonetheless exposed troops to real risks, as the Thanksgiving incidents tragically illustrated.
Why This Matters
Public safety is paramount, but deploying the military at home should be an exceptional, lawful response — not a routine tool for political theater. Several federal judges have raised serious concerns about the legal basis for these deployments, describing the Department of Homeland Security’s account as "simply unreliable," noting the president’s rationale was "untethered to the facts," and concluding that "the facts do not justify the president’s actions." Courts have reaffirmed that political opposition is not rebellion and that First Amendment activity is not a military threat.
Our troops signed up to protect Americans’ rights — not to intimidate citizens exercising those rights.
Enlisted service members accept risk willingly and selflessly. No commander in chief should expose them to needless danger for vague, open-ended, and legally unprecedented domestic missions based on claims that courts have questioned.
Costs, Readiness, and Priorities
These domestic deployments have already cost an estimated $341 million in taxpayer funds and have drained morale and readiness at a time when the U.S. faces real strategic threats from China, Russia and Iran. Many of the tasks assigned to troops are better suited to civilian law enforcement and public agencies — especially given that at least $800 million in federal funding that supports police hiring, training and public safety programs has been frozen or cut.
Every year I have worked across the aisle to forge a bipartisan NDAA that strengthens our force. This year I helped secure numerous useful provisions. But passing a defense authorization that would effectively give this administration more tools to deploy troops domestically without clear legal constraints would have been irresponsible.
I no longer wear the uniform; I serve under the Capitol dome. But my oath — first as a soldier and now as a senator — is unchanged: to defend the Constitution. The authority to deploy troops on American soil must remain exceptional, accountable, and firmly grounded in law — not at the whim of one individual’s judgment about what constitutes disorder.
That is why I voted no. I will not be complicit in using our military to intimidate Americans rather than to confront our adversaries abroad. Our troops deserve clarity, lawful orders, and missions that strengthen — not undermine — public trust in the armed services.
