A plan to inject $8.5 billion into military quality-of-life initiatives overcame a key hurdle early Thursday morning as House Republicans narrowly approved a sweeping bill to enact President Donald Trump's legislative agenda.
The quality-of-life funding is part of $150 billion for the Defense Department that Republicans included in what they are officially calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a wide-ranging legislative package that touches everything from taxes to health care to border policy.
The Pentagon funding could provide a much-needed boost to barracks maintenance, military health care and other areas that directly affect the well-being of service members. But military and veterans advocates have expressed concerns about other aspects of the bill, particularly cuts to a federal food benefits program and the repeal of a rule that restrains for-profit colleges from targeting veterans.
The bill must still pass the Senate, where there will almost certainly be further changes to win over some Republicans skeptical about various aspects, including the food assistance cuts. But the House passage -- which came in a party-line 215-214 vote at about 6 a.m. Thursday -- is a key milestone in the process.
"Without this generational investment in national defense, we will no longer be able to deter our adversaries or ensure America's global leadership," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said in a statement after the vote. "The One Big Beautiful Bill provides long overdue resources to modernize our military, revitalize the defense industrial base and improve the quality of life for our service members."
The two biggest pots of Pentagon funding in the bill are $34 billion for shipbuilding and $25 billion for the Golden Dome, which is Trump's proposal for a space-based missile defense shield over the U.S.
Of the $8.5 billion that would go toward military quality-of-life issues, $1.3 billion is devoted to barracks maintenance and restoration across the military services.
The military has faced years of problems with squalid living conditions for its most junior troops, and military officials have often blamed persistent underfunding of housing for the issue.
In addition to the barracks funding, the bill would also provide temporary authorization for more widespread barracks privatization, an idea that has gained steam in recent years as the services have struggled with maintenance backlogs.
A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that the two barracks privatization-related provisions in the bill could increase government spending by about $2 billion over 10 years.
Apart from barracks, the quality-of-life funding in the bill includes $2 billion for defense health programs, which have faced shortages in recent years. There is also $2.9 billion for Basic Allowance for Housing payments, $50 million for special pay and bonuses, $100 million for child-care fee assistance for service members, and $10 million for military spouse professional licensure fee assistance.
Elsewhere in the bill, a food assistance program that many military families rely on is facing steep cuts.
Under the bill, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is often referred to as food stamps, would receive less federal funding, and states would be required to make up the difference.
Anti-hunger and military families advocates, as well as governors and other state officials across the country, have been warning that states will not be able to handle the extra budget burden and will need to cut benefits, restrict eligibility or, in the worst-case scenario, stop offering SNAP in the state altogether. Since military families are among SNAP beneficiaries, they would undoubtedly be swept up in the cuts, advocates say.
The White House is pushing back on the idea that military families would be affected by the SNAP cuts.
"President Trump is strengthening SNAP for Americans who need it -- especially military families -- to ensure these programs are sustainable for future generations," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement Tuesday.
Senate Republicans have reacted tepidly to the state cost-sharing plan for SNAP. In a statement last week, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said the Senate "will carefully consider the House's approach," while stopping short of endorsing it.
Republicans are using a process known as reconciliation that will allow them to pass the bill in the Senate with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes needed for most legislation. That means they won't need any Democratic votes, but they will still have to overcome any intra-party disputes.
Veterans organizations are also hoping senators will make changes to the education policy portion of the bill. In particular, they are sounding the alarm about the fact the bill would repeal what's known as the 90/10 rule, which limits how much of a for-profit school's revenue can come from federal student aid.
A loophole in the rule that allowed shady for-profit schools to take advantage of veterans' GI Bill benefits was closed in 2023. But advocates are warning that repealing the rule altogether could lead to for-profit schools once again scamming veterans out of their education benefits.
Republicans have argued the rule unfairly targets for-profit colleges and that repealing it would expand educational opportunities by treating all types of schools the same.
"President Trump's One, Big, Beautiful Bill is great for our veterans and military families," Kelly, the White House spokesperson, added in a statement Thursday. "By delivering the largest tax cut for middle and working-class Americans in history, ensuring greater educational choices for veterans and strengthening SNAP, this president is dedicated to delivering on his campaign promises and ensuring our men and women in uniform have the support they need."
A CBO estimate released last week said that repealing the 90/10 rule could increase federal spending by $1.6 billion, including increasing veterans education benefits costs by about $25 million.
Since Senate Republicans were instrumental in the bipartisan deal that closed the loophole in the 90/10 rule, veterans advocates are leaning on them now to keep the rule alive.
"This cannot and should not be allowed to be included in the final bill, and IAVA and the veterans you see here today will fight tooth and nail to make sure it does not happen," Allison Jaslow, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said at a news conference last week. "I can tell you that there are members of the majority in the Senate who are watching this closely and aren't liking what they're seeing. They're just not saying so publicly yet."
Related: Republicans Unveil Pentagon Portion of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' with Extra Money for Barracks
