What the NDAA Holds in Store for Science

A final draft of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 was released late Sunday by the House and Senate armed services committees. The 3,086-page bill provides a blueprint for U.S. defense priorities and strategy and outlines many science and R&D policies, including measures related to research security and emerging technologies.

The bill also recommends funding levels for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program, but the final amounts are determined through separate appropriations legislation.

Votes on the bill are scheduled for this afternoon. Historically, NDAA bills have been regarded as “must-pass” bills with bipartisan support, but some Republicans have indicated they may not vote for the bill. President Donald Trump also reportedly threatened to veto the bill over concerns about provisions related to military base names and collective bargaining rights, which were removed.

Research security

A major research security bill pushed by the House, the SAFE Research Act, did not make it into the final NDAA draft. The bill would have prohibited federal grants to researchers with broadly defined “affiliations” with “hostile foreign entities,” and was opposed by the American Physical Society and university groups such as the Association of American Universities, who said the bill would have far-reaching impacts that would ultimately hinder the United States’ research enterprise. (APS is an AIP Member Society)

A Senate provision to prohibit any higher education institution conducting research funded by DOD from entering into contracts with a covered nation or foreign entity of concern (starting in 2027) was also excluded from the final NDAA draft. A House provision barring principal investigators on defense research projects from working with foreign entities of concern for a three-year period was also cut from the final bill.

The bill grants a one-year extension to a provision discouraging DOD from funding grants for fundamental research conducted in collaboration with certain institutions in Russia and China, though it preserves the agency’s ability to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis. (Sec. 215)

The BIOSECURE Act, which would prevent federal agencies from contracting with or making grants to biotechnology companies from “foreign adversary” nations, including China, did, however, make it into the final draft of the NDAA.

In addition to the BIOSECURE Act, the NDAA draft includes language modeled on the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act of 2024, which aimed to discourage U.S. companies from working with entities in China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela involved in developing technologies such as semiconductors, AI, high-performance computing, quantum, and hypersonics. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), chairman of the House Select Committee on the CCP, praised the inclusion of this measure and the BIOSECURE Act in an online statement .

Research grants

A House provision requiring the secretary of defense to prioritize partnerships with higher education institutions related to research in hypersonics, biotechnology, and AI did not make it into the final bill, though a joint explanatory statement from the Armed Services committees expressed support for such collaborations. Another House provision requiring DOD to provide quarterly reports to congressional defense committees on any terminated critical technology research awards was also excluded from the final bill.

Indirect cost rates

The NDAA blocks the secretary of defense from changing or modifying the indirect cost rates for DOD grants to research institutions until the secretary certifies that DOD has developed an alternative model in consultation with the extramural research community that reduces the rate for all institutions and allows “adequate transition time” for affected institutions to adjust. The Senate included this provision in its version of the bill, while the House did not. (Sec. 230)

Artificial intelligence

Another prominent item that did not make it into the NDAA was a proposal, backed by the White House, to block states from regulating AI. President Donald Trump has since announced his intent to block state regulations via executive order. Previous efforts to block states from regulating AI have run into bipartisan opposition. A similar provision was removed from the final version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” in response to outrage from some Republicans in the House who did not realize the provision had been inserted into the version they approved.

The bill directs the secretary of defense to establish one or more AI research institutes, known as National Security and Defense Artificial Intelligence Institutes, at higher education institutions that conduct DOD-sponsored research. The bill recommends that the institutes be supported through five-year competitive grants and focus on a “cross-cutting challenge or foundational science for artificial intelligence systems in the national security and defense sector,” as well as establish public-private partnerships, and support interdisciplinary R&D and workforce development. (Sec. 224)

The bill also includes the 2026 Intelligence Authorization Act, which authorizes U.S. intelligence activities and includes a variety of provisions relating to AI and biotechnology, as well as closely monitoring Chinese technological developments.

Nuclear energy, weapons, and deterrence

The NDAA includes many provisions related to nuclear energy, weapons, and deterrence. On nuclear energy, for example, the bill advises the creation of an “Advanced Nuclear Transition Working Group” to advance the aims of President Trump’s May executive order on deploying advanced nuclear reactor technologies for national security. A House provision calling for the secretary of defense to produce a comprehensive study on the use of small modular nuclear reactors in DOD installations was dropped in the final draft, with a note that DOD has produced a number of reports on this topic in the past.

The bill would modify U.S. national missile defense policy to reflect the establishment of the Trump administration’s Golden Dome initiative and note the importance of maintaining an effective nuclear response capability to deter attacks on the U.S. (Sec. 1651). The bill directs DOD to produce annual reports and quarterly briefings on the development of next-generation missile defense architecture. (Sec. 1652) The bill additionally prohibits DOD from developing Golden Dome capabilities that are not wholly owned and operated by the armed forces. (Sec. 1654)

The bill directs the secretary of energy to establish a Rapid Capabilities Program within the National Nuclear Security Administration that will accelerate the development of new nuclear weapons or modified nuclear weapons, as well as create an associated advisory board to advise the Administrator for Nuclear Security on military and deterrence policy requirements. (Sec. 3113)

The bill also aims to boost U.S. plutonium pit production and recommends reallocating funding to support ongoing NNSA construction projects.

Meteorological satellites

The bill directs the secretary of defense to continue operating the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program until the satellites reach the end of their functional life. The bill also directs the secretary to provide status updates on the program and projected replacement costs to congressional defense committees. (Sec. 1606)

The Trump administration announced over the summer that DMSP data would no longer be shared with NOAA and weather forecasters, but appeared to reverse course after meteorologists who use the data to forecast hurricanes expressed concern.