House passes defence bill despite Trump’s veto threats

House defies White House veto threat as both chambers could face override votes before Christmas break

Congress escalated its latest showdown with Donald Trump when the House essentially dared him to veto a sweeping military policy bill by passing the measure in defiance of the president’s repeated threats to block the legislation over legal protections for social media companies.

The chamber approved the measure with a veto-proof majority, 335-78-1 (one Democrat voted present), on Tuesday evening without tacking on language he is demanding be added to strip away legal protections for social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and others. Mr Trump contends those “big tech” firms are “censoring” his and other conservatives’ views – even contending they helped Joe Biden defeat him in last month’s presidential election. (That is enough ‘yay’ votes to override any possible veto.)

Paradoxically, the bill codifies and expands on Mr Trump’s plans to buy new combat equipment. He campaigned for a second term, in part, on having “rebuilt our military.” A veto also would block a 3 per cent pay raise for military troops.

Only 40 Republican members joined Mr Trump by voting against the measure, with 140 supporting it. 195 Democrats voted for passage, with 37 voting against and one present.

The outgoing president began his Tuesday issuing his latest veto threat of the 2021 National Defense Authorisation Act, which has been passed by lawmakers and signed into law for 59 consecutive years.

“I hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I will VETO. Must include a termination of Section 230 (for National Security purposes), preserve our National Monuments, & allow for 5G & troop reductions in foreign lands!” he wrote.

Shortly before the vote, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a formal and detailed veto threat, saying the measure "fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by this administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.

The document refers to Mr Trump’s stances on Section 230 and renaming US military bases named for Confederate leaders. Both became deal-breakers for him in recent weeks. “Numerous provisions,” OMB wrote, “direct contradict” Mr Trump’s national security and foreign policy stances, and his advisers would recommend a veto if it lands on his desk in its House-passed form.

But the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, said on the floor the bill should not be nixed due to “an excuse about what’s not in it.” While he did not directly refer to Mr Trump by name, he said: “Our troops should not be punished because [the bill] does not fix everything that needs to be fixed.”

Nebraska GOP Congressman Don Bacon spoke a few minutes later, saying he is “in agreement with the president’s concerns on Section 230 – however ... it falls outside the jurisdiction of this vote ... and deserves its own bill.”

"Do you think you'll get a better bill in two months?" he asked "The answer is no."

But Mr Trump will be a civilian by then, and it is unclear whether he views his allegations against the social media firms as the kind of issue he can use once out of office to continue raising monies from his supporters and help kick-start a possible 2024 White House bid.

Mr Trump has for several weeks threatened to torpedo the legislation unless it address what’s known colloquially as “Section 230.”

That is Washington shorthand for legal safeguards for tech companies that prevent them from being held legally responsible for the content they allow on their sites. Mr Trump has for months alleged the companies unfairly censor conservatives and promote left-leaning politicians and views. The president has yet, however, to provide specific proof of those allegations.

The $740.5bn measure now moves to the Senate, which is expect to also pass it this week. Mr Trump then will have one of his final big decisions to make.

Overall, the massive authorisation bill includes lawmakers’ whims and orders to the Pentagon about personnel decisions, overseas operations and weapon programs.

Lawmakers in recent weeks attempted to find compromise language on Section 230 that would assuage Mr Trump, but failed to find a way out what has become a tricky situation.

Members of the House and Senate Armed Service committees already had moved into the final phases of hammering out a final version of their separate NDAA versions when the president called on them to use it to nix Section 230, which did not give them ample time to come up with a solution.

Mr Trump’s morning demands also mentioned “National Monuments,” an apparent reference to Senate-crafted language that would establish a process intended to remove the names of Confederate leaders from US military institutions.

The president wants that provision removed, arguing the country should not deal with its Civil War past by renaming bases and removing statues of Confederate officials.

He is “very much opposed to the Warren amendment,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters, referring to the president and a provision Senate Armed Services Committee member Elizabeth Warren pushed to be added to the measure on the Confederate base names.

Some conservative lawmakers with Mr Trump’s ear have pushed him on both Section 230 and the Warren provision, urging him to veto the bill.

“The NDAA does NOT contain any reform to Section 230 but DOES contain Elizabeth Warren’s social engineering amendment to unilaterally rename bases & war memorials w/ no public input or process,” Missouri Senator Josh Hawley tweeted. “I cannot support it.”

But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe does, calling the Confederate bases provisions the result of a bipartisan compromise.

“It hasn’t changed and, quite frankly, it’s a good thing that it is there because that language would stall that for about three years, it would appoint a commission that we would have a lot of participation in,” he said last week.

“I’m glad the language is there because that’s one way of stalling the closures and the shuffling around of the installations,” he said, adding he had spoken with Mr Trump and he is “fine with that.”

But the president is taking a different public stance, putting the annual military policy bill in jeopardy for the first time in six decades.

Even some GOP allies of the president are signalling they would buck any coming veto and support a measure to override it.

Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy told Fox News on Tuesday he is inclined "to always vote for the troops and to vote for our national security,” saying he would prefer to “look for another vehicle to address the Section 230 issues.”

Lawmakers would need two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override a Trump veto.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats on Tuesday said they hope it will not come to that.

“I hope not. ... Let’s urge the president to show respect ... for the sacrifices of our military,” the California Democrat said in her own floor speech. “I hope that it’ll be swiftly signed into law.”