Vermont Delegation Stands Firm Against Federal Defense Bill
Vermont’s congressional delegation, consisting of Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Becca Balint, and Sen. Peter Welch, made a bold statement by voting against the 2025 major defense bill. This significant decision, which has now passed both the U.S. House and Senate, was influenced by a controversial provision in the bill that restricts federal funds from covering specific medical care for transgender children of U.S. military members.
Final approval for the legislation was granted by the Senate with a vote of 85-14 on Wednesday. Sens. Welch and Sanders, along with Rep. Balint, stood in opposition to the bill despite substantial bipartisan support. The House also approved the bill last week with a vote of 281-140, paving the way for President Joe Biden to sign it into law.
Controversy Over Medical Care
The defense bill, an annual authorization that dictates Pentagon policy, is typically passed without much debate. However, this year, it became the center of controversy due to a last-minute addition that restricted access to gender-affirming health care for youth. This provision, pushed by GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, sparked sharp criticism from Vermont’s delegation and other Democrats.
Vermont Senators’ Concerns
Sen. Welch expressed concerns about the bill’s staggering $895 billion budget, suggesting that it prioritized the interests of the defense industry over national security needs. He emphasized the importance of allocating taxpayers’ money to programs that are effective and essential for America’s security.
Opposition from Sanders and Balint
Sen. Sanders and Rep. Balint also voiced their opposition to the defense bill, highlighting the disproportionate focus on military spending over critical social issues. Sanders argued that the country does not need an exorbitant defense budget that benefits a few defense contractors, while neglecting the needs of vulnerable populations.
Balint criticized the legislation for being a “blank check” for the military industrial complex and denounced the provision restricting gender-affirming care for military families. She accused Republicans of politicizing crucial funding decisions and jeopardizing life-saving care for transgender children in military families.
In conclusion, while the defense bill outlines the government’s military plans for the upcoming year, the actual funding allocation is subject to a separate appropriations bill that Congress has yet to approve.
Let’s take a moment to ponder the impact of this decision on the transgender children of military families. How can we ensure that essential medical care is provided to all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances? It’s crucial to consider the human cost of policy decisions and strive for inclusivity and compassion in all aspects of governance.
