Rep. John Garamendi to offer NDAA amendment blocking Pentagon funds for White House ballroom project

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, plans to offer a floor amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would bar the use of Pentagon funds for the construction of President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom, The Hill reported on June 30, 2026. Garamendi said the restriction would fully limit at least $150 million in military funds associated with the project.

Garamendi’s approach is framed as a budget and authorization safeguard within the NDAA process, which is where Congress sets policy and spending authorities for the Department of Defense. The amendment would operate through Congress’s legislative authority rather than through a separate standalone bill, giving Members a direct chance to impose a prohibition during consideration of the defense authorization package.

According to The Hill, Garamendi will seek the restriction through the House floor process by attaching it to the NDAA, a bill that typically advances in committee and then under House rules to the chamber for debate and amendments. The reported goal is to prevent military funds from being spent for what he characterizes as a White House project, rather than for defense-related purposes.

The dispute is likely to turn on how Congress and the executive branch define the allowable scope of Defense Department funding and what expenditures, contracts, or transfers may be connected to White House construction. Under federal budgeting practices, the line between defense appropriations and other government spending can become contested when funds are obligated for projects with mixed or unclear purpose. Garamendi’s amendment would, in effect, require the House to decide whether such funds can be authorized for a White House renovation or construction activity.

Garamendi’s proposal also highlights the committee-driven oversight role that House Armed Services Members commonly pursue through authorization language, particularly when lawmakers believe defense dollars are being directed to nonmilitary uses. Because the NDAA is not an appropriations measure itself, the amendment would be expected to shape the later availability and implementation of spending authorities by creating a statutory barrier to particular uses of funds.

The Hill did not describe Garamendi’s specific drafting language, the precise funding mechanism he aims to block, or whether the amendment would be accompanied by additional reporting or enforcement provisions. The amendment’s practical effect would depend on final negotiated bill text, the scope of any exemptions, and how the administration and DoD interpret the restriction for contracting and disbursements during implementation.

If adopted by the House, the amendment would move the question to subsequent stages of the legislative process, including conference negotiations if the two chambers produce differing versions of the NDAA. Even if the amendment survives House passage, the final outcome would still require reconciliation with Senate language and enactment into law.

For now, The Hill reported Garamendi’s intent to introduce the amendment during House consideration of the NDAA, with the central policy aim of ensuring that military funds are not used for construction related to the White House ballroom project. The timing and vote count would be determined by the House schedule and the NDAA amendment process, which can affect whether similar proposals are debated, adopted, or set aside.