The veto threat could put pressure on House Republicans, who have so far supported the $ 741 billion policy bill, just hours before a final vote.
Chief among the administration’s complaints to the House is a provision requiring the removal of Confederate names from Army bases within one year of the law’s enactment. Trump has signaled that he would reject legislation trying to change the name of the 10 bases.
The veto threat called the provision “part of a sustained effort to wipe out the nation’s history of those who fail to meet an ever-changing standard of conduct.” Echoing Trump, the White House warned of efforts to erase the legacy of former Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
“President Trump has been clear in his opposition to politically motivated attempts like this to rewrite history and displace the enduring legacy of the American Revolution with a new leftist cultural revolution,” the White House said.
The White House has not issued a formal veto threat against the Senate NDAA, although it also contains a bipartisan provision to remove Confederate names from bases and other military assets. The Senate name change process would take up to three years.
The Senate is expected to vote on its version of the defense bill this week.
In addition to renaming bases, the veto threat describes several other disagreements. The administration criticized provisions that limit the amount of military construction money that Trump can tap for the border.
The White House also opposed bipartisan provisions limiting Trump’s objectives of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Germany that were approved during the marking of the Law Chamber’s Armed Services.
“[The administration] It also has serious concerns about the bill’s provisions that seek to micromanage aspects of executive branch authority, impose very strict limitations on the use of funds for Afghanistan, and otherwise limit the president’s authority to protect national security interests. “the White House argued.” Many of these provisions would pose significant challenges to the continued implementation of the [National Defense Strategy]”
