Obama’s Vetoes of Military Pay Raises: A Closer Look

In October 2015, President Barack Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision for a 13% pay raise for members of the military. This was not the first time Obama vetoed a military pay raise bill during his presidency Over the course of his two terms, Obama vetoed several bills that would have increased pay for service members.

Obama’s repeated vetoes of military pay raises led to criticism from some that he did not sufficiently value members of the armed forces. However, a closer examination of these vetoes provides more context around Obama’s motivations and approach to military compensation issues.

Background on Military Pay Legislation

In the United States, military pay raises are typically authorized through the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA provides funding and sets policies for the Department of Defense. Congress has passed an NDAA every year for over half a century.

Within the NDAA, Congress specifies the across-the-board pay raise percentage for all members of the active duty military, reservists, and National Guard. The President then has the option to sign the NDAA into law as passed by Congress, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature after 10 days.

If the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. If Congress cannot override the veto, the NDAA does not become law for that year.

Obama’s Vetoes of Military Pay Raise Bills

During his eight years in office, President Obama vetoed the NDAA twice specifically over issues related to military pay and benefits:

• October 2015: Obama vetoed the fiscal year 2016 NDAA, which included a 1.3% raise for troops. In his veto statement, Obama cited concerns over the use of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds to get around budget caps.

• October 2009: Obama vetoed the fiscal year 2010 NDAA, which contained a 3.4% pay raise. Obama objected to the lack of availability of acquisition reports and what he called “unnecessary and wasteful spending”.

In both cases, Congress was unable to override Obama’s veto. However, the vetoed military pay raises were eventually passed in separate legislation later the same year.

Obama also pocket vetoed three resolutions in late 2015 that would have blocked environmental regulations. At the time, the administration stated these would have “undermined public health protections”. As pocket vetoes, Obama did not formally state his objections.

Rationales Behind Obama’s Vetoes

Behind the scenes, the Obama administration maintained that the President was fully committed to appropriate pay and benefits for the military. Officials stated that Obama objected to specific provisions within the bills themselves rather than the pay raises per se.

For example, in 2015 Obama and his advisors sought to eliminate arbitrary budget caps known as sequestration. They worried the use of OCO funds in the NDAA would remove incentives for Congress to lift sequestration and provide stable, long-term funding for defense priorities.

Similarly, in 2009 the administration wanted to ensure proper oversight and fiscal responsibility in military spending. Obama’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked for the veto, calling out “a number of provisions that would have required significant expenditure of Defense funds at a time we need to focus our resources on supporting our men and women in uniform and their families.”

Criticism from Military Advocacy Groups

Despite the White House’s explanations, Obama’s vetoes were not well received within the military community. Groups like the Military Officers Association of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars criticized Obama for prioritizing political disputes over troop pay.

The VFW stated that while it shared some of Obama’s concerns about the 2015 NDAA, “holding troop pay Hostage, while waste and pork spending remains, is inappropriate and a total failure of leadership.” Similarly, MOAA’s leader called Obama’s 2009 veto “very unfortunate” and “a blow to military families.”

These groups viewed repeated vetoes of pay provisions as indications that Obama did not value compensation for service members. The veto of the 2009 NDAA occurred alongside other controversial decisions by Obama early in his presidency, such as instituting a Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability fee, which likely amplified skepticism from military advocates.

Eventual Compromises and Pay Raises

Despite the initial veto standoffs, the White House and Congress eventually reached agreement on military pay in both 2009 and 2015. After negotiation on the appropriate funding mechanisms and oversight measures, Obama signed executive orders enacting the pay raises from the vetoed NDAAS.

In November 2009, Obama issued an executive order authorizing a 3.4% basic pay increase retroactive to the start of fiscal year 2010. And in December 2015, he issued an executive order providing a 1.3% raise for 2016, matching the initial NDAA proposal.

So while Obama’s stances on the specific legislation resulted in vetoes, he consistently maintained support for fair military compensation. The executive orders demonstrate that his objections stemmed from secondary issues within the bills rather than outright opposition to pay raises.

In total, Obama vetoed 12 pieces of legislation during his presidency, 2 of which involved military pay raises within broader defense authorization bills.

On their surface, these vetoes could appear to represent a lack of concern for properly compensating service members. However, Obama’s follow-up executive orders enacting the raises combined with the contextual nuances behind each veto paint a more complex picture.

Rather than blanket opposition to military pay, Obama’s vetoes stemmed from very specific funding or oversight objections related to the bills themselves. His administration maintained that appropriate troop compensation remained an important priority.

While Obama’s veto rationales failed to satisfy some military advocacy organizations, the eventual compromise executive orders did result in the proposed pay raises being delivered. As with any complex political issue, the full story requires moving beyond headlines to understand the nuanced backstories behind each decision.