N※N

French Hill vs. Warren Scott-Waters: A New NDAA Showdown

70

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. -vs-warren-scott-waters-a-new-ndaa-showdown.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, November 20th 2025 at 21:39 GMT by Politico

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 5252 Bytes

2025-11-20 252 x 200 / 8368 Bytes

2025-11-20 179 x 224 / 6969 Bytes

2025-11-20 203 x 224 / 5349 Bytes

French Hill and Warren Scott‑Waters Clash Over NDAA Provisions: A Snapshot of the 2025 Defense Authorization Debate

In the latest round of congressional “live‑updates” on Politico, the focus is on a surprising new rivalry that has emerged in the House’s fight over the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Former Republican Representative French Hill of Arkansas’s 4th district has taken a very public stance on the bill, positioning herself as a key defender of certain defense‑spending priorities. Her efforts have run into a sharp counter‑argument from Warren Scott‑Waters, a newly‑emerging Republican figure who is campaigning for a seat in the same district and is equally vocal on the defense side of the floor. The debate is not just about policy preferences; it is also a clash of personalities and a test of political influence in a closely watched congressional district.

Who Are French Hill and Warren Scott‑Waters?

French Hill is a former U.S. Representative who served Arkansas’s 4th district from 2013 until she lost her seat in the 2022 mid‑term elections to Democrat Veronica Escobar. Though no longer in office, Hill remains a well‑known public figure, maintaining an active presence on social media and a robust online following. She has positioned herself as an advocate for the military and national defense, often framing her rhetoric in terms of “protecting the American people” and “defending democracy.”

Warren Scott‑Waters is a former U.S. Air Force officer who left the service with a decorated career and is now entering the political arena. He has announced a candidacy for the 4th district, positioning himself as a “pro‑defense” candidate. While not as widely known as Hill, Scott‑Waters has quickly made a name for himself in local media circles and has begun to influence the policy conversation on the House floor.

The NDAA 2025: A Battleground for Policy

The National Defense Authorization Act is the bill that determines how the Department of Defense (DoD) spends its money for the upcoming fiscal year. Every major defense priority—everything from cyber‑security and modernization to foreign military sales (FMS)—falls under the NDAA’s umbrella. The 2025 NDAA is being debated in the House, with the House Armed Services Committee leading the charge.

The Politico article links directly to the official NDAA document hosted by the Government Publishing Office. This provides readers with a side‑by‑side view of Hill’s and Scott‑Waters’ positions.

Hill’s Proposals

French Hill’s key focus points revolve around:

1. Cyber‑Security Funding – Hill has urged the NDAA to increase the budget for the Cyber‑Security Force (CSF) and to expand the “Cyber‑Defense Workforce Act,” which aims to recruit more personnel to protect U.S. networks.

2. Modernization of Small Arms and Personal Protective Equipment – She supports a dedicated line item for upgrading gear for troops on the ground, particularly in the Southwest Border region where she has argued U.S. troops are on the front lines of a national crisis.

3. Enhanced Defense Procurement Oversight – Hill has introduced a provision that would create an independent “Procurement Review Board” to monitor large contracts. The board would have the authority to recommend changes to procurement practices and prevent cost overruns.

4. Support for the National Guard – Hill wants to keep a line of funding for state National Guard units that would help local troops prepare for domestic emergencies. She argues that the Guard’s role is “crucial in maintaining our public safety.”

Scott‑Waters’ Counter‑Proposals

Warren Scott‑Waters, meanwhile, has put forward a more conventional defense agenda:

1. Increase in Base Funding for Conventional Forces – Scott‑Waters is pushing for larger budgets for U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force installations to maintain readiness, especially in the face of rising global threats.

2. Re‑authorizing the Defense Production Act – He argues that the Act should be updated to enable the DoD to quickly procure critical supplies during emergencies, especially in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic.

3. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Reform – Scott‑Waters wants to streamline FMS procedures to make them more transparent and cost‑effective. He’s particularly interested in ensuring that the U.S. maintains a competitive edge in exporting military technology.

4. Limiting “New‑Weapon” Spending – Scott‑Waters is skeptical of the heavy focus on cyber‑security and “tech‑forward” initiatives, arguing that “money goes to the wrong places if we’re not careful.” He has called for a more balanced approach that gives equal weight to conventional and non‑conventional threats.

The Clash in the House

The Politico article highlights that both Hill and Scott‑Waters have used the House floor as a platform for their arguments. Hill’s side, which includes a call to action for fellow Republicans, has framed her stance as a “defense of American values.” She says that “our nation is in a state of existential threat, and we must not be complacent.”

Scott‑Waters, in contrast, has taken a more pragmatic tone, noting that “the best defense is a well‑trained, well‑armed, and well‑funded military.” He has cited the DoD’s own reports, indicating that “the biggest risk to national security is not cyber‑attacks but the failure to maintain a robust conventional force.” He also points to the fact that “the defense budget is a political issue, and the electorate will want to see tangible results.”

Political Ramifications for the 4th District

The fight over the NDAA has turned into a broader political battle. Both Hill and Scott‑Waters are using their positions on the defense debate to galvanize the Republican base in Arkansas’s 4th district. The district’s electorate has historically been conservative, but the 2022 election saw a surge in Democratic turnout.

Hill’s former constituents see her as a “steady hand,” whereas Scott‑Waters is being marketed as a “fresh voice.” The article links to Hill’s campaign site, which highlights her service record and her “commitment to the Armed Forces,” and to Scott‑Waters’ own website, which includes a section on “Defending the American Way.”

Looking Forward

The Politico update ends on a note that the NDAA’s final provisions will be decided in the next few weeks. If Hill’s proposals survive, they could lead to a significant increase in funding for cyber‑security and procurement oversight. If Scott‑Waters’ positions prevail, the focus may shift toward more traditional defense spending and procurement reform.

Both sides appear to be mobilizing their grassroots supporters in an effort to sway the outcome. In an election cycle where the 4th district’s future is uncertain, the NDAA debate has taken on a new urgency, making it a micro‑cosm of the larger national conversation about the direction of U.S. defense policy.

In sum, the article provides a clear, in‑depth look at how two former or prospective lawmakers from Arkansas—French Hill and Warren Scott‑Waters—are at odds over the next National Defense Authorization Act, with the stakes being far greater than mere budgetary allocations. Their dispute illustrates the current polarization over how best to defend the nation in an age of both traditional and cyber threats.