The United States (US) House of Representatives voted in favour of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2017, a defence policy bill which may block $450 million in military aid for Pakistan unless the following conditions are met:

• Pakistan does more to disrupt the Haqqani network

• Pakistan releases Dr Shakil Afridi from prison

• Military funding is not used to persecute minority groups

Getting the money boils down to US politics

The US Congress is part of the legislative branch and comprises the upper house (the Senate) and the lower house (House of Representatives), and the vice president.

The lower house is in favour of conditional military aid

The lower house has 435 representatives who can vote on legislation:

• Republicans: 247

• Democrats: 188

Most Republicans favoured the bill

Most Democrats voted against it

The bill will now go to the upper house where members must vote in favour of the bill for it to go on to the White House.

How will senators vote?

The Senate has a total of 100 seats with Republicans holding a majority:

• Republicans: 54

• Democrats: 44

• Independent: 2

Republicans are against funding Pakistan but show willingness to compromise if certain conditions are met.

Democrats are open to discussion on provision of funds but expect the aid to go ahead.

The White House may approve of funding without preconditions.

Members of Congress are not required to vote with the position of their party i.e. a democrat in favour of the bill may vote against the party position. Lobbyists can sway representatives, but party leaders (chief whips) urge members to vote according to party policy.

So will Pakistan get funding?

There are two possible ways Pakistan can still get funding:

1. If the Senate rejects the bill or strikes down the House’s amendments to withhold the conditional provision of aid.

2. If the bill goes through both the House and the Senate as it is, the president may veto the bill, sending it back to the House and beginning the process all over again.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly linked the NDAA to blocking funding for the F-16 deal