National Veterans Strategy Act of 2026
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
ID: M000934
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.
April 28, 2026
Introduced
Committee Review
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The National Veterans Strategy Act of 2026 is a perfect example of how politicians can take a noble cause and turn it into a bureaucratic farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main purpose is to require the President to define "veteran success" and develop a National Veterans Strategy to help veterans achieve said success. Because, you know, defining success is exactly what veterans need – another layer of bureaucratic red tape. The objectives are predictably vague, with plenty of feel-good language about helping veterans achieve well-being in various areas, including physical health, mental health, and economic security.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 38 of the United States Code by adding a new section that requires the President to establish metrics for determining veteran success. These metrics will be developed in collaboration with a laundry list of stakeholders, including Congress, various Secretaries, state and local governments, veterans service organizations, and private sector companies. Because what could possibly go wrong when you have that many cooks in the kitchen? The bill also requires the President to submit a National Veterans Strategy to Congress every four years, which will outline how to align resources to help veterans achieve success.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The list of stakeholders is a veritable who's who of government agencies, non-profits, and private sector companies. It's a regular buffet of special interests, all clamoring for a piece of the veteran pie. Veterans themselves are, of course, the supposed beneficiaries of this bill, but let's be real – they're just pawns in a game of bureaucratic one-upmanship.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is to create another layer of bureaucracy, more paperwork, and additional opportunities for politicians to grandstand about their support for veterans. In reality, it will likely do little to address the actual needs of veterans, such as access to quality healthcare, education, and employment opportunities. The implications are clear: more money will be wasted on administrative costs, more time will be spent on meetings and reports, and fewer resources will actually reach the veterans who need them.
In short, this bill is a classic case of legislative placebo – it looks good on paper, but does nothing to address the underlying problems. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the inability of politicians to actually solve problems, instead opting for feel-good legislation that sounds good in campaign ads. As I always say, "Everyone lies, and politicians are just more creative about it." This bill is a perfect example of that creativity in action.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
ID: C001075
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
ID: B001243
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
ID: B001236
Top Contributors
10
Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]
ID: M001243
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]
ID: S001208
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
ID: D000622
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 34 nodes and 35 connections
Total contributions: $167,700
Top Donors - Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 6 helped.
- +Health Insurance confidence 0.80
Section 3(b)(5) provides direction for what benefits and services should be applied to assist veterans who do not meet the metrics established under subsection (a)(1) in certain areas of health and well-being, which may involve health insurance services.
- +Hospitals & Health Systems confidence 0.80
Section 3(b)(5) provides direction for what benefits and services should be applied to assist veterans who do not meet the metrics established under subsection (a)(1) in certain areas of health and well-being, which may involve hospital services.
- +Pharmaceuticals confidence 0.80
Section 3(b)(5) provides direction for what benefits and services should be applied to assist veterans who do not meet the metrics established under subsection (a)(1) in certain areas of health and well-being, which may involve pharmaceutical services.
- +Medical Devices confidence 0.80
Section 3(b)(5) provides direction for what benefits and services should be applied to assist veterans who do not meet the metrics established under subsection (a)(1) in certain areas of health and well-being, which may involve medical device services.
- +Long-Term Care & Nursing Homes confidence 0.80
Section 3(b)(5) provides direction for what benefits and services should be applied to assist veterans who do not meet the metrics established under subsection (a)(1) in certain areas of health and well-being, which may involve long-term care services.
- +For-Profit Education & Student Loans confidence 0.60
Section 3(b)(5) mentions education as an area where benefits and services should be applied to assist veterans, which may involve for-profit educational institutions
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The National Veterans Strategy Act of 2026 and the Project 2025 policy share moderate alignment through their focus on improving veteran well-being, healthcare, and support services, although they approach these goals from different angles. The bill's emphasis on a comprehensive strategy and stakeholder collaboration resonates with the policy's objectives for VA reform and improvement."
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The National Veterans Strategy Act of 2026 and the Project 2025 policy share moderate alignment through their focus on improving veteran well-being and healthcare, although they approach these goals from different angles. The bill's emphasis on a comprehensive strategy for veteran success and the policy's specific reforms to the VA system indicate some overlap in objectives."
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.