The $1.1 billion figure is not a measure of taxpayer savings, according to the VA Office of Inspector General. It represents the total value of the contracts over their full performance periods and does not show how much had already been paid or how much the government ultimately spent to end the agreements.

The review examined the contract-cutting effort that was initiated when VA received requests from the General Services Administration, VA senior advisers and representatives of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to terminate certain contracts.

The OIG’s finding contrasts with the $120.9 billion in contract value VA reported to Congress on May 16, 2025, a figure the OIG found contained significant errors.

VA’s May submission reported that the department had terminated 446 contract actions with a combined value of about $120.9 billion. The OIG found that only 357 of those actions had actually been terminated as of April 30, 2026. Eleven had been terminated and later reinstated, while 78 had never been terminated.

Errors were also found with the values of the contracts reported by VA.

VA’s May list included 16 contract actions valued at $1 billion or more. The OIG found that none actually exceeded $150 million. One contract reported at more than $21 billion had an estimated total value of just over $74 million, according to the review.

A VA contracting official told investigators that a department dashboard used to track terminated contracts had miscalculated contract values. Another VA official said some errors stemmed from employees who were unfamiliar with federal contracting and acquisition terminology.

The July 2025 submission contained another mismatch.

VA told Congress it had terminated or was in the process of terminating 1,667 contracts, while the list contained 1,664 contract actions and reported a combined value of more than $1.4 billion. The OIG found that VA had actually terminated 366 of those actions, including 17 that were later reinstated.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who requested the OIG review with Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said Wednesday that the report confirmed concerns he had raised about the cancellation campaign.

“This report confirms my repeatedly expressed concerns that VA has recklessly cancelled hundreds of contracts with no consideration of the impact on veterans or VA operations,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “Secretary Collins owes us answers on how VA will replace lost services and how much this fiasco has cost taxpayers in arbitration, settlements, and reinstatements.”

VA defended the cancellation effort and said it had saved more than $1 billion.

“The IG report simply confirms what we’ve said from the beginning: VA terminated hundreds of wasteful and duplicative contracts, saving the department more than $1 billion,” VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven told Military Times.

Slaven also said VA’s review process prevented disruptions to veterans’ services.

“Thanks to the methodical and careful review process VA put in place, these contract cancellations had no negative impact whatsoever on VA care and benefits,” Slaven said.

He shared that the department is reinvesting what VA describes as savings into improvements to veterans’ care and benefits.

The OIG did not calculate savings from the contract terminations. Instead, it reported the $1.1 billion as the total value of the 435 terminated contract actions and said that figure does not reflect amounts already paid or settlement costs. The OIG found that VA had agreed to about $10.6 million in settlement costs for 117 completed settlements.

The VA established procedures to review contracts before terminating them, and the agency’s contracting officials generally complied with federal acquisition requirements, the OIG reported.

‘Confusion and frustration’

The OIG documented challenges created by the speed and volume of the cancellation requests.

On Feb. 21, 2025, VA officials were instructed to review 1,049 contract actions in fewer than 11 hours, obtain the necessary approvals and report their findings to department leadership. Some offices did not finish their reviews by the deadline.

According to the OIG, VA senior advisers and DOGE representatives directed officials to terminate the contracts on Feb. 25, 2025, despite some reviews remaining incomplete. As the reviews continued, the number of contracts proposed for termination fell.

The OIG found that department contracting officials received instructions from multiple individuals and offices and received various lists of contracts that were inconsistently formatted, making them difficult to track.

VA and Veterans Health Administration officials told investigators the process created “confusion and frustration” and required staff to devote significant time to monitoring the lists and related correspondence.

The department created a database in April 2025 to better track the cancellations.

What was cut

The OIG found that 375 of the 435 terminated contract actions, or 86%, involved consulting services. Those contracts primarily covered management consulting, administrative management, program management and strategic communications.

But some contracts initially marked for termination were brought back.

One contract that was terminated but later reinstated involved financial audit services for invoices from contractors performing medical disability examinations. It was terminated Feb. 25, 2025 and reinstated about six months later.

The OIG also found that VA’s July 2025 report to Congress included hundreds of contract actions that had not actually been terminated.

Among them were 974 supply-related contract actions, including contracts involving prosthetics, surgical implants and wheelchair ramps. Another 151 health care-related actions, including nursing-home services, had not been terminated.

The OIG reviewed 2,210 unique contract actions. It determined that 435 were terminated, 100 were terminated and later reinstated, and 1,675 were never terminated.

Of the 435 terminated contract actions, VA had completed settlement agreements for 267 of them, with 150 that were no-cost settlements.

In January 2026, the OIG briefed VA officials on the preliminary findings from its investigation.

Following the briefing, VA submitted an updated list of terminated contracts to Congress on April 13, 2026, after revising its information to distinguish contracts it had terminated, reduced in scope or chosen not to extend through option periods.

The OIG did not independently review the accuracy or completeness of that April 2026 submission.

Blumenthal and King requested the OIG investigation in June 2025 amid concerns about the cancellation process, including the impact on veterans, the use of algorithms in decision-making, the involvement of career VA subject-matter experts and the financial consequences of terminating contracts.

The OIG made no recommendations requiring VA action, but the review found that the department had repeatedly provided Congress with inaccurate information about the contracts it said it had terminated.

“This report shows that VA failed multiple times to submit accurate data and are still in the process of correcting mistakes their process created,” Blumenthal said.

Semaglutide is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat Type 2 diabetes and chronic weight management, but not alcohol use disorder.

VA researchers are studying whether the GLP-1 receptor agonist may affect parts of the brain involved in reward, potentially offering a new treatment option for veterans with moderate or severe alcohol use disorder if proven safe and effective.

The department cautioned veterans not to self-medicate or replace evidence-based alcohol use disorder treatments with GLP-1 medications without first consulting a health care provider.

The study, known as the Cessation or Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Veterans (CRAVE) trial, will enroll more than 600 veterans ages 18 to 80 at 18 VA medical centers nationwide.

Participants with moderate or severe alcohol use disorder will receive weekly injections of either semaglutide or a placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a safety evaluation. Researchers will measure changes in alcohol consumption, overall health and quality of life.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine have increasingly studied whether GLP-1 medications, originally developed for diabetes and later approved for obesity, could also help treat substance use disorders.

VA cited an analysis published in March that found patients taking GLP-1 medications experienced lower rates of alcohol use disorder and other substance use disorders than similar patients taking other diabetes medications.

The department said larger, controlled clinical trials are needed to determine whether semaglutide is safe and effective for treating alcohol use disorder.

In an official statement, VA Secretary Doug Collins said, “By exploring emerging treatment options like the use of a GLP-1 for AUD, we aim to expand the tools available to help Veterans take control of their health and recovery.”

Recruitment began July 28. Veterans interested in participating can contact their local VA medical center or search for the trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

At the center of the debate are proposed changes affecting conditions such as sleep apnea and tinnitus, a funding mechanism that supporters and critics interpret very differently, and competing versions of the Major Richard Star Act.

The legislation would combine roughly 60 veterans bills into a single package affecting veterans, surviving families, caregivers and medically retired service members. It includes caregiver reforms, survivor benefits, mental health initiatives, community care improvements and the original 2023 version of the long-sought Major Richard Star Act.

Nearly every major veterans service organization supports those priorities. Their disagreement, meanwhile, stems from how Congress proposes to pay for them.

This fight didn’t develop overnight. Instead, it began at the convergence of three separate efforts: VA’s yearslong modernization of its disability rating schedule, Congress’ search for an offset to finance a large veterans package and different conclusions about whether projected savings from a pending rule-making change should remain available for veterans programs.

The result is one of the most significant policy disagreements among major veterans organizations in recent years.

Modernization effort years in the making

Long before veterans organizations began publicly battling over the omnibus, VA was already working through a comprehensive overhaul of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the regulations used to evaluate service-connected disabilities and determine monthly compensation.

The modernization effort began after the Government Accountability Office designated VA’s disability compensation program as “high risk” because portions of the rating schedule had not kept pace with advances in medicine and clinical practice.

In 2009, VA began systematically reviewing all 15 body systems. The proposed revisions published in April 2022 represented the latest phase of that effort, including changes affecting mental health, respiratory and auditory conditions, among them sleep apnea and tinnitus.

Public comments closed years ago, but the remaining rule-makings were still moving through the regulatory process when VA appeared before Congress at the beginning of this year.

During a Jan. 14 hearing before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Nina Tann, executive director of VA’s Compensation Service, testified that the department anticipated publishing the remaining four body systems in three final rule-makings around the summer of 2026, followed by implementation and an effective date.

In prepared testimony submitted to the committee, she wrote that VA expected to complete the remaining rule-makings by the end of fiscal 2026, concluding what she described as the first holistic modernization of the rating schedule since 1945.

Those statements became part of the factual backdrop as lawmakers worked to assemble one of the largest veterans legislative packages in years.

Finding the money

The Taking Care of America’s Veterans Act did not begin as a single proposal. Instead, lawmakers combined dozens of bipartisan measures that had already advanced independently through Congress.

Together, they would expand or improve programs affecting caregivers, survivors, veterans’ healthcare, military retirement and disability compensation.

Like most large authorization bills, expanding benefits required lawmakers to identify spending reductions elsewhere. Supporters of the legislation pointed to VA’s pending disability rating revisions.

Candace Wheeler, national legislative director for the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, said TAPS understood from conversations with VA and the department’s January congressional testimony that the remaining rule-making was expected to proceed during fiscal 2026.

According to Wheeler, TAPS views the projected savings differently than critics of the legislation. Rather than reducing existing disability compensation, Wheeler said Congress is attempting to retain projected federal savings associated with a rule VA had already proposed and testified it expected to complete.

Otherwise, she said, those savings would leave veterans programs altogether. She described it as “the right color of money.”

Wheeler also acknowledged why many organizations remain uncomfortable with the proposal.

“We understand organizations and people that are concerned about taking from veterans to pay for veterans,” she said. “We have long said the same thing. But in this particular legislation, it is because of a rule that was already put forward.”

That distinction helps explain why TAPS, the Military Officers Association of America, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation and several other organizations endorsed the omnibus despite opposing similar funding approaches in other circumstances.

Coming to a different conclusion

Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars have not opposed most of the legislation itself. Instead, both organizations argue Congress should identify another way to finance the package, rather than rely on projected savings associated with disability compensation changes.

Their position reflects a broader philosophy about the purpose of VA disability compensation.

In testimony submitted to Congress earlier this year, DAV argued disability compensation recognizes the lasting functional loss associated with service-connected injuries and illnesses and does not serve only as wage replacement for unemployable veterans.

The organization described the disability compensation framework as fundamentally sound and cautioned against proposals that could weaken its underlying purpose.

VFW’s January testimony addressed the modernization effort from a different perspective but acknowledged that the remaining respiratory, auditory and mental health revisions were still progressing through rule-making.

The organization noted that public comment periods had concluded, rule-making remained underway and full completion was projected for fiscal 2026. It also told lawmakers that VFW had repeatedly requested updates from VA and had consistently been told the remaining regulations were still under review.

Those statements do not suggest agreement over the proposed funding mechanism, but they do show that the organizations broadly understood the modernization effort was continuing while reaching different conclusions about whether Congress should treat projected savings from that unfinished process as available to finance new veterans legislation.

The dispute goes public

The philosophical divide soon moved beyond policy papers and congressional testimony.

Veterans of Foreign Wars launched a public campaign urging veterans to contact lawmakers and oppose the funding provision. Disabled American Veterans issued statements arguing Congress should remove the offset and finance the legislation another way. Both organizations emphasized that they supported many of the bill’s underlying provisions but opposed using projected disability compensation savings to pay for them.

The dispute escalated on July 1 when House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., publicly criticized a VFW advocacy cartoon promoting the campaign.

In a statement, Bost called the organization’s messaging “inflammatory, fear-mongering, and dangerous political rhetoric” and urged VFW to remove the image.

Another development the same day received far less attention.

Bost and Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Mich., sent a formal letter to VA Secretary Doug Collins requesting that the department examine whether VFW’s conduct remained consistent with the requirements governing VA-accredited veterans service organizations under 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.628 and 14.629.

They also asked VA to review the organization’s commercial licensing arrangement under 38 C.F.R. § 14.628(f) in connection with merchandise featuring the disputed cartoon.

The lawmakers did not direct VA to revoke VFW’s accreditation or recommend a specific outcome. Instead, they asked the department to review whether the organization’s actions complied with existing regulations.

VFW General Counsel John Muckelbauer told Military Times the organization first learned of the letter from congressional staff after it had been sent and said neither lawmaker contacted the organization beforehand.

He said VFW remains confident its advocacy complies with VA accreditation standards and argued that speaking forcefully before Congress is central to the organization’s mission.

“Reasonable people can disagree about legislation,” Muckelbauer said. “What should never be in question is the right and responsibility of veterans service organizations to advocate independently for the veterans they represent.”

Because the matter raises legal issues, Muckelbauer said VFW has responded “through the appropriate legal channels” and declined to discuss those communications publicly.

The Major Richard Star Act change-up

As debate over the funding mechanism intensified, another significant change inside the omnibus attracted comparatively little attention.

For years, the Major Richard Star Act has sought to restore concurrent receipt for combat-injured veterans who were medically retired before completing 20 years of military service. Under current law, many lose a portion of their earned military retirement because they also receive VA disability compensation.

The original 2023 version of the legislation focused on approximately 54,000 combat-injured medically retired veterans. In 2025, lawmakers introduced a broader standalone proposal that would have expanded eligibility to roughly 255,000 medically retired veterans beyond the original combat-related population, totaling more than 300,000 medically retired veterans.

Congressional Budget Office estimates reflected a substantially higher projected cost associated with that expansion, inflating the price tag from $10 billion to $78 billion over 10 years.

The version incorporated into the Taking Care of America’s Veterans Act does not include that broader eligibility. Instead, it mirrors the earlier combat-related framework, limiting eligibility to approximately 54,000 combat-injured medically retired veterans, not all Chapter 61 medically retired veterans.

Restoring concurrent receipt can return hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month to retirees whose military careers ended because of combat-related injuries.

Wheeler said confusion between the two versions has complicated public discussion of the legislation.

“If you add in all of [the additional 255,000 medically retired veterans], then yes, it would balloon the cost,” she said. “But that is not what is currently moving forward in TCAVA.”

Wheeler noted that coalition members intentionally focused on the narrower proposal because expanding eligibility further “would make it very hard to pass,” explaining why the version of the Richard Star Act included in the omnibus differs significantly from the broader standalone proposal introduced by Congress last year.

VA’s current position

While Congress debated the legislation, VA publicly described the status of the underlying rule-making differently than it had during the January hearing.

Asked by Military Times about the 2022 proposed disability ratings revisions, Quinn Slaven, VA press secretary, said “no changes are planned or imminent.”

Slaven added that after receiving significant public comment back in February, the proposal “would need to undergo significant changes prior to being finalized.”

Military Times asked VA whether the department’s expected timeline has changed since Nina Tann testified in January that VA anticipated completing the remaining rule-makings by the end of fiscal 2026. As of publication, the department had not responded to that specific inquiry.

Veterans organizations interpreted the significance of that timeline differently as Congress assembled the omnibus legislation.

Congress has not yet decided whether to advance the legislation in its current form. VA has not finalized the 2022 disability ratings proposal, nor has it been withdrawn.

Until both questions are resolved, the debate that has divided the veterans community is likely to continue.

In written testimony submitted for the Jan. 14 hearing, VFW stated that disability compensation exists because America made a promise, and they should honor the contract.

“Several proposed changes have been delayed multiple times,” VFW wrote, “leaving veterans and stakeholders uncertain about timing and the potential effects of the proposed changes.”

With the VSOs supportive of TCAVA understanding that these rule-making changes to VA disability will be final by Oct. 1, Candace Wheeler cautions, “That money will go back to the Treasury if it isn’t used.”

House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Bost of Illinois and Rep. Jack Bergman of Michigan, wrote Collins July 1 saying the VFW’s use of the cartoon raised questions regarding the organization’s “fitness to represent claimants before the department.”

They asked Collins to review whether the VFW’s accreditation was consistent with serving as a veteran service organization, examine whether the VFW’s licensing of imagery to vendors for commercial sales was appropriate and look into commercial arrangements the VFW has made with businesses such as Grunt Style, which sells t-shirts emblazoned with the editorial cartoon.

The cartoon, which depicts suited “bureaucrats” — presumably the VA — and the “media” pointing rifles at two veterans with the subtext “punishing veterans,” “removing benefits” and “‘waste and fraud,’ was developed last year in response to a series of articles in the Washington Post on disability claims fraud but has resurfaced following the VFW’s opposition to legislation sponsored by Bost that would reduce future benefits for veterans afflicted with tinnitus and sleep apnea.

Bost has taken issue with what he said is the violent nature of the cartoon.

On Wednesday, he accused the VFW of inciting political violence with the imagery and called on VFW to remove the cartoon from social media, stop the sale of shirts and affirm its “commitment to fact-based advocacy.”

“Every organization has the right to advocate for or against pending legislation in Congress. That right, however, carries a corresponding responsibility to do so in a manner that promotes informed civic debate rather than imagery that can reasonably be interpreted as glorifying or normalizing political violence,” Bost and Bergman wrote.

The letter was first reported by Liz Hartman, a former Marine and veterans advocate, on her All Due Respect Substack column.

The VFW opposes a portion of the proposed Take Care of America’s Veterans Act that would increase benefits for thousands of veterans but cover its cost by instituting changes to the disability ratings requirements for sleep apnea and tinnitus for veterans moving forward.

The VA accredits numerous veterans service organizations such as the VFW, the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to help veterans file disability claims.

By law, only individuals and organizations accredited by the VA can file an initial benefits claim on a veteran’s behalf, and they are not allowed to charge them for work related to filing a claim. Once a claim is denied, veterans may hire attorneys or companies to appeal the decision.

The VFW employs thousands of veteran service officers to provide this service.

In the past decade, a number of private, for-profit companies have stepped in to assist veterans with the claims process, for a cost. The companies, which aren’t allowed to assist with claims filing, instead provide help gathering evidence to support initial claims and then help veterans on appeal.

But there is evidence that some of these companies have broken the law and are extracting fees from veterans with initial filings.

In May, a federal judge found the company Veterans Guardian operated as an unaccredited agent, engaging in deceptive business practices. In the class action suit, plaintiffs alleged the company collected more than $250 million in fees from veterans.

Bergman has introduced two bills that would allow firms such as Veterans Guardian assist legally with initial claims, capping fees at $12,500.

Both Bergman and Bost also have received political donations from political action committees affiliated with Veterans Guardian.

In response to questions from Military Times, VFW General Counsel John Muckelbauer said neither Bost nor Bergman reached out to the group before sending the letter. According to Muckelbauer, the VFW believes its advocacy campaign against a portion of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act is consistent with its mission.

“We are confident that our advocacy is entirely consistent with our responsibilities as an accredited veterans service organization. Speaking forcefully on behalf of veterans is not separate from our mission. It is one of the principal reasons Congress chartered this organization more than 125 years ago,” Muckelbauer wrote in an email Thursday.

He added that the letter challenges that advocacy and nothing in it “identifies allegation[s] that the VFW or any of its accredited representatives violated VA accreditation requirements, acted unethically, failed to competently represent a single veteran, or otherwise failed to satisfy the standards applicable to accredited veterans service organizations.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs did not respond to a request for comment by publication.

The recently released 2025 VA AI Inventory catalogs cases of AI use across the department, from clinical tools used during patient care to systems that help process benefits, automate records management and support customer service functions.

Among the systems identified is Ambient AI Scribe, a clinical documentation tool used during medical appointments.

According to VA, the technology listens to clinician-patient conversations and generates clinical notes, reducing administrative workload and allowing providers to spend more time focused on veterans.

VA’s disclosure also details widespread use — by more than 50,000 personnel — of commercial AI products across the department, including Microsoft Copilot Chat, Microsoft Teams Premium, Grammarly GitHub Copilot and other platforms for support tasks such as meeting transcription, document drafting, report summarization, information retrieval and software development.

Nearly Every Major VA Function Features AI

Health and medical applications represent the largest category of use cases, followed by systems supporting benefits administration, information technology, service delivery, financial management and administrative operations.

Applications identified in the inventory assist clinicians with imaging analysis and diagnostic workflows, identify disease risk, summarize records, analyze feedback, process forms and provide information through chat-based tools. VA also classifies its VA.gov chatbot as a high-impact use case.

VA says the chatbot is a tool that helps veterans locate information, complete tasks and access support services through self-service interactions.

Another high-impact use case, TERA Memorandum Automation, helps claims processors complete toxic exposure memoranda by pre-populating answers using information already contained in veterans’ records.

VA reports the system achieved a 98.12% accuracy rate and was used to assist with more than 181,000 forms, saving an estimated 54,581 work hours since deployment.

“VA is using artificial intelligence to improve how veterans access care, benefits and services, while also helping employees work more efficiently and effectively,” said VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven in a statement to Military Times.

According to Slaven, the inventory reflects “steady growth, stronger governance and expanding real-world impact, particularly in health care, benefits processing and operational efficiency.”

Inventory Provides A Detailed View Of Governance Requirements

For currently deployed high-impact systems, the inventory tracks whether agencies completed pre-deployment testing, impact assessments, independent reviews, monitoring processes, operator training, fail-safe mechanisms and appeal procedures.

Individual entries also identify potential risks associated with specific applications. For several health care systems, descriptions note that inaccurate outputs could contribute to downstream clinical or operational impacts if not detected and corrected, while also stating that providers receive training and oversight intended to mitigate those risks.

VA says all high-impact systems are required to complete an AI Impact Assessment and Risk Mitigation Plan before being put to work.

“Deployed high-impact AI use cases are continuously monitored,” said Slaven. “And any use case that cannot be brought into compliance is discontinued.”

Some AI systems previously reported by VA are now classified as retired. Those systems include healthcare, training and operational applications. The inventory does not specify why individual systems were deactivated.

Performance Data Varies Across Systems

The level of detail provided in the inventory varies from one system to another. Some entries provide measurable performance outcomes, testing results or operational metrics. Others provide only basic descriptions of intended functions and governance requirements.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, which developed an AI Accountability Framework for federal agencies, says meaningful oversight requires documentation that can be independently reviewed.

“GAO’s AI Accountability Framework highlights the importance of documentation and a paper trail that an independent third party can follow,” GAO officials told Military Times. “As AI inputs and operations are not always visible, a central tenet to oversight is, ‘Show me, don’t just tell me.’”

GAO said organizations should be able to demonstrate who is responsible for AI systems, how those systems operate, whether they rely on quality and reliable data and how limitations are identified and addressed.

The agency also emphasized the importance of monitoring metrics such as accuracy and error rates and establishing thresholds that help determine when corrective action or retirement of a system is warranted.

Veterans Advocates Want Human Accountability

Chris Macinkowicz, deputy director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Veterans Service, said the organization’s concerns focus less on whether VA should use artificial intelligence and more on how those systems are managed after deployment.

“AI needs to be a tool, not an employee,” Macinkowicz told Military Times.

He said human review remains essential, particularly when systems are involved in processes affecting veterans.

“We need to make sure human eyes are on it afterwards,” he said. Macinkowicz also stressed the importance of continued evaluation after deployment.

“We need to have assurances from VA that they’re going to go back after these AI agents are deployed to make sure that they’re still accurate a month down, six months down, a year down [the road],” he said.

GAO officials said organizations should establish metrics that help determine when corrective action is needed and when an AI system should be retired because it no longer meets its intended objectives.

As VA expands the use of AI across healthcare, benefits processing and other operations, GAO officials said meaningful oversight depends on agencies being able to demonstrate, through documentation and measurable performance data, that systems continue operating as intended.

The Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision in its version of fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would reduce funding for Hegseth’s travel to no more than 25% until the committee receives what lawmakers describe as overdue reports and supporting documents.

The committee approved its version of the NDAA last week in an 18-9 vote, sending the bill to the full Senate. House lawmakers advanced their version the week prior.

The provision cuts Hegseth’s travel funding by 75% until the committee receives the civilian harm investigations for three separate 2025 Yemen strikes and the February strike on the girls’ school in Minab, Iran.

On Feb. 28, the first day of the Iran war, a school in southern Iran was struck by a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile, killing at least 165 people, most of them schoolgirls.

President Donald Trump claimed that Iran could have obtained the missile, despite questions about how Tehran would have gained access. The strike has been under investigation by the Pentagon since March.

Speaking on Wednesday in France, Trump was asked about the investigation and whether anyone in the Trump administration would be held accountable.

“It’s such a strange question to be asked at this state because you’re talking about a long time ago, but nobody did that on purpose,” he said in response.

“Mistakes are made. War is nasty. But I know it’s under investigation, and I could have a report for you tomorrow. I would ask Pete Hegseth that question because they have it under investigation,” he concluded.

Another provision in the Senate NDAA moved to prohibit the use of military funds for the operations against Iran without congressional authorization and restricted travel funding for Hegseth’s office until lawmakers submit a report on how the Iran war has impacted readiness. The amendment failed to pass in a 13-14 vote.

Unedited video of strikes conducted by U.S. Southern Command on terrorist organizations that were allegedly smuggling drugs in Latin American waters would also need to be submitted.

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has conducted strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean that they alleged were carrying drugs.

As of June 16, the military has disclosed 64 strikes that have killed at least 191 people.

The committee is also seeking information about the Defense Department procedures for notifying Congress about sensitive military operations.

Lawmakers have previously criticized Hegseth over congressional oversight following reports that a special operations team attacked survivors of an alleged drug-smuggling vessel strike off Venezuela’s coast in September 2025.

Hegseth refused to publicly release footage of the attack, instead only showing members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee.

The provision would also require the unredacted investigation by U.S. Special Operations Command into Operation Absolution Resolve, the U.S. military operation executed on Jan. 20 to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Senate lawmakers also requested a certification that shows contractor support for clandestine and intelligence activities and a report on support to Ukraine required under last year’s NDAA.

The bill, which also provides appropriations for veterans-related agencies such as the American Battle Monuments Commission and Arlington National Cemetery, includes nearly $450 billion for the VA in fiscal 2027, a 3% increase from fiscal 2026 but lower than President Donald Trump’s request of $488 billion.

The bill was the first appropriations legislation to clear the House this year, in a 400-15 vote May 15 that Rep. John Carter, R-Tex., called a “testament to America’s commitment to taking care of the men and women who have bravely worn the uniform.”

“I want every service member and veteran to know that this bill has their back,” said Carter, chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

The bill includes $324 billion in mandatory spending for the VA that covers health care and benefits and $137.8 billion for discretionary spending, roughly 2% higher than the fiscal 2026 amount but significantly lower than Trump’s request of $205.6 billion for discretionary funds.

The White House had asked to shift mandatory funds marked for injuries or illnesses related to toxic exposures — roughly $52 billion — to the discretionary budget, but the committee rejected the idea.

Lawmakers have expressed concerns that the use of those mandatory dollars, from the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund, would jeopardize the fund’s intended use for veterans sickened by environmental pollutants.

The bill provides $19.7 billion for military construction projects, including $2.1 billion for the Army; $5.5 billion for the Navy and Marine Corps; $3.7 billion for the Air Force; $3.8 billion Defense Department-wide and additional funding for the National Guard and Reserve components.

The bill also includes a provision that would cement the VA’s decision to halt notifications to the Justice Department of a veteran’s inability to manage his or her finances — a situation that precluded veterans with fiduciaries from owning guns.

The Senate still must craft its own version of the bill, referred to as the MilConVA bill. The subcommittee responsible for the legislation jump-started that process in separate hearings April 30 and May 14 on the president’s budget proposals.

During those hearings, senators appeared supportive of the VA budget request and sought affirmation from VA officials that the department use the funds judiciously for health care, claims processing and other veterans services.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., ranking member of the Senate Appropriations MilConVA subcommittee, called the budget proposals “important investments” in the department.

But he expressed concerns about whether the VA had sufficient numbers of physicians and nurses and noted that the budget calls for significant increases for care at private facilities covered by the VA and less of an increase for health care at VA hospitals and clinics.

“The department’s own public facing data shows that outcome for veterans are either the same or better for direct VA care compared to privatized outside care,” Ossoff told VA Secretary Doug Collins in the April 30 hearing.

Collins testified Thursday before the House MilCon Appropriations Subcommittee, six days after the House passed its proposed bill.

Collins said that conflicts and the approval process prevented him from testifying until May 21, although earlier in the deliberation process, House Democrats had successfully amended the legislation to withhold 25% of the secretary’s office budget until he testified.

“Our veterans do not deserve that kind of uncertainty and lack of transparency,” said the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.

Collins praised the committee for the legislation’s passage and called changes at the VA since he has taken office a “tale of two cities.” He said in the past year the VA has announced a restructuring, instituted a manning document, reduced its disability claims backlog, restarted its VA electronic health records system program and reduced appointment wait times.

“The VA will never be perfect and neither will its budget, but we are always going to work together to make sure one thing is true: Veterans are always going to come first at the VA,” Collins said.

The Senate is expected to roll out its MilConVA appropriations bill this summer.

For the second year , no VA hospitals received a one-star rating from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that publishes quality assessments for U.S. hospitals based on mortality rates, patient safety, hospital readmissions and other measures.

CMS began rating VA hospitals in 2023. That year, of 114 facilities that were evaluated, nearly 30% received five stars; 37% received four stars; 15% were awarded three stars; 11%, two stars; and 8% — or nine facilities — one star.

In 2026, 45% of VA facilities received five stars, 33% earned four stars, 16% received three stars and 6% were given two stars.

Since the first assessment, the percentage of VA facilities that have earned four or five stars rose from 67% to 78%, despite dipping to 58% in 2024.

The assessments compare favorably against more than 4,600 hospitals reviewed by CMS nationwide. Roughly 12% of U.S. hospitals received five-star ratings, 30% were awarded four stars, 31% received three stars, 21% earned two stars and 6% were given one star this year.

Officials said the new ratings mean VA hospitals account for nearly 15% of the country’s five-star rated hospitals.

“The Trump Administration has a proven track record of improving Veterans’ care, and these ratings underscore that success,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a release. “We look forward to continuing to deliver the results veterans have earned at VA facilities across the nation.”

The list of high- and low- performing facilities at the VA has fluctuated over time, with some marked improvements in facilities that received one star in 2023.

For example, the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island and the Bronx VA Medical Center in New York City each received one star in 2023 but earned four stars in 2026.

Two facilities that earned one star each in 2023 continue to be among the VA’s list of facilities performing under national averages on several measures. The Overton Brooks VA Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, and the San Juan Medical Center, Puerto Rico, are among the seven VA facilities that received two stars.

The VA maintained its own internal star ratings and began publishing them in 2017 following a series of news reports. In late 2019, the department dropped the effort because VA leaders said it provided little value to veterans.

Twenty Veterans Health Administration medical centers were not rated because they did not meet the criteria for inclusion. CMS does not rate facilities that have a low number of cases or incidents that are specific to its assessment criteria.

It also does not rate specialty hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers and some inpatient care facilities, such as psychiatric hospitals.

The CMS star ratings can be found on Medicare’s Care Compare website.

According to budget documents released this week by the Trump administration, the VA would receive a record $488 billion, including $205.6 billion in discretionary funding for programs and operations and $282.6 billion for mandatory spending — the column that covers disability benefits, pensions, insurance and other requirements.

Highlights in the discretionary spending proposal include $500 million to build permanent facilities for homeless veterans at the new National Center for Warrior Independence in West Los Angeles, $1.3 billion to construct a VA medical center in Manchester, New Hampshire, nearly $2 billion to replace the VA medical center in Indianapolis and $30 million to buy land for a new medical center in San Antonio.

The budget supports the VA’s proposed redesign of its community care contracts and programs and planned changes to the management structure at the Veterans Health Administration. It also funds the restart of the VA’s electronic medical record system program that has been on hold since 2022. The VA plans to restart the initiative this month at four facilities, with an additional nine joining later this year.

The VA estimates that the fiscal 2027 budget would provide disability compensation to more than 7.4 million veterans and support 9.2 million veterans enrolled in VA health care.

According to the VA’s Budget in Brief documents, the proposal would support 443,327 full-time VA employees — roughly 9,000 fewer than in 2025 but up nearly 6,200 from fiscal 2026.

In a statement laid out in the documents, VA Secretary Doug Collins said the proposal will enable the department to deliver timely care and benefits for all beneficiaries.

“This budget request reflects VA’s efforts to find more effective and efficient ways to serve our mission and maximize our resources,” the document states. “The days of measuring VA’s progress by how much money we spend and how many people we employ, instead of how successfully we serve Veterans, are over.”

President Donald Trump’s $2.2 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2027 includes nearly $1.5 trillion in spending for the Defense Department — up 44% from fiscal 2026 levels — and increases for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

It trims several domestic programs, including education, food and energy assistance, housing, the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

The proposed VA budget increases spending for VA medical care provided in VA facilities but also increases the budget for community care, the VA’s program for covering the health treatment received by veterans in non-VA facilities.

The budget, which also includes a request for advanced funding for fiscal 2028, ensures that veterans benefits and services are never affected by a government shutdown. In addition, it increases medical care funding, with $96.2 billion requested for care provided in the VA medical system and $42 billion for community care.

As with fiscal 2026, VA officials asked to shift the mandatory funds designated to cover the costs associated with injuries or illnesses related to toxic exposures to the discretionary budget. The request of $52 billion from the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund is likely to raise concerns among Democratic lawmakers, who have argued that the continued use of the funds could jeopardize monies set aside for a specific purpose.

The proposal also seeks to cut what White House officials referred to as “divisive and wasteful diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.” The budget documents did not specify which diversity programs the budget will defund, but officials said the reductions would ensure that “VA funding is used for critical VA missions: providing healthcare; benefits; and cemetery services for America’s veterans.”

The president’s proposed budget represents Trump’s vision for the federal government. It serves as a blueprint for Congress to consider as it starts its fiscal 2027 appropriations process.

In the last 25 years, the VA’s budget has ballooned significantly to address the needs of older veterans as well as the millions who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal represents a 10-fold increase for the VA since fiscal 2001, when the VA’s budget was $45 billion.

John Windom, who served as a program manager on the Defense Department’s adoption of the Cerner electronic health records platform before moving to the VA to manage its health records modernization program, was indicted for allegedly failing to report more than $16,000 worth of gifts.

According to a grand jury indictment filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Windom allegedly accepted cash and other items from at least seven people and companies supporting the VA’s Cerner Oracle health records contract. He met them regularly at a Maryland casino resort to mentor as part of a self-developed mentorship program on building government contracting businesses, the indictment said.

Court records say Windom allegedly accepted an $8,200 Louis Vuitton gift card, $2,000 in cash, $1,800 worth of casino chips, a $1,000 gift card, $2,000 in cash or casino chips and a $631 high-efficiency particulate air filter.

“As alleged, the defendant exploited his senior position for personal gain and concealed gifts and financial relationships that created serious conflicts of interest in the health care of our nation’s veterans,” U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro said in a statement Wednesday.

“Such conduct is not only a betrayal of the public trust—it undermines confidence in the institutions dedicated to serving those who have sacrificed for this country,” Pirro added.

The VA’s health records modernization program began in 2017 under President Donald Trump’s first term, a sole-source $10 billion contract that followed the DOD’s award to Cerner for a new electronic medical records system.

The project was originally scheduled to take 10 years and cost $16 billion. But nearly nine years later, just six of the VA’s 170-plus medical sites use the program, which was paused in April 2023 following issues regarding safety and usability.

The VA plans to resume adoption this year, announcing last March that it would roll it out to 13 additional sites.

Windom served as executive director of the Office of Electronic Health Record Modernization from 2017 to 2022. In 2022, he was reassigned to the position of deputy director of the Federal Electronic Health Management Office. He is a retired Navy captain with acquisition experience.

He allegedly accepted the gifts between June 2020 and November 2020, according to the indictment.

According to the indictment, Windom allegedly concealed from his leadership and ethics officials that he was “accepting, and sometimes demanding, extravagant gifts” from contractors and subcontractors working on the electronic health records system project.

Windom is charged with concealment of material facts, false statements and falsification of a record or document in relation to his failure to report his receipt of gifts, which he was legally obligated to do.

If found guilty of all charges, he faces more than 20 years in prison, as well as financial penalties.

The Justice Department noted that Windom is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty by the court.

A message left with Windom from Military Times was not answered by publication.