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.

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.

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., kicked off a series of hearings Wednesday on legislation that would reauthorize several significant VA programs and said he wants to create a comprehensive authorization process — an omnibus-style procedure — that would ensure a yearly legislative review of all VA programs, some of which have not been reauthorized for 30 years.

Bost said such oversight is needed to ensure that the VA remains accountable to its customers, taxpayers and Congress.

“When programs fall short, it is the duty of this committee to ask questions, demand answers and make the legislative changes necessary to fix the problem,” Bost said. “Reauthorization is not simply a procedural exercise. It is how Congress evaluates whether programs are working as intended and whether the department is using its authorities responsibly.”

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office identified more than $122 billion in expenditures at the department with lapsed authorizations. According to the office, Congress has allowed 18 authorization laws — those that set policy and recommend funding levels — for the VA to expire.

Bost said the committee needs to tackle reauthorization to ensure that Congress has “the means to modernize [the] VA.”

“[These bills] are designed to restore accountability, improve transparency and ensure that VA remains focused on veterans,” Bost said.

Since the start of the second Trump administration, members of Congress have complained that the VA has become significantly less responsive to congressional inquiries and oversight. During a hearing in January, Bost scolded VA officials for repeated delays in providing responses and testimony to Congress, saying he considered preventing the department from testifying given its lack of timeliness.

Likewise, at the same hearing, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Mark Takano of California, said the delays showed “enormous disrespect.”

“It is inexcusable. This should never happen again,” Takano said. “Get your testimony here on time, especially when we’re reviewing $1 trillion [in spending].”

Bost has discussed creating a single authorization bill for the VA since last year, sharing his vision first with Politico Pro.

While none of the 27 bills considered Wednesday was a comprehensive authorization proposal, the collection featured several prioritized by House Republicans for review, including bills that address the VA’s restructuring of its health care system, evaluation of the VA’s national drug formulary and reforms of its leasing and construction and contracting and procurement process.

“The goal is simple: better coordination, stronger accountability and better outcomes for veterans,” Bost said.

For the NDAA, House and Senate Armed Services subcommittee members draft portions of the separate bills for their areas of interest, then vote and move their section along to the full committee for consideration. At each step, lawmakers can propose amendments, which are then voted on by committee and either rolled into the bill or rejected. Eventually, the bills are voted on by the respective chambers, and the versions are reconciled in conference before both are passed again. The final bill is then sent to the president’s desk for signing.

For the VA, the authorization process has been piecemeal, with lawmakers proposing policy bills as they see need. For example, other bills proposed Wednesday included legislation that would expand dental care to all veterans in the VA health system and create a Toxic Exposure Advisory Committee to support implementation of the PACT Act.

VA officials at the hearing said that while they “strongly support congressional oversight and engagement,” the department has concerns on comprehensive legislation, saying it “could cause serious disruption to VA benefits and services.”

“VA believes that a clear accounting of programs and services could be achieved through additional avenues such as additional requests for information, briefing request, additional oversight hearings or requiring additional justification materials,” said Phil Christy, the VA’s chief acquisition officer.

During the hearing, Takano said he wasn’t sure that the NDAA strategy would work but added that he is “certainly willing to try.”

“I welcome an effort by this chamber by our House and by this committee to reclaim its authorities and reaffirm our Article I powers by doing the real oversight the VA so desperately needs,” said Takano, referring to the portion of the Constitution that established Congress and gave it the powers to create laws, raise revenue and declare war.

Bost noted that committee oversight is a constitutional responsibility and VA must be accountable.

“It is a task … not an ask,” Bost said.

Both the House and Senate, where the president’s Republican Party has a slim majority, had already drafted such resolutions long before the strikes Saturday. Now they are ready to plunge into a rare war powers debate next week that will serve as a referendum on Trump’s decision to go it alone on military action without formal authorization from Congress.

“Has President Trump learned nothing from decades of U.S. meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East?” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a leader in the bipartisan effort. He said the strikes on Iran were “a colossal mistake.”

In the House, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., are demanding Congress go on record with a public vote on their own bipartisan measure. “Congress must convene on Monday to vote,” Khanna said, “to stop this.”

Massie blasted Trump’s own presidential campaign slogan and said: “This is not ‘America First.’”

But most Republicans, particularly their leaders, welcomed Trump’s move against Iran. Many cited the longtime U.S. adversary’s nuclear programs and missile capabilities as requiring a military response.

“Well done, Mr. President,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “As I watch and monitor this historic operation, I’m in awe of President Trump’s determination to be a man of peace but at the end of the day, evil’s worst nightmare.”

War powers debate tests Congress

The administration’s decision to launch, with Israel, what appears to be an open-ended joint military operation aimed at changing the government in Tehran is testing the Constitution’s separation of powers in deep and dramatic ways. Nearly two months earlier, Trump ordered U.S. strikes that toppled Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

While presidents have the authority as the commander in chief to conduct certain strategic military operations on their own, the Constitution vests Congress with the power to wage war. Before the Iraq War began in March 2003, Republican President George W. Bush made a monthslong push to secure congressional authorization. No such vote was attempted on Iran, and an earlier Senate effort to halt Trump’s actions after last summer’s strike on Iran failed.

The congressional debate over war powers would mostly be symbolic. Even if a resolution were to pass the narrowly split Congress, Trump likely would veto it and Congress would not have the two-thirds majority needed to overturn that rejection. Congress has often failed to block other U.S. military actions, including in a Senate vote on Venezuela, but the roll calls stand as a public record.

Republican leaders back Trump’s action

The response by House Speaker Mike Johnson reflected the party’s long-standing views. Iran, he said, is facing “the severe consequences of its evil actions.”

Johnson, R-La., said the leaders of the House and Senate and the respective intelligence committees had been briefed in detail earlier in the week that military action “may become necessary” to protect U.S. troops and citizens in Iran. He said he received updates from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and will stay in “close contact” with Trump and the Defense Department “as this operation proceeds.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., commended Trump “for taking action to thwart these threats.”

Thune said he looked forward to administration officials briefing all senators — a signal that lawmakers are seeking more answers to their questions about Trump’s plans ahead.

Democrats warn strikes are illegal

Many Democrats are calling the operation illegal, saying the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war. To them, the administration has failed to lay out its rationale or plan for the military strikes, and the aftermath.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the president has undertaken “illegal, regime-change war against Iran.”

“This is not making us safer & only damages the US & our interests,” Van Hollen, D-Md., said in a social media post. “The Senate must immediately vote on the War Powers Resolution to stop it.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said while Iran is a “bad actor and must be aggressively confronted” for its human rights abuses and the threat it poses to the U.S. and allies, the administration ”must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war.”

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, demanded that Congress be briefed immediately on the administration’s plans.

“Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home,” he said.

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

The president moved quickly to sign the bill after the House approved it with a 217-214 vote.

“This bill is a great victory for the American people,” Trump said.

The vote Tuesday wrapped up congressional work on 11 annual appropriations bills that fund government agencies and programs through Sept. 30. Trump has said he will sign the bill when it reaches his desk, ending the partial government shutdown that began Saturday.

Passage of the legislation marked the end point for one funding fight, but the start of another. That’s because the package only funds the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks, through Feb. 13, at the behest of Democrats who are demanding more restrictions on immigration enforcement after the shooting deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal officers in Minneapolis.

Leaders are digging in for a fight

Difficult negotiations are ahead, particularly for the agency that enforces the nation’s immigration laws — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries quickly warned Democrats would not support any further temporary funding for Homeland Security without substantial changes to its immigration operations, raising the potential of another shutdown for the department and its agencies.

“We need dramatic change in order to make sure that ICE and other agencies within the department of Homeland Security are conducting themselves like every other law enforcement organization in the country,” Jeffries said.

Speaker Mike Johnson said he expects the two sides will be able to reach an agreement by the deadline.

“This is no time to play games with that funding. We hope that they will operate in good faith over the next 10 days as we negotiate this,” said Johnson. “The president, again, has reached out.”

But Johnson’s counterpart across the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., sounded less optimistic of a deal. “There’s always miracles, right?” Thune told reporters.

Voting with no margin for error

The funding bill that cleared Congress Tuesday had provisions that appealed to both parties.

Republicans avoided a massive, catchall funding bill known as an omnibus as part of this year’s appropriations process. Such bills, often taken up before the holiday season with lawmakers anxious to return home, have contributed to greater federal spending, they say.

Democrats were able to fend off some of Trump’s most draconian proposed cuts while adding language that helps ensure funds are spent as stipulated by Congress.

Still, Johnson needed near-unanimous support from his Republican conference to proceed to a final vote on the bill. He narrowly got it during a roll call that was held open for nearly an hour as leaders worked to gain support from a handful of GOP lawmakers who were trying to advance other priorities unrelated to the funding measure.

The final vote wasn’t much easier for GOP leaders. In the end, 21 Republicans sided with the vast majority of Democrats in voting against the funding bill, while that exact same number of Democrats sided with the vast majority of Republicans in voting yes.

Trump had weighed in Monday in a social media post, calling on Republicans to stay united and telling holdouts, “There can be NO CHANGES at this time.”

Key differences from the last shutdown

The current partial shutdown that is coming to a close differed in many ways from the fall impasse, which affected more agencies and lasted a record 43 days.

Then, the debate was over extending temporary coronavirus pandemic-era subsidies for those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats were unsuccessful in getting those subsidies included as part of a package to end the shutdown.

Congress made important progress since then. Some of the six appropriations bills it passed prior to Tuesday ensured the current shutdown had less sting. For example, important programs such as nutrition assistance and fully operating national parks and historic sites were already funded through Sept. 30.

The remaining bills passed Tuesday mean that the vast majority of the federal government has been funded.

“You might say that now that 96% of the government is funded, it’s just 4% what’s out there?” Johnson said. ”But it’s a very important 4%”

Associated Press video journalist Nathan Ellgren and writers Lisa Mascaro, Joey Cappelletti and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Democrats are refusing to provide the votes House Speaker Mike Johnson needs to push the package forward as they try to rein in the Trump administration’s deportation operations after the shooting deaths of two Americans in Minneapolis. That’s forcing Johnson to rely on his slim GOP majority, which has its own complaints about the package, to fall in line behind Trump’s deal with Senate Democrats.

Voting could begin as soon as Tuesday, which would be day four of the partial shutdown. The Pentagon, Homeland Security and other agencies saw their funding lapse Saturday. And while many operations at those departments are deemed essential, and still functioning, some workers may go without pay or be furloughed.

“We need to get the Government open, and I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting this Bill, and send it to my desk WITHOUT DELAY,” the president wrote on social media.

“There can be NO CHANGES at this time,” Trump insisted. ”We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown.”

The stalemate points to a difficult week ahead as Johnson relies on Trump to help muscle to package to passage.

The president struck a deal last week with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer in which Homeland Security would only be funded temporarily, though Feb. 13, as Congress debates changes to immigration enforcement operations. The Senate overwhelmingly approved the package with the rest of the government funding ahead of Saturday’s deadline.

Democrats demand changes to ICE

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries made it clear Monday that his side sees no reason to help Johnson push the bill forward in a procedural step, something that the majority party typically handles on its own.

With Johnson facing a revolt from his own Republican ranks, Jeffries is seizing the leverage it provides Democrats to demand changes to immigration operations.

“On rare occasions have we stepped in to deal with Republican dysfunction,” Jeffries said at the Capitol.

Democrats are demanding restraints on Immigration and Customs Enforcement that go beyond $20 million for body cameras that already is in the bill. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that officers on the ground in Minneapolis, including ICE, will be immediately issued body-worn cameras, and the program would be expanded nationwide as funding is available.

But Democrats are pressing for more. They want to require that federal immigration agents unmask — noting that few, if any, other law enforcement agencies routinely mask themselves in the U.S. — and they want officers to rely on judicial, rather than administrative, warrants in their operations.

They also want an end to roving patrols, amid other changes.

Jeffries said the administration needs to begin negotiations now, not over the next two weeks, on changes to immigration enforcement operations.

Certain Democrats, however, are splintering with the leader, and pushing for quicker passage of the funding package to avoid government disruptions.

Republicans launch their own demands

At the same time, House Republicans, with some allies in the Senate, are making their own demands, as they work to support Trump’s clampdown on immigrants in the U.S.

The House Freedom Caucus has insisted on fuller funding for Homeland Security while certain Republicans are pushing to include other measures, including the SAVE Act, a longshot Trump priority that would require proof of citizenship before Americans are eligible to participate in elections and vote.

Johnson and GOP leaders said they would be talking with lawmakers to see what it will take to win over support.

“Obviously the president really wants this,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise said at the Capitol.

“We always work ‘til the midnight hour to get the votes,” Scalise said. “You never start the process with everybody on board. You work through it.”

Workers without pay if partial government shutdown drags on

Meanwhile, a number of federal agencies are snared in the funding standoff after the government went into a partial shutdown over the weekend.

Defense, health, transportation and housing are among those that were given shutdown guidance by the administration, though many operations are deemed essential and services are not necessarily interrupted. Workers could go without pay if the impasse drags on. Some could be furloughed.

Lawmakers from both parties are increasingly concerned the closure will disrupt the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which they rely on to help constituents after deadly snowstorms and other disasters.

This is the second time in a matter of months that federal government operations have been disrupted as lawmakers use the annual funding process as leverage to extract policy changes. Last fall, Democrats sparked what became the longest federal shutdown in history, 43 days, as they protested the expiration of health insurance tax breaks.

That shutdown ended with a promise to vote on proposals to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. But with GOP opposition, Democrats were unable to achieve their goal of keeping the subsidies in place. Insurance premiums spiked in the new year for millions of people.

Trump tries to prevent another long shutdown

Trump is already working on an immigration deal to ensure the shutdown doesn’t drag on.

Johnson said he was in the Oval Office last week when Trump, along with border czar Tom Homan, spoke with Schumer of New York as they discussed the immigration changes.

Body cameras, which are already provided for in the package, and an end to the roving patrols by immigration agents are areas of potential agreement, Johnson said.

But Johnson drew a line at other Democratic demands. He said he does not think that requiring immigration officers to remove their masks would have support from Republicans because it could lead to problems if their personal images and private information is posted online by protesters.

“I don’t think the president would approve it — and he shouldn’t,” Johnson said over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday.”

And Senate Majority Leader John Thune tapped the brakes on the demand from Democrats to require judicial warrants for officers’ searches, saying it’s likely to be a part of the negotiations ahead.

“It’s going to be very difficult to reach agreement in two weeks,” Thune said at the Capitol.

Democrats, however, said the immigration operations are out of control, and must end in Minneapolis and other cities.

Growing numbers of lawmakers are also calling for Noem to be fired or impeached.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Matt Brown and Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.

In what will be the largest reorganization of the Veterans Health Administration since the 1990s, the VA plans to restructure VHA’s administration, realign staff and resources and invest in medical facilities.

At the same time, the VA will award new contracts for community care — its program that covers medical care for eligible veterans at civilian facilities — using a new structure the VA hopes will give the department better flexibility to choose and change contracted provider networks.

According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the restructuring will “eliminate the glut of VA administrative overhead” and put more resources directly into VA facilities and community care.

Collins said in his first year of office, he has toured VA medical facilities and found significant differences in delivery of health care.

“We didn’t act like the largest healthcare provider in the world in many ways because we were trapped internally into our own policies, procedures, things that have been added on — none which added up to taking care of veterans but ended up taking care of the VA itself,” Collins told members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Under the reorganization, known as the Restructure for Impact and Sustainability Effort, or RISE initiative, the VA will decrease the number of Veterans Integrated Service Networks, or VISNs, which provide oversight, administrative, budgetary services and support to VA medical centers, from 18 to 5, with the VISNs focused namely on oversight and governance.

The reforms will create health service areas, or HSAs, within the VISNs to focus on medical centers and the communities where veterans get their health services.

And they will create a medical operations center that will ensure that policies are implemented and followed throughout the system.

Regarding the community care program, the VA issued a call for contract proposals earlier this month to provide medical services, agreements worth nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Community Care Network Next Generation contract, with its indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity structure, is meant to give the department more flexibility in overseeing the program, currently managed by two health contractors, Optum and TriWest Healthcare Alliance.

According to VA Chief Financial Officer Richard Topping, the new contracts will ensure that network providers will “compete and improve continually” to serve veterans.

“The government will have the ability to bring on multiple vendors and multiple contractors,” Topping said during a hearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee Jan. 22. “Those contractors can then compete across the life of the contract for different task orders. That allows VA to change program design to learn from mistakes, to increase our capabilities and capacities to innovate and evolve the program over time.”

Veterans advocates and congressional Democrats have raised concerns that any reductions in personnel related to restructuring or expanded contracts for community care will erode the VA’s medical system and lead to privatization of VA health care.

“While veterans are going to go unserved and uncared for in his actions, we see exactly who Secretary Collins really serves, driving the VA towards privatization,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., during the House hearing. “We know it only serves corporate interests, and it puts profits over veterans.”

But VA officials have said that the restructuring will streamline the administration and provide better services to veterans. Topping noted that while the community care contracts are worth up to $1 trillion over 10 years, the VA plans to spend $2 trillion for care in its own facilities during the same time frame.

“We’re opening new facilities. We’ve invested $800 million last year alone. We are investing in our direct care capabilities. And so, for veterans who either need to go to VA for direct care because it’s a unique capability that VA has, or who choose to go, they have that ability, and they have that choice,” Topping said.

The VA has lost 30,000 personnel in the past year as a result of resignations, retirements and attrition, as well as plans for an additional reduction of 24,000 jobs, which officials say were mainly positions created during the COVID-19 pandemic that are no longer required and have been vacant for at least a year.

Collins said the reorganization will allow the department to shift staff where they are needed and trim excess at underutilized locations. He added that the effort is moving forward with VA leadership taking into account input from staff, Congress and others.

“This is not an effort to diminish direct care for veterans. This is a reorganization that will eliminate the glut of VA administrative overhead and push more resources directly into the field,” Collins said.

The VA announced Wednesday it will spend $4.8 billion this year to make repairs and modernize numerous health care facilities, including upgrades to elevators, electrical and climate control systems and improvements to help accommodate the rollout of the department’s electronic health record system.

Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike promised close scrutiny of the VA reforms over the coming months, with the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee planning another hearing on the modernization efforts and House members saying their hearing on Jan. 22 was “only the beginning” of oversight.

“It should go without saying that VA must get this right. When veterans call my committee, they want to know how they can access their earned health benefits at VA,” House Veterans Affairs Committee Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., said.

Proposals for the new community care contract are due to the government in March.

The 11-page report said a “modest implementation” of the name change would cost about $10 million. But that figure could rise up to $125 million if the new moniker were adopted “broadly and rapidly” across the department.

The congressional office noted the estimate is “uncertain” because the Pentagon “has not provided information” about how it plans to carry out the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in September.

At the time of the announcement, Trump declared the Department of War was a “much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now.”

Trump went on to argue that the Department of Defense was too politically correct, and the Department of War “just sounded better,” noting it would be a callback to the original name used during the two world wars.

“We won the first world war, we won the second world war, we won everything before that and in between,” Trump stated in the Oval Office in September. “And then we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.”

The executive order directed the federal government to adopt the Department of War as a secondary title. Since then, the Pentagon has often styled itself that way, though its legal name remains unchanged. A formal renaming would require congressional approval, which has not been granted.

The White House, in a fact sheet, said the Pentagon may use the Department of War name in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonies and non-statutory documents within the executive branch.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), one of the two lawmakers who requested the report, cast the rebranding effort as “performative government at its worst.”

“Instead of prioritizing bringing down the cost of groceries or health care, Trump and his cronies are focused on vanity projects like renaming the Department of Defense,” Merkley said in a statement. “This move is performative government at its worst and does nothing to advance national security or help service members and their families.”

The Department of War, signed into law by President George Washington in 1789, stood for more than a century and a half as the central military authority in the United States.

After World War II, President Harry S. Truman replaced it with the National Military Establishment, merging the War and Navy departments with the newly independent Air Force. Two years later, it was rechristened the Department of Defense.

In September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said reverting to the Department of War in the modern era would signal “maximum lethality, not tepid legality; violent effect, not politically correct.”

In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Thursday, the chambers’ top Democrats — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both from New York — asked for a meeting on the looming fiscal issues early next week, to stave off a budget crisis.

“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” the pair wrote. “That is the only viable path forward …

“It is past time you reveal your plans to meet the needs of the American people. Otherwise, it is clear that you have abandoned bipartisanship altogether and are preparing to shut down the government.”

Lawmakers have until Sept. 30 to pass a new budget for the next fiscal year (which starts Oct. 1) or approve a short-term extension of current agency funding levels.

Failure to do either will force a partial shutdown of most government activities until a new funding deal is reached.

For the Department of Defense, that will mean shuttering of some non-essential base offices and training. Troops will still be expected to report for duty, but their paychecks may be delayed.

At the Department of Veterans Affairs, most hospital and benefits processing offices will remain open, thanks to advance funding approved for the agency in the past. But some information hotlines will be shut down, and other non-critical services will halt during the political impasse.

Neither Republican leader offered an immediate response to the Democratic leaders’ request. Both men have said that resolving the funding issue will be their top priority when Congress returns from its summer recess next week.

Although GOP lawmakers hold a majority in both chambers, several prominent Republicans have suggested they may not support a short-term budget deal, preferring to return to regular order in the appropriations process. But the majority of funding bills still have significant work to be completed before final passage.

That would mean at least some Democratic votes will likely be needed to approve any funding package and avoid a shutdown.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump said he would meet with Schumer and Jeffries to discuss potential points of compromise, but added that “it’s almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything.”

Defense Department leaders have warned about the potential detrimental impact of a government shutdown on military operations, even if troops and essential personnel remain on the job. They said that shuttering support services for military families and disrupting long-term procurement plans undermines force readiness initiatives.

The last major government shutdown occurred in December 2018 during the first Trump administration and lasted for 35 days. That dispute, which centered on immigration policy and funding, did not include the Departments of Defense or Veterans Affairs, but did result in delayed paychecks for tens of thousands of U.S. Coast Guard personnel.

Lawmakers are expected to return to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Sept. 2.

Last month, VA administrators launched a partnership with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to recover improper payments to medical providers who billed both agencies for patient services. An initial review found roughly $106 million in duplicate billings over a six-year period.

But that may be just the start. About 5.9 million veterans are dually enrolled in VA health care and Medicare, creating confusion in some instances regarding which government agency is responsible for covering the costs of appointments and medical procedures.

A new health care analysis released by the RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute on Tuesday found that nearly 84% of the 8.2 million veterans enrolled in the VA health care system have some form of secondary medical coverage, including Medicare, private insurance or Tricare services.

“Enrollment in multiple forms of health care coverage indicates potential inefficiencies and raises questions about whether different programs are making duplicative payments for the same care,” researchers noted in the report.

They argue that fixing the problem requires better tracking of which medical systems veterans are enrolled in and what services they are eligible for.

The report notes that while the Veterans Health Administration is already working with Medicare officials on fixes, “making further use of Medicare, TRICARE, private insurer, and Medicaid claims … in combination with VHA enrollment, utilization, and cost data would enable VHA to better track the sources of care for its enrolled veterans.”

RAND officials also recommended better education of patients about their medical options and eligibility, to help inform their choices.

VA officials said that new data-matching agreements with Medicare officials should help curb some of the problems in the future. But they also vowed to continue to look for areas of improvement, both with those two systems and other health care systems.