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.

“The trends are moving in the right direction,” Jerry McGinn, who co-authored the study for the Center for Strategic and International Analysis think tank, told Defense News.

However, the study — described as a progress report on reforms to the defense manufacturing and acquisition system — still found numerous problems with ramping up and sustaining wartime production.

For example, “according to several measures — manufacturing lead times, critical munitions and materials stockpiles, and supply chain security — the U.S. industrial base has a long way to go to achieve resilience,” warned the analysis by CSIS’s Center for the Industrial Base.

CSIS did find measurable improvements since November 2025, when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vowed to “transform the entire acquisition system to operate on a wartime footing.”

Hegseth also promised to “inspire American industry to become a wartime industrial base that focuses on speed and volume.”

Most striking is the number of new companies in the defense field.

“Roughly 10,000 new firms have entered the market in the past two years and nontraditional companies received over $120 billion in contract obligations in FY 2025, adding competition and innovation to the sector,” CSIS noted. “Munitions contract obligations have risen 330 percent since FY 2010. Spurred by this increased demand and depleted inventories, the Pentagon is signing multiyear agreements with munitions producers and suppliers on a historic scale.”

The military is also responding to depleted stockpiles of expensive guided weapons that have been rapidly consumed by the Iran and Ukraine wars.

The Pentagon’s 2027 budget request for munitions allocated 49% to low-cost munitions — defined as costing less than $600,000 apiece — rising to 70% by 2031.

The U.S. is also strengthening its defense supply chain, such as “multiyear procurement agreements, direct-to-supplier investments, and leaner acquisition pathways,” as well as investing in defense companies such as L3Harris Missile Solutions, according to CSIS.

However, while this signals government commitment to defense production, it “also complicates competitive dynamics within the industry as new entrants and established suppliers alike seek to meet rapidly growing demand for munitions at scale.”

Also notable is federal investment in rare earths, which has seen production soar from 95 tons in 2022, to 8,900 tons in 2025. Nonetheless, “the erosion of domestic rare earth manufacturing capacity and the rise of Chinese control took decades to unfold, however, and it will take several years of enduring effort for the United States and its allies to build, scale, and sustain the production capacity of these key defense inputs.”

Exports of U.S. arms, or cooperative multinational projects such as the F-35 fighter, have also become a pillar of America’s defense industry. Foreign Military Sales, or FMS, have more than tripled, from less than $20 billion in 2015 to more than $80 billion in 2025.

The Trump administration wants to take this further with the “America First Arms Transfer Strategy,” launched in February 2026.

“The United States will use foreign purchases and capital to support domestic reindustrialization, expand production capacity, and improve the resilience of the United States defense industrial base,” the White House executive order declared.

Ultimately, the federal government can control defense production through the products it demands, the prices it is willing to pay, and the incentives it offers.

“It’s a monopsony,” McGinn said. “Government sets the market. Government can regulate the market. So, if the government wants different outcomes, it changes how it buys.”

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 search comes after dozens of MQ-9s were swatted out of the sky during the Iran war, according to a May 13 Congressional Research Service report.

With the Air Force currently possessing about 135 Reapers — which cost approximately $30 million apiece — such a loss rate is not sustainable, especially against a force like Iran, whose air defenses are less sophisticated than those of China or Russia.

“The Joint Force’s reliance on low-density, high-value ‘exquisite’ (>$30 million) manned and unmanned aircraft is unsustainable against adversaries utilizing layered defenses enabled by increasingly low-cost antiaircraft capabilities,” warned the Defense Innovation Unit solicitation for a new drone, which the Pentagon wants to “execute missions that the MQ-9A performs today.”

Rather than build a better Reaper, DIU is opting for an expendable replacement. The Massed Modular Aircraft, or MMA, project aims to develop a UAV designed to operate in such large numbers that it can absorb heavy losses and still overwhelm enemy defenses.

Particularly of interest is the size of the MMA. Drone swarms may be the next big thing in unmanned warfare, but generally those hordes are made up of small, inexpensive UAVs with limited range and payload.

But the DIU solicitation envisions a drone that has long range and a heavy payload — and is still inexpensive enough for mass production. The solicitation calls for a payload of at least 2,800 pounds, a bit less than the MQ-9’s 3,800-pound capacity.

The MMA should also have an unrefueled combat range of at least 2,300 nautical miles, according to the solicitation, and a one-way transfer range of at least 8,000 nautical miles. Additionally, the drone should reach speeds of at least 200 miles per hour and have the ability to operate from a 6,000-foot runway or improvised airstrips.

The DIU solicitation states that the drone should have “sufficient available size, weight, power (25kW), and cooling (5kW) to host a variety of internal and/or external payloads,” with a level of autonomous operations that would allow one operator to control several drones.

The solicitation does not specify the MMA’s dimensions, though the specifications suggest a drone comparable in size to the MQ-9. It also did not list a desired price point, though presumably it would be less than the $30 million price tag of an MQ-9.

The timeline for the MMA project, meanwhile, is ambitious. DIU is calling for “full-scale prototype flight testing within 21 months of award, with a targeted Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in FY2031. IOC for MMA is envisioned as 20 mission-ready aircraft delivered to an operational unit, able to be deployed.”

Pentagon solicitations continue to reflect a mindfulness of lessons from the Ukraine War, as well as the experiences during the Iran War. In both conflicts, the defender exhausted interceptors before the attacker ran out of drones.

“Keeping a constant airborne MMA presence to launch weapons, gather intelligence, perform electronic warfare missions, or relay communications will force an adversary to stay on the defensive,” DIU said. “This relentless pressure will exhaust the adversary, forcing them to burn through expensive anti-aircraft missiles and resources faster than they can be replaced.”

The Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems, or DRPM-UxS, will become “the single joint integrator for all unmanned and autonomous system programs” in the department, according to a June 29 memo the Pentagon made public Wednesday. Its director, yet to be named, will answer to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg and oversee how the military develops, buys, fields and sustains unmanned systems in the air, on the ground and at sea.

The office’s reach is wide, including small drones in unmanned aircraft groups 1 through 3, unmanned boats, ground robots and counter-drone systems. It also covers the artificial intelligence and swarming software that guides them. Unmanned underwater vehicles will be handled jointly with the Pentagon’s submarine portfolio manager.

The office’s authority stops short of the Pentagon’s major defense acquisition programs, the big-ticket programs that already follow a separate approval process set in law. That means large airframes like the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft and the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray and MQ-4C Triton stay with the services, as does the Navy’s medium unmanned surface vessel.

Two existing organizations are now moving under the new office. Joint Interagency Task Force 401, which has led the fight against small aerial drones, will expand to countering unmanned threats in every domain. The Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, the Pentagon’s effort to mass-produce cheap drones, becomes a subordinate element. Neither will see its staff or positions relocated, the memo notes.

The new office inherits one of the largest spending increases in the Pentagon’s budget. The department’s latest budget request set aside $53.6 billion for autonomous drone platforms, part of what Pentagon officials called an unprecedented commitment to drones and counter-drone systems.

Separately, the memo names the Defense Innovation Unit, the Pentagon’s link to commercial tech firms, as the single point of contact for the new portfolio.

The office holds significant power. It will act as the milestone decision authority for its programs, the official who decides whether a weapon advances through development, and it will take precedence on drone acquisition matters behind only Hegseth and Feinberg.

The office can act as the top buying official on its contracts, order the services to shift money between programs through the Pentagon comptroller, and stop any system from reaching the field.

The move also centralizes congressional engagement through the DRPM-UxS, requiring every part of the department to clear its drone-related plans with the office before contacting lawmakers.

The memo says the office’s programs, jobs and people are exempt from the department’s hiring freezes, personnel reductions and reductions in force, and gives its chief the power to hire directly. The memo also lays out a staffing timeline. Once a director is named, hiring is to begin within 30 days, an organizational plan is due within 60 and a full list of the programs moving over is due within 90.

The reorganization is the latest step in Hegseth’s push to field weapons faster, a broader “speed to delivery” initiative that has already drawn warnings from the government’s top auditor.

A Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday found the Pentagon’s independent testing office, which Hegseth cut from 126 civilian jobs to 30 last year, now watches just 15 of about 110 active programs on one fast-track buying pathway, Defense News reported.

It is the latest of several direct reporting portfolio managers Hegseth’s team has stood up to pull the department’s top priorities under Feinberg, and the widest in scope. What this all means for the drone programs already underway inside the services is not spelled out in the memo.

The Senate voted 50-48 in favor of the war powers resolution, which passed the House of Representatives early this month, reflecting growing concern even among some of Trump’s Republicans about the unpopular conflict that began on February 28 when the U.S. and Israel launched an attack on Iran.

It was the first time both chambers of Congress had passed a resolution directing a president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities since the War Powers Resolution, more commonly known as the War Powers Act, was enacted in 1973.

While likely to remain largely symbolic, the vote was a setback for Trump, who until recently had enjoyed near-unanimous support from Republican members of Congress.

It also comes as the administration is expected to ask Congress to authorize tens of billions of dollars to pay for the war.

Trump’s Republicans hold slim majorities in both the Senate and House, but a few have broken with the president on a handful of issues ahead of mid-term elections in November, which will determine whether the party will retain control of Congress.

Some Republicans recently balked at Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund to compensate political allies he says have been targeted by federal authorities and stalled a $70 billion bill to fund his immigration crackdown.

Reuters/Ipsos poll results released on Tuesday showed that just one in four Americans believe the war against Iran was worth its costs, and a majority worry that a truce with Tehran is unlikely to last.

The Senate vote was largely along party lines, with four Republicans joining all but one Democrat in favor. Two Republican senators did not vote.

In a post late on Tuesday, Trump criticized the vote, calling it “poorly timed and meaningless” and accused those who voted in favor of providing “comfort” to Iran and making his job “more difficult”.

Constitutional uncertainty

Trump’s administration is working to negotiate a peace agreement with Iran. Support for the resolution in Congress is likely to put pressure on the president not to resume hostilities, something he has suggested he might do if negotiations falter.

Under the 1973 War Powers Act, the concurrent resolution – passed by both the House and Senate – does not go to the White House for Trump’s signature. In the 1973 law, Congress intended such resolutions as a mechanism for ending military operations.

But legal experts said the issue remains unsettled. No war powers resolution had previously passed both chambers of Congress and a 1983 Supreme Court ruling said such a measure must be submitted for a president’s signature or veto to have legal effect.

The White House has insisted the War Powers Act is not constitutional and thus not binding.

On Tuesday, a White House official said the Senate vote has no significance because the resolutions do not go to the president and have no force of law and the measure passed only because two Republicans were absent.

The official also said the resolution directs Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities, which the White House says were terminated with a ceasefire on April 7.

Experts say the constitutionality of the War Powers Act likely will be settled in the courts.

“The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and it’s not clear who might have standing to sue to enforce it,” said Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the online legal publication Lawfare.

Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who sponsored the resolution in the House, said he viewed the resolution as binding and would pursue all legal avenues to ensure that the administration complies.

Democrats also noted that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the right to take the country to war. “Congress has to own this responsibility,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said in a speech urging support for the measure.

Slim, but significant, support

The resolution had also passed the House with slim Republican support. The tally there was 215-208 with four Republicans and every Democrat voting in favor.

In the Senate, the four Republicans who voted for the measure were Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted against it.

Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and David McCormick of Pennsylvania missed the vote.

Democratic lawmakers have promised additional votes on war powers measures, saying they want to force Republicans to go on the record about the war.

Additionally, Congress has the right to review and vote on any peace agreement with Tehran if it affects Iran’s nuclear program, under a 2015 law passed as then-President Barack Obama negotiated a nuclear agreement with Iran and other world powers.

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said on Tuesday he expected Congress would review and vote on an eventual Iran peace deal.

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.

Crafted by architect Kengo Kuma in partnership with the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation, the memorial’s design is the culmination of eight years of input from 20,000 Americans, including veterans from every branch of service and every conflict since World War II, according to a foundation release.

According to the memorial’s description, visitors will first encounter steel and stone relics recovered from the 9/11 attacks at each of the site’s three entrances, “marking where the journey began,” the release states.

In a primary section coined “the embrace,” a classically inspired amphitheater rises over the path below and features an arch made of reclaimed steel from the era’s combat operations.

The arch, which will also be adorned with native vegetation, is designed to filter light and will be oriented to align with Section 60 in Arlington National Cemetery, the resting place of roughly 1,000 service members killed in the post-9/11 wars.

Below the arch, a predominantly marble “path of honor” includes embedded boot prints “that represent the weight of war and the varied experiences of those who served and their families,” the release says. The path will also connect to adjacent memorials on the National Mall.

Extending from the footprint paths are shallow reflecting pools in which visitors can dip their feet before stepping back onto the stone to leave footprints of their own, an “interactive component [that] offers visitors the chance to walk alongside a loved one once more,” the foundation says.

“This design was shaped by history and held sacred from the beginning — forged by sacrifice and informed by the voices of warriors and their families,” Michael “Rod” Rodriguez, president and CEO of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation and a retired U.S. Army Green Beret, said in the release.

“Throughout history, societies have built sacred places to welcome their warriors home, places where a grateful people can say, ‘We see you. We honor you. You are not forgotten.’” Rodriguez added. “The GWOT generations deserve that same enduring tribute. Today, we take one step closer to welcoming them home.”

In addition to input gathered since 2018, a 23-member advisory council comprising Gold Star family members, veterans and their families worked alongside designers to craft what the foundation has called a “living place … that will illuminate at night and invite reflection, healing and unity for generations to come.”

As the site’s architect, Kuma’s work on the memorial resonated on a deeply personal level, he said in a recent interview. The artist lost his close friend Yoichi Sugiyama, who worked for Fuji Bank, in the Sept. 11 attack at the World Trade Center.

“This memorial is not an abstract commission for our team, it is a sacred responsibility,” Kuma said in the release. “Our role was not to impose a design, but to listen. The voices of those who served and the families who stood beside them became our source of inspiration. We wanted to create a place of reflection and connection, a living memorial where nature, light and the materials of this war come together as an embrace for a grateful nation.”

Foundation officials are slated to meet over the coming months with various city planning commissions to finalize design approval, according to the foundation’s proposed timeline.

With approval, the foundation is aiming for a 2027 groundbreaking and a project completion date of late 2028.