Following recent “unauthorized disclosures,” the Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday announced its intention of drafting a governmentwide NDA that agencies can implement at their discretion for workers who have access to sensitive information, such as personnel records and operational plans.

“OPM believes that a standard NDA form will promote consistency across government, better protect confidential information and better inform federal employees of their rights and obligations regarding confidential information,” the proposal reads.

OPM’s proposal was published Wednesday in the Federal Register and opened a 30-day public comment period through June 26.

The OPM said the move follows several recent leaks of internal government information.

“There have been several recent instances in which internal agency communications related to rulemaking and policy development were disclosed without authorization,” the proposal says.

“Such disclosures risk chilling candid interagency feedback, disrupting orderly decision-making and weakening trust within and among federal agencies,” the proposal continues.

The draft lists several examples, with one dating back to 2022 when a Supreme Court opinion overturning abortion rights was leaked to a reporter, prompting the Court to implement its own NDA in 2024.

The proposal cited a 2025 incident in which several Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security workers released immigration enforcement plans when unauthorized to do so.

More recently, in early January 2026, the proposal also claims that the New York Times and Washington Post received unauthorized disclosures from federal employees about the planned U.S. raid on Venezuela before it began, which prompted the organizations to postpone “publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops.”

The New York Times disputes that assertion.

“Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration,” the New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn wrote in January 2026 in response to questions from readers.

OPM’s announcement comes less than two months after President Donald Trump vowed to find the “leaker” behind the release of information involving a missing U.S. airman from a downed fighter jet in Iran. In an early April press conference, Trump did not specify which media company received the leak but did threaten to put the reporter in jail if they, or their organization, did not disclose their source.

OPM previously published a separate rule in June 2025 addressing federal employee “suitability and fitness” requirements with nondisclosure requirements.

The draft says that the NDA will be an “Optional Form,” allowing federal agencies to decide for themselves whether or not to use the agreement. If an agency decides to use the NDA, it would be given to new hires as well as current employees.

Even though the draft says that the proposal is not meant to implement “new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights,” union leaders have criticized the move, calling it unnecessary and warning it could silence workers.

“This proposed NDA is another attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who won’t speak out against waste, fraud and abuse,” Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a statement.

Doreen Greenwald, the president of the second largest federal employee union, National Treasury Employees Union, said there was “no basis” for this action and that the union would oppose the proposal.

“Existing law protects our nation’s secrets. Non-disclosure agreements would preemptively chill First Amendment-protected speech and dissuade protected whistleblowing activity,” Greenwald said in a release.

There are currently over two million federal employees, according to OPM, with the largest share of workers serving in the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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.

Reps. Jack Bergman, R-Mich., and Sarah Elfreth, D-Md., rolled out their proposed “Beacon Act” on Friday, aiming to foster partnerships with academic institutions and providers for treatment and finance research into alternative treatments for mild to moderate traumatic brain injury, or TBI.

During a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Cole Lyle, the American Legion’s veterans affairs and rehabilitation director, said the legislation is needed because current treatments, including medication, often fall short in alleviating symptoms.

“We believe veterans deserve care that reflects the complexity of their comorbid injuries, where healing does not happen with a one-size-fits-all bottle — care that brings innovation, research, community partnerships and, above all, hope,” Lyle said.

From 2000 through June 2025, Defense Department personnel were diagnosed with nearly 497,000 mild to moderate TBIs, according to the department. The majority were treated at military hospitals or clinics, including the Defense Intrepid Network for TBI and Brain Health or the Department of Veterans Affairs, which maintains four polytrauma rehabilitation centers and 21 sites in a polytrauma network.

Under the legislation, a TBI Innovation Grant Program would award up to $30 million in grants through 2028 to nonprofits, academic institutions and non-VA health care providers for treatment and recovery, suicide prevention, training and outreach.

The bill’s Independent Research Grant Program would provide $625,000 awards for pilot studies and $1.5 million grants for research on alternative therapies for TBI.

Bergman and Elfreth say their bill would strengthen the VA’s ability to treat TBI by expanding access to new treatments.

“The men and women who served our country deserve access to the best care available, especially when it comes to invisible injuries like traumatic brain injury,” said Bergman, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general.

“The Beacon Act strengthens the VA’s ability to deliver modern, effective care by bringing proven innovation, academic expertise, and community partnerships to the table, while supporting the important work the VA is already doing,” he said.

“As the granddaughter of a veteran who suffered from [post-traumatic stress disorder], I’ve seen firsthand the complex mental health challenges that our veterans and their families face. I’ve also seen how traditional VA treatments have come up short for decades to fully address the complex challenges our veterans face,” said Elfreth.

A similar bill was introduced last November in the Senate by Pennsylvania Republican Dave McCormick and Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen. Their bill, the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Adaptive Care Opportunities Nationwide Act, also would promote partnerships and develop research through similar grant programs.

“As I think about the soldiers I served alongside, I feel this issue deeply,” said McCormick, a former Army officer. “Our veterans deserve access to innovative and groundbreaking TBI treatments that will enhance their quality of life and finally address the suicide epidemic among servicemembers.”

The legislative proposals have the support of the American Legion, AMVETS, Avalon Action Alliance, With Honor, the Marcus Institute for Brain Health, University of Colorado Anschutz, Disabled American Veterans, America’s Warrior Partnership, Boulder Crest Foundation, Mission Roll Call and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

“Studies and reporting show time and again a connection between service-related blast overpressure injuries and increased rates of suicide among service members and veterans,” said Rye Barcott, Co-Founder and CEO of With Honor said in a statement.

“This bipartisan legislation,” he noted, “brings together government, academia, and the private sector to align and accelerate research and treatment for traumatic brain injuries to reduce the skyrocketing suicide rates among active-duty service members and veterans.”

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.

During an Oval Office event with military families on Monday, Trump praised the work of VA Secretary Doug Collins thus far, asserting that the department now has a “93% approval rating” under his leadership.

“We had a great first term and it was pretty close to that then,” he said. “And then [President Joe Biden’s administration] took over and it went down into the 30s and 20s. It went down at one point to 28% or 29%, which is terrible … But now you’ve blown everyone away, Doug.”

Trump’s boast appears to reference VA’s periodic survey of veterans who have used department health care services in the last 90 days. As of the start of August, the satisfaction rate with VA medical care sat at 92.8%, the highest mark in the 30 months that the survey has been conducted.

When that polling began in March 2023 — during the Biden administration — the figure was 90.4%. It has steadily improved nearly every month for the past two and a half years, regardless of which administration was in charge.

The broader VA Trust survey, conducted quarterly since early 2016, shows a similar story. At the start of Trump’s first term in the White House, only about 55% of veterans said they trusted the department to “fulfill our country’s commitment to veterans.” By the time Trump left office at the end of 2020, the number was up to nearly 79%.

VA data shows the trust score remained between 78% and 81% during Biden’s entire term in office, far above the under 30% that Trump claimed on Monday. The latest department update shows that 79.2% of veterans expressed confidence in the department at the start of the summer, down about 1% from a year earlier.

Department researchers also began an annual outpatient survey in fiscal 2017, during Trump’s first term in office, to gauge satisfaction rates.

That year, 85% of patients said they were happy with how agency staff handled their outpatient care appointments and procedures. At the end of Trump’s first term in office, it had risen to 89.1%. At the end of last fiscal year — the latest data available — the number was up to 92%.

Trump claimed the improvement in veterans perception of VA came because the previous administration “gave away choice and accountability … and we put them back.”

That claim has been at the root of continued political sparring between administration officials and Democratic critics of Trump’s veterans policies. Republicans in recent weeks have pushed through a series of reforms designed to make it easier for veterans to access health care options outside the VA system, but the impact of those moves still remains to be seen.

During Monday’s event, Collins noted that department officials have reduced the disability claims backlog by about 40% since January. That number has also been in steady decline for the last two years, since the backlog spiked to more than 400,000 cases after the passage of the PACT Act.

Late last week, the Office of Personnel Management announced in an email to federal workers that they had canceled plans for the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, typically conducted each spring. Officials had said for months they were revising the poll to better focus questions on key workplace issues and not extraneous topics, such as diversity programs.

The survey is mandated under federal code and provides an annual snapshot of employee satisfaction. Administration officials have not said whether they will provide other avenues for tracking those metrics.

Earlier this summer, in response to questions about workforce changes, Veterans Affairs officials said they would conduct their own all-employee survey in conjunction with the FEVS.

However, after last week’s decision, VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz said that his department “is following OPM’s lead on this issue and will not be conducting the VA All-Employee Survey this year.”

He also dismissed concerns that the absence of the polling data would ignore concerns within the department’s workforce.

“VA employees are happy the department is fixing many of the problems left by the Biden administration and is making improvements across the agency,” he said in a statement.

The VA All-Employee Survey has been conducted every year since 2006. In 2012, the results ranked the department as the second-worst large federal agency to work for, out of 19 departments. By 2024, that ranking had risen to fifth-best.

About 72% of VA employees surveyed said they were satisfied with their jobs in 2024, up from about 55% a decade before. Officials from President Joe Biden’s administration frequently cited the survey as evidence that they were making workforce improvements throughout VA.

Whether this year’s survey would have shown continued optimism or new problems will remain unknown. Union officials and critics of President Donald Trump have strongly objected to a host of workforce reforms by his administration in recent months, including trimming nearly 30,000 jobs from the department payroll since January.

Earlier this month, VA Secretary Doug Collins announced plans sever ties with most federal employee unions, terminating their collective bargaining contracts.

About 450,000 federal employees currently work at VA hospitals, benefits centers and other offices. In the past, nearly three-fourths of the workforce participated in the employee surveys.

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.

The move affects members of the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO (AFGE), the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

AFGE alone represents about 300,000 employees working for VA. About 80% of the department’s roughly 450,000-person staff are union members.

Department officials said the move was made to “make it easier for VA leaders to promote high-performing employees, hold poor performers accountable, and improve benefits and services to America’s veterans.”

In a statement, VA Secretary Doug Collins attacked the unions as inefficient and harmful to veterans’ care.

“Too often, unions that represent VA employees fight against the best interests of veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers,” Collins said. “We’re making sure VA resources and employees are singularly focused on the job we were sent here to do: providing top-notch care and service to those who wore the uniform.”

Members of President Donald Trump’s administration have fought with union officials for months. In April, VA stopped withholding union dues from most employee paychecks, citing an executive order excluding some federal agencies from labor-management relations programs.

Wednesday’s move does not impact unions representing 4,000 VA police officers, firefighters and security guards. Officials said the executive order does not apply to those positions.

Union leaders for months have protested against proposed cuts at VA and other federal agencies, arguing the smaller staffs will hurt delivery of benefits and health care. They’ve also accused Collins of working to “privatize” VA services by sending more money for medical appointments into civilian hospitals and medical offices, rather than VA clinics.

The unions have also filed numerous lawsuits against the president’s proposed changes to the federal bureaucracy. On Monday, a federal appeals court paused a preliminary injunction that had blocked department heads from making changes to collective bargaining agreements, allowing Wednesday’s contract terminations to move ahead.

At the time, AFGE National President Everett Kelley called the ruling “a setback for fundamental rights in America” and promised continued opposition to Trump’s proposals.

In a statement after Wednesday’s announcement, Kelley criticized Collins for attacking VA workers’ rights.

“[The] decision to rip up the negotiated union contract for majority of its workforce is another clear example of retaliation against AFGE members for speaking out against the illegal, anti-worker, and anti-veteran policies of this administration,” he said.

“We don’t apologize for protecting veteran healthcare and will continue to fight for our members and the veterans they care for.”

Officials from National Nurses United accused the Trump adminstration of “waging class warfare against working people of America” and similarly promised continued legal challenges.

“This president has made it clear he has no respect for the Constitution, but we believe strongly that our right to join together to collectively bargain is constitutionally protected,” the group said in a statement. “It cannot be swept away through an overreach of an executive order based on spurious claims.”

VA officials said that in addition to eliminating unneeded restrictions on hiring and firing policies, breaking union contracts will free up more than 187,000 square feet of office space currently being used by group representatives.

At the start of 2025, federal unions represented more than 1.3 million government workers across a host of agencies.

The decision — outlined in a post in the Federal Register — would undo the September 2022 order by the previous presidential administration allowing VA medical personnel to conduct abortions in cases of rape, incest and pregnancies that endanger the life or health of an individual.

That policy marked the first time VA physicians were permitted to perform abortions on federal property, even in states where it had been outlawed. The new interim rule revokes that authority, and will require patients seeking abortions to seek that medical care outside the VA system.

In a statement accompanying the proposal, department officials said the move is designed “to ensure that VA provides only needed medical services to our nation’s heroes and their families.” They argued that the decision to provide abortion services was a political one, and not a response to need.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide. Since then, 20 states have outlawed or severely restricted abortion services, prompting a national debate over federal departments’ responsibilities and limits in regards to reproductive health services for women veterans.

The rule has been in the works since late July, but has not been publicized by department leaders or White House officials. Per federal regulations, the proposal will now undergo public comment and additional review before becoming permanent policy, but is essentially already being enforced within the department.

It impacts individuals using both VA health care services and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Abortion rights advocates decried the move as an attack on critical medical options for veterans and their family members.

“This proposed rule is a smack in the face to those who have served our country and their loved ones, stripping pregnant women of their bodily autonomy and restricting their access to abortion,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.

“Once again, extreme politicians are attempting to interfere in patient-doctor decision-making, intentionally eroding the trust between pregnant people and their medical providers.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the move deprives veterans of “life-changing” health care options.

“After veterans put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, the Trump administration is trying to rob them of their own freedoms and putting their health at risk,” she said. “This administration is sending a clear message to veterans: that their health and dignity aren’t worth defending.”

Democratic lawmakers voiced similar concerns.

“The bottom line is, Republicans don’t care if your health is in danger, if you’re a veteran, or if you’ve been raped — they want abortion outlawed everywhere, in every circumstance, for everyone,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in a statement over the weekend.

“This administration has shown nothing but callous disregard for veterans’ lives, their health care, and their livelihoods—especially when those veterans happen to be women.”

But Republican lawmakers praised the move, accusing President Joe Biden’s administration of overreach with the changes made three years ago.

“Taxpayers do not want their hard-earned money spent on paying for abortions and VA’s sole focus should always be providing service-connected health care and benefits to the veterans they serve,” a group of six House lawmakers led by House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., said in a statement. “House Republicans, alongside President Trump, will always stand up for the sanctity of life.”

In their Federal Register filing, VA leaders said the change will not prevent physicians from providing life-saving care in cases of ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, since other provisions within the law already mandate those protections.

They also pushed back on the presumed demand for abortion services within the veterans community. Department statistics show that roughly 100 veterans and 40 CHAMPVA beneficiaries have received abortions through VA medical centers annually since the policy change in 2022.

But Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., noted in his criticism of the rule change that nearly 500,000 women veterans of reproductive age are enrolled in VA health care, with more than half of them living in states with abortion restrictions.

“We cannot let VA stop providing this care to veterans by ripping away this narrow, targeted protection,” he said in a statement. “I will be fighting as hard and long as possible to reverse this cruel, dangerous new policy.”

The public comment period on the new rule change is open until Sept. 5.

Mason — who previously served as the first woman ever to chair the Board of Veterans Appeals — was approved for the VA Inspector General post by a 53-45 margin, with all of the opposition coming from Democrats.

She replaces former VA Inspector General Mike Missal, who served in the role from April 2016 to January 2025, when he was dismissed by President Donald Trump.

He and seven other fired federal watchdogs have sued the White House over their dismissals, claiming they were done without proper reason or notification. That legal case is still pending.

For months, the firings have drawn criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who see them as an attempt to install administration-friendly officials in the key oversight offices. It has also generated extra scrutiny of Mason’s nomination, since she worked for several months alongside the senior VA leaders she will now be charged with investigating.

Ahead of Mason’s confirmation vote Thursday, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., called her “one of the most partisan and least independents we’ve seen in nominees for an inspector general post in recent years.”

He questioned whether she could provide proper oversight for the department, noting her collaboration with Secretary Doug Collins on staffing reforms and her time spent advising Trump’s presidential transition team.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee in June, Mason pledged to be unbiased in her work looking into waste, fraud and abuse at the department and even-handed in her reports to Congress.

“I consider myself to be an impartial, independent aide to the department,” she said. “I am loyal to the veterans. That’s who I serve. That’s who I’m loyal to. I work for the president and the [VA] secretary, but also, if confirmed, I will work for this committee.”

Her confirmation had been stalled for several weeks by a series of Democratic holds, both over her qualifications and related to broader concerns about department cuts and public transparency.

Republican leaders in the Senate have spent most of this week — the last scheduled week of work until September for the chamber — forcing through a series of administration nominations blocked by the minority party.

Mason is the wife and daughter of military veterans and has been a public advocate for military spouse employment opportunities in the past. She worked on the Board of Veterans Appeals during both the first Trump administration and while President Joe Biden was in office.

She is expected to be sworn into the new role in coming days.