A Republican bill with 7 Republican cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "No Tax on Drill Pay Act," seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The primary goal is to exclude compensation received for inactive-duty training from gross income. It updates the definition of a "qualified military benefit" to include this specific type of compensation. These changes would apply to any compensation received after the Act is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +3
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The bill increases the net take-home pay for those engaged in inactive-duty training, which often includes veterans in the reserves.
- Scored +3
Does this cut taxes for middle-income families?
The bill excludes compensation for inactive-duty training from gross income, providing tax relief to those receiving such pay.
- Scored +2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The bill reduces the tax burden on individuals receiving compensation for inactive-duty training.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The exclusion of compensation from gross income reduces federal tax revenue.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Tax Relief for Service Members: By including inactive-duty training compensation as a "qualified military benefit" under Section 134(b), the bill ensures this money is excluded from gross income. This means individuals receiving such compensation would not have to pay federal income tax on those specific earnings. (Section 2(a))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No Negative Impacts Identified: The provided text does not contain any provisions that would result in negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill increases the net take-home pay for those engaged in inactive-duty training, which often includes veterans in the reserves. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill reduces the tax burden on individuals receiving compensation for inactive-duty training.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — The bill excludes compensation for inactive-duty training from gross income, providing tax relief to those receiving such pay. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The exclusion of compensation from gross income reduces federal tax revenue.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill provides financial relief to service members through the exclusion of inactive-duty training compensation from taxes.
- 6/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/12/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Charles FleischmannRepublican · Tennessee
Max MillerRepublican · Ohio
Mark MessmerRepublican · Indiana
Zachary NunnRepublican · Iowa
Andrew OglesRepublican · Tennessee
Harold RogersRepublican · Kentucky
Tony WiedRepublican · Wisconsin