Jerry Moran (R-KS)
National Veterans Strategy Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.
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
The National Veterans Strategy Act of 2026 requires the President to establish metrics to define veteran success across various areas of well-being. The President must also create a National Veterans Strategy every four years to align government, nonprofit, and private sector resources to help veterans. This process requires consultation with key stakeholders and the general public. The bill includes a mechanism for Congress to disapprove of the strategy through a joint resolution. Additionally, it mandates annual reports on the strategy's implementation and requires federal agencies to incorporate these goals into their strategic plans.
Yes· 3 of 38
- Scored +10
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The entire bill is dedicated to improving the success and well-being of veterans.
- Scored +8
Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive?
Creates a comprehensive framework to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of veteran benefits.
- Scored +7
Does this help veterans get medical care?
The bill mandates a national strategy focused on physical and mental health metrics for veterans.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Comprehensive Well-being Metrics: The bill requires the establishment of metrics covering physical health, mental health, spiritual health, economic security, education, and social and civic engagement, which provides a broad way to measure veteran well-being. (Sec. 3(a))
-
Inclusive Strategy Development: The President must consult with a wide range of stakeholders, including veterans, their families, and the general public via hearings and surveys, ensuring those affected have a voice. (Sec. 3(b)(2))
-
Tailored Support: The strategy must consider the specific needs of veterans based on demographics such as age, race, sex, disability, health conditions, and geographic location. (Sec. 3(b)(3))
-
Coordination of Services: The bill directs the alignment of federal, state, local, nonprofit, and private sector resources to maximize the efficiency of benefits and services for veterans who are not meeting success metrics. (Sec. 3(b)(5))
-
Accountability and Transparency: The requirement for annual reports on spending and progress, as well as the evaluation of outcomes through standard metrics, ensures the government is held accountable for the strategy's success. (Sec. 3(b)(8) and 3(d)(3))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Conditional Grant Funding: Federal grant recipients must apply the government's standard metrics consistently and uniformly as a condition for continuing to receive their grants, which may place an administrative burden on those organizations. (Sec. 3(b)(8)(B))
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 entire bill is dedicated to improving the success and well-being of veterans. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Targets economic security and efficiency of benefits for those not meeting success metrics. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Explicitly includes disability as a key demographic for tailored support. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically includes Tribal organizations as key stakeholders in the strategy process. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Mandates that the strategy considers the needs of veterans across different racial demographics. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Mandates that the strategy considers the needs of veterans across different racial demographics. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Mandates that the strategy considers the needs of veterans across different racial demographics. Would men be better off under this? — Broadly improves support for the veteran population. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Positive for mid-career veterans seeking stability and health support. Would retired people be better off under this? — Improves long-term health and social engagement metrics for retired veterans. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Requires consideration of geographic location, addressing unique rural veteran needs. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Positive for elderly veterans needing specialized health and social engagement services. Would students be better off under this? — Education is a core metric of success, benefiting veterans pursuing degrees. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides generalized improvements to veteran services across all demographics. Would women be better off under this? — Requires consideration of sex demographics in veteran support strategies. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Positive for transitioning young veterans entering the workforce or education. Would business owners be better off under this? — Encourages veteran entrepreneurship and includes private sector stakeholders. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves overall support systems for veteran families. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Coordination of local government and nonprofit resources helps urban veterans.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Specifically mandates consideration of disability status in the development of the National Veterans Strategy. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Focuses on economic security and opportunity for the veteran population. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Coordination with HUD and focus on economic security directly targets veteran homelessness. Does this make housing cost less? — Includes the Secretary of HUD as a key stakeholder to address economic security and housing. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Requires the strategy to consider the specific needs of veterans across sex demographics. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Requires the strategy to consider the specific needs of veterans across race demographics.
- Healthcare
- Does this help veterans get medical care? — The bill mandates a national strategy focused on physical and mental health metrics for veterans. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Mental health is specifically listed as a core metric for determining veteran well-being and success. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Directs the alignment of resources to assist veterans not meeting health metrics. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — The focus on mental health and overall well-being metrics likely includes addressing substance abuse in veterans. Does this put more money into medical research? — Includes research organizations with expertise on veterans as key stakeholders for the national strategy.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires annual reports on spending and progress toward veteran success goals. Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants the President authority to define success metrics and coordinate agencies and grant recipients.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill explicitly recognizes starting a business as a measure of veteran success and involves the SBA as a stakeholder. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires the alignment of resources and efficiency in the application of benefits across sectors. Is this likely to create jobs? — The strategy aims to improve economic security and opportunity for veterans, potentially increasing their employment. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Better integration of veterans into the workforce can provide a positive return on investment for the economy.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Creates a comprehensive framework to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of veteran benefits.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Requires the strategy to consider geographic locations, including rural veteran populations.
- 5/11/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/29/2026
- Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.
- 3/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/17/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/9/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/29/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
John BoozmanRepublican · Arkansas
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Bill CassidyRepublican · Louisiana
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan