Trump and the Republican majority in the House of Representatives continue to reshape federal spending, and now they are proposing a bill that would allocate 453 billion dollars (it’s a lot of money, we know) for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the next fiscal year (2026).
But… does this mean that social and health policy is going to be reduced? Are they going to restrict access to key benefits? We’ll explain everything below!
A historic increase… but with tricks
Here’s the deal: this bill aims to allocate an increase of 83 billion dollars to the VA budget, a 22% increase compared to last year. This proposal is part of the One Big Beautiful Bill that was already passed in May (and yes, it led to staff cuts in the department that sparked protests across the country).
But wait, because there’s even more, the acceptance of this bill would mean that many things would no longer be as they are now…
In total, the figures are:
The budget increased by 22% (83 billion dollars), with almost all the new money going to health care and benefits like disability payments.
- Discretionary money goes up by 4% to around 134 billion dollars.
- Also2.5 billion dollars will modernize the VA’s medical records system, doubling the previous amount but 1 billion dollars less than what the White House wanted.
- Also, 18 billion dollars were allocated for military construction, including 830 million dollars for childcare centers and improvements in barracks.
Why is this important?
From the beginning, these programs have had bipartisan support and constant increases, now, both Trump and his team want to increase spending for mandatory medical care and to be able to pay the benefits.
What is the concern then?
Well, this bill also has policy changes that are somewhat controversial… Among them is the ban on abortions in VA hospitals (except in cases of life-threatening risk to the mother) and the removal of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for health personnel. It also limits the reporting of veterans deemed financially incompetent to the national background check system for gun purchases, something that has raised alarms among those who fear more gun violence.
A risk to the safety and health of veterans?
For Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Democrat), the law is a step backward, “This bill is obsessed with keeping guns in the hands of potentially dangerous people and restricting reproductive rights” she said. According to her, the measure not only distracts from the real needs of veterans but also exposes them to more risks.
The Republican point of view
For his part, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Tom Cole, defends the bill and says it honors the commitment to those who served the country and improves care for veterans and their families. For Republicans, the key is to increase investment in health care and infrastructure, without expanding federal regulation.
What does this mean for veterans?
Although most of the additional money is earmarked for health care and housing construction for the military, the ban on abortions and the lifting of the mandatory vaccination could limit access to comprehensive health services.
On the other hand, the limitation on reporting financial incompetence to the gun verification system worries organizations that fight for veterans’ mental health. For them, the measure could facilitate access to weapons for people in crisis.
What happens next?
The proposal has already passed the House, but now it must face the Senate, where Democratic opposition and the filibuster rule could block or modify its most controversial points. What’s clear is that, in the meantime, thousands of veterans and their families are anxiously waiting to know if these changes will be final or not.
So, the next few months will be decisive. If the Senate rejects the most controversial restrictions, it could reopen the debate on how to ensure benefits for veterans without sacrificing rights or public health. And you, what do you think about this?
