Newsbytes March 14, 2025
In this Issue:
FRA Seeks Answers on Proposed VA Staffing Cuts
Supreme Court Upholds Limits on Veterans’ Appeals
HVAC Legislative Hearing
CR Passes House
Trump Administration Ordered to Reinstate Fired VA Workers
FRA Seeks Answers on Proposed VA Staffing Cuts
March 10, 2025 – The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) has formally reached out to the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, voicing concerns over a proposed reduction of approximately 80,000 employees from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In a letter addressed to Chairmen Jerry Moran (Senate) and Mike Bost (House), as well as Ranking Members Richard Blumenthal (Senate) and Mark Takano (House), FRA National Executive Director Phillip Reid requested clarification on the scope and impact of the proposed staff reductions.
The letter, citing reports that the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are considering a return to 2019 staffing levels, urges Congress to investigate the consequences of such a drastic reduction. FRA is seeking transparency on which job roles are at risk, how the cuts would impact veterans’ services, and what percentage of affected employees are veterans themselves.
FRA has called on the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees to provide detailed information regarding these proposed cuts and their potential effects on healthcare, benefits processing, and other essential services. The association emphasizes the importance of ensuring that veterans continue to receive high-quality care and support without disruption.
FRA has requested a timely response to its inquiries and remains committed to advocating for the well-being of Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard veterans and their families.
Supreme Court Upholds Limits on Veterans’ Appeals
On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling that upheld a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, clarifying the judicial review of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) application of the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule in disability claims. This decision, stemming from the cases of veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton—both denied benefits or higher ratings for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—affirms that the VA’s factual determinations are subject to limited court scrutiny. The ruling has sparked concerns about its impact on veterans navigating an already strained claims system.
The “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule, a longstanding principle codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), mandates that the VA grant a claim when evidence for and against it is evenly balanced. In Bufkin’s case, the VA denied his PTSD claim due to conflicting medical evaluations regarding diagnosis and service connection. Thornton, a Gulf War veteran, received a 50% PTSD disability rating but was denied a higher rating, as the VA found the evidence insufficient. The Veterans Court declined to reassess whether the rule was properly applied, and the Federal Circuit upheld this. Affirming this, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that the court’s role is confined to checking for “clear error,” not reweighing evidence—a task he classified as factual rather than legal. This stance limits the judiciary’s ability to challenge the VA’s factual findings, even when veterans argue they were unfairly denied benefits.
For veterans, this ruling may complicate the VA claims process, potentially making it harder to secure approvals or higher disability ratings. Below are key implications for veterans:
- Limited Judicial Review:
The Veterans Court reviews the VA’s application of the
benefit-of-the-doubt rule for clear error in factual findings, not by
reweighing evidence, unless a legal error is evident.
- Stronger Evidence Needed: Veterans may need clearer evidence to avoid denials or succeed on appeal, as the VA’s factual judgments face less scrutiny.
- Potential for More Denials: With the VA’s discretion strengthened, denials could rise in close-call cases, though no data yet confirms this.
- Impact on Backlogged Claims:
With approximately 370,000 claims pending over 125 days as of September
2024, lengthier appeals to higher courts could add delays, though most
cases end at the Veterans Court.
- Concerns About Pro-Veteran Intent:
Critics, including veterans’ groups like the National Veterans Legal
Services Program, fear this weakens the benefit-of-the-doubt rule’s
pro-veteran intent.
Dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the ruling, with Jackson warning it “all but ensures that the Veterans Court will continue rubberstamping” VA decisions despite Congress’s intent to protect veterans. Their concerns resonate with veterans’ advocates, who argue the decision may disadvantage those who served.
This ruling leaves veterans with fewer options to contest VA decisions, placing greater weight on the agency’s initial assessments. As the VA grapples with a backlog and resource constraints, the decision could deepen frustrations for those seeking timely and fair outcomes. While it clarifies the scope of judicial review, it also underscores ongoing tensions in a system meant to support veterans—leaving many to wonder if the scales of justice remain balanced in their favor.
HVAC Legislative Hearing
The House Veterans Affairs Committee's Economic Opportunity Subcommittee recently held a hearing to review 14 legislative proposals aimed at improving veterans' services. The discussion centered on critical issues such as home loan access, employment readiness programs, and ending veteran homelessness. However, the session quickly became contentious as lawmakers expressed frustration with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials' lack of responsiveness and preparedness.
Key proposals discussed included reforms to the VA Home Loan Program, which seek to modernize eligibility requirements and create better loan mitigation options for veterans. Other bills focused on increasing staff for the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) program, expanding educational benefits for National Guard and Reserve members, and eliminating barriers to cooperative housing for veterans. The "End Veteran Homelessness Act" also gained attention as a measure to provide more comprehensive housing support.
Chairman Derrick Van Orden and Ranking Member Chris Pappas did not hold back in their criticism of VA officials. Van Orden emphasized that the VA needs to be more efficient, stating, "You guys need to get on your game." Pappas echoed these concerns, pointing to staff terminations and their potential impact on service delivery. VA representatives struggled to provide clear answers, with some deferring responses for further review, further frustrating lawmakers.
Veterans' advocacy groups also weighed in, stressing the need for accountability and better outcomes for those who have served. Will Hubbard, a witness at the hearing, highlighted that veterans’ programs should be measured by their long-term success in providing career stability, not just by the number of participants. Representatives from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Paralyzed Veterans of America echoed similar sentiments, pushing for reforms that prioritize effectiveness.
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) remains committed to closely monitoring legislative developments impacting veterans and advocating for policies that align with its legislative agenda. Ensuring the successful passage of bills that directly benefit veterans, particularly those addressing home loans, employment assistance, and homelessness, remains a top priority. As lawmakers continue to debate these proposals, FRA will push for strong oversight and meaningful reforms to ensure veterans receive the benefits and services they deserve.
Watch it Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ2QclW4t3U&t=1s
CR Passes House
On March 11, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (H.R. 1968) by a narrow 217-213 vote. The bill is designed to fund the federal government through September 30, 2025, in order to prevent a partial government shutdown scheduled for March 14. The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it requires bipartisan support to secure its passage before the looming deadline.
A key aspect of the continuing resolution (CR) is its provisions for military personnel and veterans. The bill ensures a 4.5% pay raise for junior enlisted troops (E-1 to E-4), marking the largest increase for this group since the Reagan administration. This pay raise will benefit approximately 600,000 active-duty service members. In addition, the bill increases defense spending by $8 billion over FY 2024, prioritizing military readiness and personnel support.
For veterans, the CR allocates an additional $41.1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to maintain and enhance healthcare services, improve benefits processing, and support essential programs. This funding, specifically for compensation and pensions, aims to prevent disruptions in services for veterans, ensuring continuity of care and benefits even in the face of a potential government shutdown. Unlike typical appropriations bills, this CR keeps prior-year funding levels intact, with targeted anomalies addressing urgent needs like military pay and veterans' benefits.
The political dynamics surrounding the bill show a mix of party support and opposition. The House vote largely adhered to party lines, with one Republican and one Democrat crossing over. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance endorsed the bill, urging Republican unity. In the Senate, which has a Republican majority, the bill’s passage hinges on securing at least eight Democratic votes to meet the 60-vote threshold needed to avoid a filibuster. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has argued that this CR is the best solution to prevent a shutdown, while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has signaled his willingness to support it, despite some concerns.
If the bill is not passed by the March 14 deadline, a partial government shutdown will begin on March 15, 2025. While essential military operations would continue, non-critical functions, such as training and maintenance, may experience delays. Active-duty personnel would remain on duty but without pay until funding is restored. For veterans, while medical services would continue, benefits processing could be disrupted. As of March 13, 2025, the Senate is preparing for a crucial vote, with leaders working to ensure bipartisan cooperation to avoid a shutdown and secure the bill's passage.
Read the Full CR Here: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1968/BILLS-119hr1968eh.pdf
Trump Administration Ordered to Reinstate Fired VA Workers
On March 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration must reinstate thousands of probationary employees terminated from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other federal agencies. The firings, initiated in mid-February, targeted employees with less than a year of service across multiple departments, including the VA, Department of Defense, and Treasury Department. The decision came after a lawsuit by labor unions and advocacy groups, arguing that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) overstepped its authority. Judge Alsup criticized the administration’s justification for the firings and ordered immediate reinstatement.
The Trump administration has made reducing the federal workforce a priority, with roughly 25,000 federal workers terminated and 75,000 accepting buyouts by early March. Critics argue these cuts undermine government functionality, with plaintiffs like Erik Molvar of the Western Watersheds Project claiming they threaten public lands and the rule of law. Despite the ruling, the administration plans to appeal, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the decision “absurd” and an infringement on executive power.
For veterans, the ruling has significant consequences. The VA had already laid off 2,400 probationary workers in February and planned to cut over 80,000 more by June.
The ruling has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters hail it as a win for fairness, while critics view it as judicial overreach that hinders efforts to streamline government. The legal battle continues, with other lawsuits challenging the firings and indicating growing resistance to the administration’s approach.
This decision highlights the tension between government efficiency and accountability. The case’s outcome could influence the federal government’s ability to serve its citizens, including veterans.