The Same Week Congress Moved to Fix a 20-Year Injustice, the White House Moved to Create a New One.
April 17, 2026 — Whiskey Leaks
Two pieces of legislation affecting veterans moved through Washington in the same news cycle this week. One is a long-overdue correction. The other is a quiet dismantlement. Neither received the coverage they deserved. You should know about both.
The Case for the Richard Star Act
A Bipartisan Bill. A Simple Principle. Twenty Years Overdue.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Representative Gus Bilirakis of Florida — a Democrat and a Republican — reintroduced the Major Richard Star Act this week, joined by veterans advocacy organizations that have been pushing for its passage across multiple sessions of Congress.
The bill addresses a structural inequity that the federal government has permitted to stand for decades. When a service member is combat-injured and medically retired before completing 20 years of service, current law requires them to offset their VA disability compensation against their military retirement pay, dollar for dollar. These are not the same benefit. Military retirement pay compensates for years of service rendered. VA disability compensation addresses the long-term consequences of injuries sustained in that service. Treating them as interchangeable is an accounting fiction that penalizes the wounded for being wounded.
An estimated 54,000 veterans currently live under this constraint, many of them carrying severe, career-ending injuries. The Congressional Budget Office has placed the cost of correcting this at $9.75 billion over ten years. That figure is often cited as the reason the bill keeps stalling. Senator Blumenthal offered a useful frame: the current administration is requesting $1.5 trillion for defense in 2027. The cost of the Richard Star Act over a decade is less than one percent of a single year of that request. The bill's sponsors are pushing to attach it to must-pass legislation — a defense authorization bill or supplemental spending package — before the end of this year.
|
54,000 combat-injured veterans cannot receive both their retirement pay and their disability compensation simultaneously. One compensates for service. The other compensates for injury. They are not the same thing. Congress knows this. It has known it for twenty years. |
The Case Against the OPM Rule
The Comment Period Closes May 4. That Is Seventeen Days from Now.
On March 5, 2026, the Office of Personnel Management published a proposed rule in the Federal Register — docket 2026-04377 — that would fundamentally reorder how federal agencies determine which employees are protected from layoffs during a reduction in force.
The current framework, which descends in part from the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, places veterans’ preference near the top of the retention hierarchy. When agencies conduct large-scale layoffs, employees are classified for retention based first on tenure category, then on veterans’ preference status, then on length of service, and finally on performance ratings. The proposed rule would move performance ratings to the top, reducing veterans’ preference to a secondary factor — a set of additive points rather than a protection threshold.
The consequences are direct. More than 621,000 veterans serve in the federal civilian workforce. Approximately 60 percent of them carry a service-connected disability. Under the proposed rule, a non-veteran employee with a marginally higher performance score could be retained over a disabled veteran with decades of combined military and federal service. The performance records used to make that determination would be drawn from the three most recent rating cycles — cycles conducted under the same administration that has been conducting mass federal layoffs and has explicitly described the federal workforce as a target for reduction.
The Disabled American Veterans, through national service director Scott Hope, submitted a formal comment to the public record characterizing the rule as exceeding OPM’s statutory authority, failing to satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and unlawfully diminishing veterans’ preference rights that have existed in federal law for more than eighty years. The VFW has also registered concern. DAV noted specifically that the rule would displace experienced veteran employees who are integral to the delivery of benefits and health care to millions of veterans, their families, and survivors.
Read that last point carefully. The veterans most likely to be pushed out under this rule are the ones currently processing your claims, staffing your VA facilities, and ensuring the delivery of the services the Richard Star Act is trying to expand.
|
The same government that cannot find the money to pass the Richard Star Act is proposing to eliminate the employment protections of the veterans who staff the offices that deliver veterans’ services. This is not an oversight. It is a policy direction. |
These two stories, appearing in the same news cycle, are not unrelated. They describe the same government operating in two directions at once: a bipartisan coalition in Congress working to close a gap that has penalized wounded veterans for two decades, while the executive branch moves through a regulatory process to dismantle protections that have been in place since the end of World War II.
You have two actions available to you right now. The letter below addresses both. Use it.
Sources: Newsweek — Major Richard Star Act | Newsweek — OPM Proposed Rule | Federal Register Docket 2026-04377
Take Action
Contact Your Senator and Representative. Submit a Public Comment. Do Both.
Use the official contact portals below to reach your Senator and Representative. A professional, direct message takes less than five minutes and reaches a real staff member. The form letter beneath the buttons addresses both the Richard Star Act and the OPM rule in a single communication.
The OPM rule is also open for public comment in the federal regulatory record. That comment period closes May 4, 2026. A public comment submitted to the Federal Register carries legal weight during the rulemaking process — it is not a petition. It is a formal record. Submit one.
| Find Your Senator | Find Your Representative | Submit Public Comment → |
Sample Letter
Copy, Customize, and Send
Replace all bracketed fields before sending. Add a sentence about your own connection to military service or VA benefits if you have one — personal context strengthens the message. Use “Dear Senator” or “Dear Representative” as appropriate.
|
[Today's Date]
The Honorable [Full Name] [Office Address] [City, State, ZIP] Dear Senator / Representative [Last Name], I am writing as a constituent on two matters currently before Congress and the executive branch that directly affect America's veterans community. SUPPORT THE MAJOR RICHARD STAR ACT I urge you to co-sponsor and advance the Major Richard Star Act. This legislation corrects a decades-old inequity that requires combat-injured veterans who were medically retired before completing 20 years of service to offset their VA disability compensation against their military retirement pay. These are not the same benefit. One compensates for years of service; the other compensates for injuries sustained in that service. An estimated 54,000 veterans currently live under this penalty, many of them with severe, career-ending injuries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at $9.75 billion over ten years — a figure that must be weighed against the scale of current defense spending. I ask that you support attaching this bill to the first available must-pass legislation in the current session. OPPOSE THE OPM REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PROPOSED RULE I urge you to oppose the Office of Personnel Management's proposed rule (Federal Register Docket 2026-04377), which would eliminate veterans' preference as a primary protection in federal reduction-in-force procedures. More than 621,000 veterans serve in the federal civilian workforce; approximately 60 percent of them carry a service-connected disability. Under the proposed rule, a non-veteran with a marginally stronger performance record could displace a disabled veteran with decades of federal service. Veterans' preference in federal employment has been codified law since 1944. This rule proposes to make it a secondary consideration. That is not a reform. It is a reversal of a commitment this country made to those who served. I urge you to use every available legislative and oversight tool to oppose this rule and to ensure that veterans' preference protections remain substantive and enforceable. Veterans do not ask for favors. They ask for the commitments made to them to be honored. Respectfully, [Your Name] [Your Street Address] [City, State, ZIP] [Phone or Email — Optional] |
Personalize before sending. Add your name, address, and any direct experience with military service, VA benefits, or federal employment. A letter with your personal context is more effective than a form letter sent verbatim.
