I’m thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, who heads Government Curated. With his deep expertise in federal oversight and veterans’ affairs, Donald offers unparalleled insight into the recent legislative changes impacting the Veterans Affairs (VA) Department. Today, we’ll explore the newly signed Protecting Regular Order for Veterans Act, delve into the controversies surrounding VA bonuses and budget shortfalls, and discuss how these reforms aim to restore trust and accountability. Let’s dive into this critical conversation about supporting our nation’s veterans.
How would you describe the core purpose of the Protecting Regular Order for Veterans Act, signed into law on August 14, and what broader issues within the VA does it seek to address?
The Protecting Regular Order for Veterans Act, or S. 423, is fundamentally about restoring accountability and transparency within the VA. Signed by President Trump on August 14, its primary goal is to prevent the kind of mismanagement and scandals we’ve seen recently by tightening oversight. It addresses systemic issues like improper bonus distributions and budget miscalculations by imposing stricter rules on incentives for senior executives and mandating regular congressional briefings. This law is a direct response to public and congressional frustration over how the VA has handled critical resources meant for veterans.
Can you walk us through the specific changes this law introduces regarding bonuses for VA senior executives, and why these restrictions were deemed necessary?
Absolutely. One of the key provisions of this law is a prohibition on recruitment and retention incentives for Senior Executive Service members in the VA’s central office. This was put in place because of recent controversies where bonuses were handed out too broadly, often without proper justification. The law also ensures that critical skill incentives are awarded on an individual basis, not to groups, to avoid blanket payouts. Furthermore, these incentives now require approval from high-level VA officials, including the assistant secretaries for Human Resources and Accountability, as well as the general counsel. These restrictions were necessary to curb the kind of overzealous application of bonus programs that led to millions being paid out improperly.
What’s the significance of the VA being required to provide quarterly, in-person briefings to congressional veterans’ committees under this new legislation?
These quarterly briefings are a game-changer for oversight. For the next three years, VA officials must meet face-to-face with congressional veterans’ committees to report on the department’s budget and any shortfalls. This isn’t just a formality—it’s about creating a direct line of communication to ensure Congress is fully informed about financial challenges and can act swiftly if needed. These briefings will cover critical topics like budget status and potential funding gaps, which have been major pain points recently. It’s a way to hold the VA accountable in real time and prevent surprises like the projected shortfalls we’ve seen.
Speaking of recent challenges, can you shed light on the controversies surrounding critical skill incentives at the VA and how they contributed to the need for this law?
Certainly. The controversy stems from the implementation of the PACT Act, which expanded benefits for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits and included provisions for critical skill incentives to attract and retain staff in high-demand roles. However, the VA misapplied these provisions, approving $11 million in bonuses to nearly all senior executives in key administrations. The VA’s inspector general called this an “improper and overzealous application,” and it sparked outrage because these funds were meant to support staffing for veterans’ care, not pad executive pay. Former VA Secretary Denis McDonough later apologized and worked to recover those funds, but the damage to public trust was done, highlighting the urgent need for reforms like those in S. 423.
Another major issue has been the VA’s budget shortfall. Can you explain what led to the projected $3 billion gap and how it ties into broader management concerns?
The projected $3 billion shortfall at the VA is a complex issue, largely tied to the PACT Act’s expansion of benefits. With more veterans eligible for care and compensation, the VA saw a higher-than-expected volume of claims decisions, which strained their budget. VA officials admitted they underestimated the workload and costs. On top of that, their calculations failed to account for carryover funding from prior years—unspent funds that could have offset the gap. According to a VA inspector general report, including those recoveries in monthly reports would have shown a lower risk of shortfall. This oversight, combined with the bonus scandal, painted a picture of fiscal mismanagement that Congress had to address through emergency funding and now this new law.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the VA’s ability to rebuild trust and effectively manage resources under these new legislative constraints?
I’m cautiously optimistic about the VA’s future, but it’s going to take consistent effort. The Protecting Regular Order for Veterans Act provides a strong framework for accountability with its restrictions on bonuses and mandatory briefings, which should help prevent repeats of recent scandals. However, rebuilding trust requires more than just laws—it demands cultural change within the VA to prioritize veterans over internal politics or mismanagement. If leadership embraces transparency and Congress maintains rigorous oversight, I believe the VA can restore confidence. But it’s a long road, and we’ll need to see sustained commitment to these reforms over the next few years to truly turn the page.
