The solemn promise a nation makes to care for its veterans is not fulfilled by policies or proclamations alone, but through the daily, dedicated work of hundreds of thousands of public servants. When the bond of trust between the leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and this essential workforce fractures, the integrity of that promise is put at risk. A growing crisis of confidence within the VA, fueled by a series of contentious policy decisions and a perceived disconnect from leadership, now threatens to undermine the very care and services our nation’s heroes depend upon. This internal erosion is not merely an administrative issue; it has profound, real-world consequences for veteran well-being, raising critical questions about the department’s direction and its ability to fulfill its sacred mission.
When Tragedy Becomes a Talking Point: How a Leader’s Response Revealed a Deeper Crisis
The violent death of Alex Pretti, a VA nurse and dedicated union member, sent a shockwave of grief through the department. Pretti was tragically killed by federal agents while coming to the aid of a woman in distress, a selfless act that ended in an inexplicable loss. For VA employees, the death of a colleague under such circumstances was a moment for collective mourning and a call for institutional support and compassion from the highest levels of leadership.
Instead, the official response from Secretary Doug Collins’s office was seen by many employees as jarringly political. The Secretary’s public statement quickly pivoted from a brief acknowledgment of Pretti’s employment to a broader political grievance, blaming state and local officials for a supposed lack of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This jarring shift transformed a human tragedy into an ideological talking point, framing the event within a narrative of urban decay. For a workforce already feeling beleaguered, the response was perceived as profoundly dispiriting, reinforcing a growing belief that their leadership filters even personal loss through a political lens rather than responding with humanity and restraint.
The Foundation of Service: Why Trust Between VA Leadership and Staff is Non-Negotiable
The Department of Veterans Affairs is entrusted with one of the nation’s most sacred obligations: to provide comprehensive care and support for those who have served in the military. This mission is entirely dependent on the skill, dedication, and morale of its frontline employees—the doctors, nurses, claims adjudicators, and support staff who interact with veterans every day. The quality of their work is a direct reflection of the health of the institution itself.
It is a fundamental principle of organizational management that a demoralized and distrustful workforce cannot deliver consistently excellent service. When employees feel that their well-being is disregarded, their professional judgment is undermined, and their voices are silenced, the inevitable results are decreased engagement, higher attrition, and a decline in the quality of care. For the VA, this is not an abstract concept; it translates directly into longer wait times for medical appointments, delayed benefits decisions, and an erosion of the compassionate culture veterans deserve. Trust is not a “soft” metric but the essential bedrock upon which the entire system of veteran care is built. This perspective is championed by figures like Douglas Massey, a nearly 30-year VA insider and union advocate, whose long tenure provides a frontline view of how this trust deficit is playing out.
A Pattern of Erosion: The Policies Dismantling Employee Morale and Stability
A significant blow to leadership’s credibility came with the announcement of a plan to eliminate approximately 83,000 positions, roughly 15% of the total VA workforce. Secretary Collins publicly assured Congress and veterans’ groups that these sweeping reductions would not impact frontline healthcare providers. This assurance was shattered, however, by the emergence of an internal VA document outlining potential cuts to thousands of clinical positions. The revelation created a chasm between public rhetoric and internal planning, leaving employees to question the sincerity of any statement from the top. This is particularly concerning as independent reports already link existing staffing shortages directly to increased veteran wait times and delays in care.
Perhaps the most damaging action has been the reclassification of thousands of employees as “national security” personnel, a move that effectively terminates their collective bargaining rights. This decision affected a wide range of professionals, from nurses and claims examiners to schedulers and attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Employees widely view the “national security” justification as a transparent pretext to weaken unions, which serve as a critical check on management power and a protected channel for raising concerns. By stripping these rights, leadership has removed a vital mechanism for accountability and dissent, leaving many workers feeling exposed and silenced.
Compounding these structural changes is a perceived cultural disconnect. Employees have noted agency-wide communications that focus on ideological issues, such as alleged anti-Christian bias within the department. For staff members immersed in the daily, practical mission of serving veterans, these messages feel entirely divorced from their responsibilities and the real challenges they face. With robust legal protections against religious discrimination already in place under Title VII, many are left to wonder about the purpose of these communications, which seem to ignore pressing operational concerns in favor of a culture war narrative.
Voices from the Inside: Evidence of a System Under Strain
The contradiction over staffing cuts became a focal point of public scrutiny during a House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing. Representative Mark Takano confronted Secretary Collins directly with the internal document detailing potential cuts to clinical staff, a document that stood in stark contrast to the Secretary’s public promises. Rather than denying its authenticity, Secretary Collins dismissed the document as “pre-decisional” and criticized its public disclosure. For many VA employees watching, this non-denial served as confirmation that their concerns were valid, further cementing the belief that leadership was not being transparent about its intentions for the workforce.
The consequences of silencing the workforce have been tangible. At the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, for example, soon after employees had their bargaining rights removed, management unilaterally imposed significantly higher production quotas. This move coincided with a noticeable increase in employee attrition and growing concerns about the quality and accuracy of benefits decisions. Without the ability to formally negotiate over working conditions, employees were left with little recourse. This situation illustrates how the removal of collective bargaining is not an abstract legal change; it has direct, negative impacts on the very services veterans rely on.
This approach stands in sharp contrast to past leadership philosophies. Former VA Secretary Bob McDonald frequently argued that culture and trust were the absolute foundation of institutional performance and veteran care. His perspective was that a healthy, empowered, and respected workforce was the single most important asset the VA possessed. The current strategy appears to be a departure from that belief, prioritizing top-down directives and the consolidation of management power over the cultivation of a collaborative and trust-based environment.
Rebuilding the Pact: A Framework for Restoring Trust and Mission Focus
Restoring the fractured trust within the VA requires a fundamental shift away from opacity and toward genuine transparency. Leadership must move beyond dismissing inconvenient documents as “pre-decisional” and engage in open, honest communication about workforce plans. This includes providing clear justifications for any proposed changes and detailing how they will impact the department’s ability to serve veterans effectively. True transparency builds credibility and demonstrates respect for the workforce as partners in the mission.
A critical step in this restoration process is the reinstatement of collective bargaining rights for all employees. These rights are not an impediment to efficiency but a vital channel for ensuring patient safety and accountability. They provide a protected avenue for employees to raise legitimate concerns about unsafe workloads, systemic failures, or inadequate resources without fear of reprisal. Re-empowering the workforce through their unions would send a powerful message that their expertise is valued and their voice is essential to the health of the organization.
Ultimately, rebuilding the pact with employees and, by extension, with veterans, demands a recommitment to mission-driven leadership. This means realigning all communications and policy decisions with the core purpose of the VA, eliminating ideologically driven distractions that do not contribute to better care or faster benefits. It requires acknowledging that a direct investment in the VA workforce—through stable policies, fair working conditions, and reasonable accommodations—is the most direct and effective investment that can be made in the quality of veteran care. The path forward must be paved with integrity, mutual respect, and an unwavering focus on the men and women the department was created to serve.
