When Congress debates whether to send U.S. forces into harm’s way, the financial discussion typically centers on near-term operational costs: troop deployments, weapons systems, logistics, and sustainment.
Two veteran lawmakers argue this framing leaves out one of the most predictable and enduring consequences of war: the obligation to care for those who return home. Their proposal, the Full Cost of War Act, seeks to hardwire that obligation into the earliest stages of any future conflict decision.
Reintroduced in the 119th Congress by Chris Deluzio and Ted Lieu, the bill would require Congress to authorize funding for veterans’ medical care, disability compensation, and related benefits at the same time it authorizes the use of military force or declares war. The measure aims to ensure that caring for veterans is not treated as a downstream budget issue, but as an integral component of the cost of military action itself.
What the Bill Would Do
The Full Cost of War Act is narrowly written but structurally significant. Under its terms, any authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or declaration of war enacted after the bill becomes law would have to include an authorization of appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That authorization would cover “such sums as may be necessary” to provide medical care, disability compensation, and other earned benefits resulting from the conflict, as jointly determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The bill does not dictate a specific dollar figure or create an automatic funding stream. Instead, it imposes a procedural requirement: Congress cannot authorize force without also acknowledging, in statutory form, that veterans’ care costs will follow.
The actual appropriations would still occur through the normal budget process, preserving Congress’s constitutional power of the purse while forcing lawmakers to confront the long-term fiscal implications up front.
Why This Matters in Practice
Since World War II, Congress has relied primarily on AUMFs rather than formal declarations of war to authorize military action. The 2001 AUMF, passed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, has served as the legal basis for operations in multiple countries over more than two decades.
During that same period, the cost of caring for post-9/11 veterans has grown steadily, with long-term obligations extending decades beyond the end of major combat operations.
Research from the Congressional Budget Office has shown that veterans’ benefits and medical care constitute a substantial portion of the total cost of war over time, often rivaling or exceeding direct combat expenditures in later years. Despite that reality, those costs are rarely central to the initial authorization debate, which tends to focus on immediate national security concerns.
By tying VA funding authorization to AUMFs, the Full Cost of War Act would function as a forcing mechanism. Lawmakers voting to approve military force would have to do so with explicit recognition that future veterans’ care is a foreseeable and unavoidable consequence rather than a discretionary add-on.
Supporters’ Rationale
Deluzio, a Navy veteran, has framed the bill as a matter of moral consistency. In announcing the legislation, he argued that if the government cannot commit to funding veterans’ care in advance, it should not commit troops to combat at all. Lieu, an Air Force veteran, has emphasized that the “full cost” of military action includes the lifelong care owed to servicemembers who are injured or disabled as a result of those decisions.
The proposal does not limit presidential authority directly, nor does it repeal existing AUMFs. Instead, it operates at the intersection of war powers and budgeting, reinforcing Congress’s role in both areas without altering the substantive criteria for authorizing force.
Potential Legal and Budgetary Effects
From a legal standpoint, the bill would not change the standards under which force may be authorized. Congress would still debate and define the scope, duration, and objectives of any military action. The new requirement would add a parallel authorization related to veterans’ benefits, potentially expanding committee involvement to include those with jurisdiction over veterans’ affairs and appropriations.
Budgetarily, the act could make the long-term costs of war more visible to both lawmakers and the public. While it would not prevent future supplemental appropriations, it would embed an acknowledgment of veterans’ care costs in the authorizing statute itself. That acknowledgment could influence future debates over the size and scope of military engagements, particularly in an era of sustained pressure on the VA health care system.
Critics could argue the bill adds procedural complexity without guaranteeing sufficient funding, since authorizations do not appropriate money by themselves. Supporters counter that the symbolic and practical effect of requiring explicit recognition of veterans’ costs is precisely the point.
A Structural Shift, Not a Spending Mandate
The Full Cost of War Act does not promise new benefits or expand eligibility within the VA system. Instead, it seeks to align Congress’s war-making decisions with its long-term obligations to those who serve.
By embedding veterans’ care into the initial authorization framework, the bill reflects a broader argument: wars do not end when combat operations cease, and the government’s responsibilities do not end when troops come home.
Whether the legislation gains traction remains uncertain. Still, its premise resonates with a growing bipartisan interest in reassessing how Congress authorizes and oversees military force. At minimum, the bill forces a question that has often been deferred: if the nation is willing to fight, is it also willing to pay the full cost of that decision, including decades of care for the men and women who carried it out?
