“Transfer all career Senior Executive Service employees out of PA/PAS-designated positions on the first day and ensure political control of the VA.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 651)
PA designated positions can be filled with presidential appointees without senate confirmation, while PAS designated positions can be similarly filled but require senate confirmation. Considering that confirming PAS appointees took an average of 115 days during the last presidency, it remains to be seen how they intend on transferring these positions legitimately on day 1.
When combined with other policies, the scope becomes increasingly alarming. On page 112 of the same document, the writers advocate for the reinstatement of schedule F, which would reclassify many federal employees as PA, allowing the president to fire them and replace them with political appointees. This is important for veterans as this could replace veterans, doctors, and scientists responsible for determining what kind of benefits and care veterans can receive through the VA. This was characterized by Trump’s former chair of the Federal Salary Council as “a smokescreen… to replace apolitical expertise with political obeisance.”
Executive Service (SES) employees have historically served as a link between political appointees and the rest of the federal workforce, ensuring effective government operations during administration transitions. Replacing SES members with political appointees is not normally done. Since the career experts in VA operations and policy will be fired, all veterans could encounter service interruptions associated with turnover and political backlash. These new political appointees may or may not have any relevant experience leading to even more problems.
Replacing legally nonpartisan expertise with political loyalists incentivized to reduce costs at the expense of veteran care is not in the best interest of veterans.
“Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 647)
CBOCs are critical for ensuring access to VA health benefits where VA facilities are distant, overburdened, or lacking in specialty care. This flexibility comes with increased costs, less consistent medical outcomes, and longer average wait-times. The Project 2025 proposal is to funnel more veterans into these private facilities while neglecting to invest in desperately needed VA infrastructure. This puts the VA on a concerning path toward cost ineffective care outsourcing. Combined with the other stated goal of achieving significant cost savings by providing reduced benefits, this paints a grim picture for the future of VA healthcare.
The author does not state what would be considered an “obsolete” and/or “unaffordable” VA health care campus. The VA currently has plans to construct new or rebuild a number of VAMCs – under this policy proposal, those VAMCs would either get scrapped or replaced with CBOCs.
Additionally, the emphasis on moving care from VA facilities to CBOCs and private-sector providers could disrupt the continuity of care for veterans. Veterans accustomed to receiving integrated care within VA facilities might find it challenging to go between multiple providers and guarantee they are getting the care they need.
“Develop a new pilot ‘Express 30’ commitment for a veteran’s first fully developed disability compensation claim and organize the VBA to complete the first claim in 30 days.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 649)
Increasing reliance on contractors and automation to process disability claims might result in incomplete or inaccurate evaluations, potentially harming veterans who depend on these benefits.
“Eliminate or move Office of Postsecondary Education programs” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 327)
The Office of Postsecondary Education administers over 60 programs. While Project 2025 doesn’t list all the programs to be eliminated, it clarifies that institutional funding should only go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and tribally controlled colleges. This would mean cutting programs aimed at helping veterans, people with disabilities, research & development, rural learners, and Hispanic-serving institutions.
“Target significant cost savings from revising disability rating awards for future claimants while preserving them fully or partially for existing claimants.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 650)
The VA assigns disability ratings based on the severity of military service-connected conditions. These ratings determine monthly disability compensation and eligibility for other VA benefits. The author does not clarify which ratings will be revised or by how much. But considering they say “significant cost savings” and only committed to preserving existing claimants’ awards “partially,” the implication is that veterans’ benefits will be cut significantly.
“The VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) has assigned disability ratings to a growing number of health conditions over time; some are tenuously related or wholly unrelated to military service.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 649)
Research has shown that veterans have significantly worse health outcomes when compared to the general population. The VA already under-compensates for the impact of having multiple medical conditions on veterans overall health. The document ignores these realities and uses statements like this to argue for cutting benefits for the already under-served veteran population.
“Congress and the Office of Personnel Management should be engaged on ways to provide authorities for a higher number of non-career PA positions.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 652)
PA designated positions can be filled with presidential appointees without senate confirmation. These are political appointees intended to serve a political function in the organization. Increasing the number of these employees is a very direct method of making the organization itself more political. Ensuring that veterans receive appropriate medical care, housing, and other benefits shouldn’t be more political than it already is.
“Anticipate the inevitable opportunities for legal challenges from organized labor – and be prepared for them to happen and be dragged out” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 653)
The writers here seem to understand that their personnel policies for the VA would be highly detrimental for the existing employees of the VA, and are preemptively preparing to fight the response. It is unclear here whether they anticipate a response to their plans to reclassify and fire many of the VA decision makers without cause, or their plans to transition increasing portions of VA operations into private contractors.
“Pursue reforms of the Human Capital Management process and operations within the VBA to build a more blended workforce with more contractors” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 650)
This appears to be a cash-grab for government contractors looking to fill the jobs of government employees.
“Rescind all departmental clinical policy directives that are contrary to principles of conservative governance starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Veterans, Page 644)
The VA only covers abortions in very specific scenarios: when the life or health of the pregnant Veteran is endangered, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Despite these conditions, 88 veterans found themselves relying on this potentially life-saving service between Sept. 2022 and Sept 2023. While 72% of Republican voters identify as pro-life, 76% of Republican voters also believe that it should be OK to receive abortions under such extraordinary circumstances. Proposing this change to VA policy shows a disregard for both the lives of female veterans and the widespread opinions of those whom they claim to represent.
The author is lying about gender-affirming care – the VA does not cover gender-affirming surgeries for transgender veterans. However, this policy would likely remove other transgender healthcare the VA covers: hormone therapy, mental health care, preoperative evaluation, post-operative care, and long-term care following surgery.
The impact of this policy is that female, pregnant, and transgender Veterans will not be able to access the care they need, and will be forced to seek care outside the VA. Since Project 2025 also removes transgender and reproductive health access for civilians, they may be forced to seek care in other states or countries.
