In 2003, thousands of young Americans boarded military transport planes for Iraq, duffel bags thrown over their shoulders, believing the hardest part would be the months ahead. What few could see coming were the years that followed: respiratory diagnoses, disability claims tied to toxic exposure, paperwork battles that continued long after uniforms were packed away.

War is authorized in weeks. The cost of war spans a lifetime. That disparity is what sits at the center of a new proposal in Congress, the Full Cost of War Act, a bill designed to change what lawmakers must consider before sending troops into future conflicts.

Before Troops Deploy, Congress Would Have to Plan for Lifetime Care

Reintroduced in January 2026 by Rep. Chris Deluzio and other Veteran lawmakers, the Full Cost of War Act (H.R. 7174) would require that any future Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or formal declaration of war include funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

That authorization would cover medical care, disability compensation, and other earned benefits tied to the military operation. Projected costs would be jointly determined by the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The legislation does not change how wars are fought. It changes what must be acknowledged before they begin.

Post-9/11 Wars Revealed the True Long-Term Cost

Supporters say the bill reflects a hard-learned lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. Research from Brown University’s Costs of War Project shows that Veterans’ care and disability payments often become one of the largest and fastest-growing expenses tied to present-day conflicts, continuing to rise decades after fighting ends. For post-9/11 Veterans alone, long-term care costs are projected to reach trillions of dollars over time, reportedly expected to double by 2050 according to earlier reporting.

Those realities were not fully visible when early war votes were cast. Supporters say that’s exactly the point: future war decisions shouldn’t begin without confronting those realities first, securing the cost of care for our nation’s Veterans.

The Best Sitrep for Today's Vets.

Benefits intel, military tech, field-tested gear, untold stories of those who served, and history like you've never heard before. Sign up for the VeteranLife newsletter.

​

Subscribe

Always free. 🇺🇸 | Unsubscribe anytime.

The Bill Is Still Early and Faces a Long Road Ahead

H.R. 7174 is currently with the House Foreign Affairs Committee at an early legislative stage. For the bill to become law, it must move out of committee, receive approval from both the House and Senate, and then be signed by the president.

Like many structural reforms, its road forward is uncertain. And in Washington, uncertain can often mean slow.

What This Would and Would Not Change for Veterans Today

For Veterans and service members, one point is critical to understand: this bill would not change current VA benefits. If passed, it applies only to future conflicts authorized after its passage. It would not increase disability compensation rates, speed up claims processing, or expand eligibility for existing benefits.

Instead, it would require Congress to authorize funding for Veterans’ care at the same time it authorizes military force, while actual appropriations would still follow the normal budget process. Its impact would be structural, determining how future wars are planned, not changing the claims Veterans are navigating today.

Military Families Have Seen This Pattern Before

For many in the military community, the issue reflects lived experience. Agent Orange recognition took decades. Gulf War illness claims faced extended disputes. Burn-pit exposure reforms required years of advocacy before becoming law. In each case, the long-term cost of service became clear only after veterans began seeking care in the years after.

Legislative battles are still ongoing on multiple fronts. Supporters argue the Full Cost of War Act attempts to address that pattern at its source, by requiring lawmakers to confront lifelong obligations before approving combat operations. Critics counter that forecasting future care costs remains inherently uncertain and that authorization alone does not guarantee funding.

Both realities exist and are valid, and that tension is part of this debate.

Future War Debates Could Look Very Different

Requiring projections of Veterans’ care costs during AUMF debates can reshape how Congress evaluates military action. It may slow rapid authorization timelines, increase scrutiny of long-term fiscal commitments, and bring Veterans’ care into early national security discussions

It would not prevent military action. But it would make the long-term consequences harder to defer. For the young service member boarding a deployment flight today, the most consequential chapter may not be the months overseas. It may be the years afterward, when symptoms emerge, paperwork begins, and the nation’s promise of lifelong care is tested.

The Full Cost of War Act is an attempt to move that reality to the front of the conversation, before the vote is cast, before the deployment orders arrive, before the cost becomes personal.

Suggested reads:

• States Move to Shut Down 'Claim Sharks' Targeting Veterans' Disability Benefits
• Senate Introduces 2026 Bill to Define "Veteran Success" and Create First National Strategy
• Why the Halted VA Medication Rule Still Matters & Its Future Impact