All Due Respect: VFW

The VFW is Mobilizing

Elizabeth Hartman — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 19:58:34 GMT

In an email sent Wednesday evening, National Adjutant General Dan West called on VFW leadership nationwide to converge on Washington next week. The House may take up the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (TCAVA) as early as next week, and the VFW wants boots on the ground in congressional offices before that happens.

The plan:

• July 14–15: Hill Mobilization — VFW advocacy teams working congressional offices

• July 15, 4:00 p.m.: Press conference on the House Triangle

• Registration for participants closes Sunday, July 12 at 11:59 p.m. ET

West’s message was direct about the stakes: “the decisions made in the coming days could have lasting consequences for future generations of veterans,” and leadership showing up “demonstrates that our organization is united in protecting the earned benefits of today’s and tomorrow’s veterans.”

Dan West, Adjutant General, VFW

A century ago, Congress made a promise to WWI veterans it didn’t intend to keep for two decades. In 1924, lawmakers passed the World War Adjusted Compensation Act — the “Bonus Act” — awarding veterans certificates worth up to $625 for their service. There was a catch: the certificates couldn’t be cashed until 1945. President Coolidge vetoed the bill outright, warning that “patriotism… bought and paid for is not patriotism.” Congress overrode him anyway.

Twenty-one years is a long time to wait when you’re out of work. By 1932, with the Great Depression grinding on and veterans unable to find jobs, the promise made in 1924 became a demand for immediate payment. Roughly 20,000 WWI veterans, many with their wives and kids, marched on Washington that summer as the “Bonus Expeditionary Force,” setting up camp on the Anacostia Flats and in vacant buildings near the Capitol. The VFW itself had been part of the original push for the 1924 bonus and helped organize petition drives that spring in support of a bill to move up payment.

The Senate killed that bill in June 1932. Most marchers refused to leave. On July 28, on Hoover’s orders, the U.S. Army, under General Douglas MacArthur, with a young Dwight Eisenhower on his staff, moved on the encampments with cavalry, tanks, and tear gas (you should be able to see the relevance of the protest art, now). Two participants died. The images ran in every newspaper and newsreel in the country, and the political fallout helped sink Hoover’s reelection that fall. Veterans didn’t get their bonus early — Congress finally paid it out in 1936, over FDR’s veto.

police clashing with protesters

Both then and now, it’s veterans organizing collectively, to force Washington to make good on benefits already promised, before bureaucratic delay or legislative horse-trading quietly erodes them.

Bonus army camp, in flames, during the protests. CREDIT: Library of Congress

Whatever happens on the Hill next week, the VFW is betting that showing up still matters. History suggests they may be right.

Comment

EXCLUSIVE: Rep Mike Bost Asked VA to Pull VFW's Accreditation

Elizabeth Hartman — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 20:09:19 GMT

“It is every veteran's right to have an opinion – even one I find radical.” — Mike Bost, 2021

On July 1, Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) put out a public statement accusing VFW of “inciting political violence” over a protest cartoon. That statement got some attention. What didn’t get reported, because no one else has had it, until now, is what Bost did the same day, in writing, to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I can now confirm and publish that Chairman Bost, joined by Rep. Jack Bergman, sent a formal letter to VA Secretary Doug Collins that same day, asking the Department to review whether VFW’s conduct is consistent with its accreditation to represent veterans’ claims under 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.628–14.629 — and separately demanding VFW disclose its commercial licensing arrangements under § 14.628(f). This was not a press release. It was a request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine whether a 1.5-million-member, congressionally chartered veterans organization should keep its authority to represent veterans in front of VA. Over a cartoon.

On June 10, Bost and Senate counterpart Jerry Moran introduced the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act — a package built around the long-overdue Major Richard Star Act, which ends the retirement-pay offset for combat-injured veterans. Buried in the same bill: Section 108, which guts the standalone VA disability rating for tinnitus and sharply cuts sleep apnea compensation, hitting up to 1.5 million veterans over the next decade to help pay for it. VA’s own spokesman told reporters on June 16 that the underlying rule change wasn’t “planned or imminent” — directly undercutting Bost’s justification that Congress was merely codifying something VA was going to do anyway.1

The VFW promptly issued public opposition to the TCAVA, with National Commander in Chief Whitmore stating “Congress should Honor the Contract and strengthen veterans’ programs without creating new costs for those who sacrifice in service to our country. A grateful nation pays its debts to veterans; it does not send them the invoice.”

The words “Honor the Contract” used by Commander Whitmore were not, by any means, new. They have been used by the VFW in its Congressional advocacy efforts, since 2024. Their efforts have included agit-prop, with members frequently sharing (and wearing) protest-poster-style graphics depicting “bureaucrats” and “media” as a firing squad aimed at veterans, which traces back to the 1932 Bonus Army protests and The Economy Act of 1933.

On July 1, Bost released a statement arguing the above photo was incitement of political violence.

Mike Bost to Secretary Collins

266KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Stripped of the public framing, Bost’s July 1 letter to Collins does two things. First, it asks VA to consider whether VFW’s “Honor the Contract” imagery and its licensing of that imagery to a for-profit apparel company are “consistent with the character, reputation, and professional responsibilities expected of accredited organizations” and, in the same breath, “urge[s] the Department to review whether VFW’s accreditation, and the good standing of its representatives, remain consistent with” federal accreditation regulations. Second, it invokes a narrow provision governing claims-related fee arrangements, 38 C.F.R. § 14.628(f), to demand VFW turn over the financial terms of its merchandise licensing deal — a request that stretches a rule written for individual claims representation to cover a general commercial partnership that has nothing to do with any veteran’s specific claim.

In layman’s terms: we have a sitting committee chairman asking the agency that oversees VFW’s ability to represent veterans’ claims to consider pulling that authority, because he didn’t like a piece of political art.

T-shirt so scary. Much violence. Bost hide.

I’m not a lawyer, and I want to be upfront that what follows is my own read of the relevant case law, not a claim about what any court would actually rule if this ever got litigated. But if I were VFW’s counsel, here’s the framework I’d be building a file around.

Start with Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963). The Supreme Court held that a government official doesn’t need to issue a formal order to violate the First Amendment — informal pressure on a speaker, or on someone with leverage over that speaker, aimed at suppressing protected expression, is itself unconstitutional coercion. Bost didn’t seize anything or issue a subpoena. He wrote a letter. Bantam Books says that distinction doesn’t matter, though. The courts look through the form of an action to its substance.

“Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that regulation by the States of obscenity conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, which is often separated from obscenity only by a dim and uncertain line. It is characteristic of the freedoms of expression in general that they are vulnerable to gravely damaging, yet barely visible, encroachments. Our insistence that regulations of obscenity scrupulously embody the most rigorous procedural safeguards, is therefore but a special instance of the larger principle that the freedoms of expression must be ringed about with adequate bulwarks. — Bantam Books v Sullivan

Then there’s NRA v. Vullo (2024), decided unanimously just two years ago. NRA holds that a government official violates the First Amendment when they use the power of their office to pressure a third party into punishing or silencing someone else’s speech. Bost doesn’t have direct authority over VFW’s congressional charter, but he does chair the House Veterans Affairs Committee — the committee VFW testifies to every year (not that Bost shows up for those hearings, but I digress) for its legislative priorities, and he used that position to ask the one agency that does have leverage over VFW’s operating authority to take a look. Personally, I believe NRA is most damning for Bost. Because, while the underlying policy (TCAVA) may be contested on party lines, the Court ruled unanimously in NRA. There is no debate. There is no question. A government official (Bost) cannot use their power to pressure a third party (the VA) into silencing someone’s (VFW) speech.

“The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech.” — NRA v Vullo

To be fair to Bost: nothing here proves a court would actually side against him. His letter frames the request as concern about “character, reputation, and professional responsibilities” rather than an explicit demand that VFW retract anything and agencies get real deference in how they administer accreditation programs. If VA opens a review and can point to something beyond the cartoon itself, this whole theory falls apart. But if the only thing on the table is VFW’s speech about a bill, the doctrine above is the exact kind of argument presented in a legal filing. It’s Supreme Court precedent, twice reaffirmed, most recently unanimously.

Whatever happens next, this isn’t really a story about a cartoon anymore. It’s a story about whether a sitting committee chairman can turn a political disagreement into a threat against an organization’s ability to represent the veterans it exists to serve and whether the rest of us are paying enough attention to notice when that happens quietly, in a letter, instead of loudly, in a press release.

Subscribe now

Snowflakes on Capitol Hill

Elizabeth Hartman — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 16:47:16 GMT

live look at me writing this article ^

On June 10, 2026, House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) and Senate VA Committee Chairman Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced the Take Care of America's Veterans Act — H.R. 9237 and S. 4744 — a nearly 600-page, 62-bill package built around the Major Richard Star Act, which finally ends the retirem…

General Counsels, Adjutants, & Paternalism

Elizabeth Hartman — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 14:54:41 GMT

Not long ago, I published a piece examining the rapidly expanding eco-system of companies operating in the VA disability claims space. I wrestled with my own position, one which was growing more complicated by the day. For years, I had been openly critical of companies operating in the VA disability consulting industry. In my opinion, these companies violated federal regulations designed to protect veterans. I have long believed their fee structures are excessive, their marketing strategies prey on confusion, and their business models frequently target veterans who may not fully understand the contracts they are signing.

At the same time, however, I find myself grappling with the idea that we are babying veterans. If they can sign enlistment contracts, deploy to combat zones, and assume risks most Americans will never face, who am I to stop them from signing an objectively terrible contract? At what point does that become paternalism?

And that’s where this story truly begins.

Two Conferences. Two Futures.

Elizabeth Hartman — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 23:11:41 GMT

This week, in Washington DC, I had the opportunity to sit in on the legislative conferences of two of the largest veteran service organizations in the country: The Veterans of Foreign Wars and The American Legion.

Each year, both organizations bring members from across the country to Washington for what is commonly referred to as their “Washington Conference.” Thousands of veterans travel from their home states to spend several days meeting with their respective members of congress, attending policy briefings, and coordinating advocacy efforts on issues affecting veterans and military families. These conferences serve two distinct purposes. First, they allow the organizations to formally present testimony before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they send hundreds of veterans into congressional offices across Capitol Hill to speak directly with senators, representatives, and their staff about pending legislation.

Your Convention isn't Child Friendly

Elizabeth Hartman — Fri, 22 Aug 2025 19:08:18 GMT

DISCLOSURE: a VFW member came up with this idea and shared it with me at the National Convention. We brainstormed this together. He said he didn’t want his named tied to the idea, but he should get the credit. He knows who he is.

Dear VFW & American Legion,

Your conventions are not child friendly. Convention centers were built for businessmen and women,…

The VFW is Changing. That's a Good Thing.

Elizabeth Hartman — Tue, 19 Aug 2025 23:16:35 GMT

Earlier this week, I shared a recap of The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention. It was nothing short of dramatic.

From Carol Whitmore becoming the first woman to hold the title of Commander in Chief of the VFW to Cory Geisler winning the Sr Vice Commander in Chief election in a stunning last minute upset, there were a lot of positive moments.

But alongside the celebrations came troubling revelations. Three senior leaders, Past Commander-in-Chief BJ Lawrence, Past Commander-in-Chief Tim Borland, and then Jr Vice Commander Tim Peters, were accused of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct towards women in the VFW.

The VFW National Convention

Elizabeth Hartman — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 14:15:52 GMT

I was slated to speak on the Parade Deck at 0930 on the first day of the convention, so I left my Dad’s at 0430 to ensure I would make it on time. Gunny Time has nothing on Baby Time.

Right off the bat, check-in is different. In The American Legion, you check in with your respective Departments, at your respective hotels. The obvious benefit of this is …