Whether the Major Richard Star Act will pass remains an open question heading into 2026. The bill has extraordinary bipartisan support, with 330 House cosponsors in the 119th Congress, yet it has stalled in multiple consecutive sessions because of a Congressional Budget Office price tag of roughly $10 billion to $13 billion over ten years. Its fate depends almost entirely on whether lawmakers agree on a way to pay for it, or decide the political cost of continued inaction has grown too high.
Where the Bill Stands Right Now
In the 119th Congress (2025–2026), the House version was reintroduced as H.R. 2102 by Rep. Gus Bilirakis and referred to both the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.1Congress.gov. H.R.2102 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Major Richard Star Act It has 330 cosponsors, well past a simple majority of the 435-member chamber.2Congress.gov. Cosponsors – H.R.2102 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Major Richard Star Act
Supporters tried to attach the act’s language as an amendment to the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate. It was not included in the final bill.
The prior session showed a similar pattern. In the 118th Congress, H.R. 1282 was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee and placed on the Union Calendar with more than 320 House cosponsors and over 70 in the Senate, but it never received a floor vote in either chamber and expired when the session ended.3Congress.gov. H.R.1282 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): Major Richard Star Act The cycle is consistent: massive cosponsor counts, committee movement, then no final vote.
Why It Keeps Getting Blocked
The obstacle is cost, and the mechanism that turns cost into a block is federal budget law.
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the targeted version of the act, covering only combat-injured medical retirees, at roughly $10 billion to $13 billion over ten years. A broader version of concurrent receipt that would cover additional categories of retirees carries a CBO estimate of approximately $78 billion over the same period. The gap matters because some lawmakers have pushed for the broader fix, which complicates the funding conversation.
The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act requires new direct spending to be budget-neutral, meaning Congress must find offsetting cuts or new revenue.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 2 USC Chapter 20A – Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Without an offset or a formal waiver from leadership, the bill cannot advance to a final vote under standard budget rules.5Congress.gov. Public Law 111-139 – Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 Finding $10 billion to $13 billion in offsets inside an already strained federal budget, while lawmakers are also fighting over debt ceiling limits and annual appropriations, is where the political will has repeatedly broken down.
That is why the bill keeps getting left out of the NDAA. The defense authorization is the most natural vehicle for a change like this, but the cost makes it a heavy add to an already expensive package, and it competes with other military readiness and personnel priorities for the same dollars. Supporters argue the cost is modest against the total defense budget. Budget hawks counter that PAYGO exists for a reason. Each session, the second argument has won.
One workaround that has been floated is phasing in benefits over several years to lower the upfront cost inside the budget scoring window, even if the ten-year total stays similar.
The Realistic Paths to Passage
The likeliest route runs through a future NDAA. Stand-alone bills with significant costs rarely get floor time on their own. Attaching the policy as an amendment to must-pass defense legislation is the established strategy, and the bill came close to that route in the FY 2026 cycle before being cut. Each annual NDAA provides a fresh opportunity.
If leadership continues to keep it out of the NDAA, House members could theoretically use a discharge petition to force a stand-alone floor vote. A discharge petition needs 218 signatures. With 330 cosponsors, supporters look like they have the numbers on paper. In practice, cosponsoring a bill and signing a discharge petition are different commitments. Discharge petitions are rarely successful because they directly challenge leadership’s control of the floor schedule, and many members who support a bill in principle will not take that step.
Even if the House passes it, the Senate would need to pass an identical version or reconcile differences through conference. Senate procedural rules, including the possibility of a filibuster, mean 60 votes are effectively needed to advance most legislation. Only after both chambers agree on final text does the bill go to the President.
Why Support Alone Hasn’t Been Enough
Few bills in Congress draw this level of bipartisan agreement. Members from both parties frame the act as a basic fairness issue for veterans whose careers were cut short by combat injuries they did not choose. That framing makes it politically difficult to vote against, which is why the cosponsor numbers keep climbing.
Advocacy organizations including the Wounded Warrior Project and the Military Officers Association of America have run sustained campaigns. Their representatives testify before committees, organize veterans to contact lawmakers, and track legislative developments publicly. This outside pressure has kept the bill from quietly dying in committee.
Retired senior military officers and defense establishment figures have added institutional weight. When military leaders publicly endorse a personnel benefit, it signals credibility beyond emotional appeal. None of that, so far, has produced an offset large enough to satisfy budget rules, which is why cosponsor lists have not translated into a final vote.
The bill targets a defined group. Roughly 50,000 veterans would be affected, about 38 percent of all disability retirees, specifically those medically retired with combat-related disabilities before completing 20 years of service.6National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Potential Changes to Veterans’ Benefits Under the Major Richard Star Act: Veterans’ Issues in Focus Existing law excludes them from the concurrent receipt fix Congress created in 2004 for 20-year retirees with disability ratings of 50 percent or higher.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 1414 – Members Eligible for Retired Pay Who Are Also Eligible for Veterans Disability Compensation
What Veterans Should Know While Waiting
The bill is not retroactive. If it passes, affected veterans would begin receiving concurrent payments going forward. There would be no back pay for the years the offset was in effect. This is a common misconception, and it is worth planning around rather than counting on a lump sum.
Veterans who believe they have combat-related disabilities should confirm they have applied for Combat-Related Special Compensation through their branch of service. CRSC is a separate program that already allows some concurrent receipt for combat-linked disabilities, and many eligible veterans have not applied.8Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Comparing CRSC and CRDP Unlike CRDP, which is automatic, CRSC requires a separate application. Checking eligibility for CRSC now can provide partial relief regardless of what happens with the Major Richard Star Act.
Contacting your congressional representatives still matters. The cosponsor counts that give this legislation its political momentum come directly from constituent pressure, and the organized campaigns behind the bill have kept it alive through multiple sessions when many similar proposals would have quietly disappeared.