For years, bipartisan veteran groups in Congress operated on a simple premise: military service transcends party. The “For Country Caucus” brought together Republicans and Democrats who served, focusing on veterans’ issues through compromise and cooperation.

Then came the Signal scandal.

In March 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared sensitive military strike plans on a Signal group chat that included Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg. The messages contained operational details about Yemen Houthi strikes: targets, weapons systems, attack sequencing. Almost every Democratic veteran in the House called for Hegseth’s resignation. The bipartisan For Country Caucus did not join them.

That silence was the catalyst. As Rep. Ted Lieu put it when asked about existing bipartisan groups: “Have you seen them do anything?”

The caucus draws from every branch of the armed services. Three co-chairs lead the operation: Pat Ryan, an Army veteran and West Point graduate representing New York’s 18th District; Ted Lieu, an Air Force veteran who also serves as House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair (bringing direct access to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries); and Chris Deluzio, a Navy veteran representing Pennsylvania’s 17th District.

The full roster includes Marine Corps veterans like Salud Carbajal, Jared Golden, and Seth Moulton. Navy veterans Gil Cisneros, Maggie Goodlander, Jimmy Panetta, and Mikie Sherrill. Air Force veterans Herb Conaway, Don Davis, and Chrissy Houlahan. Army veterans Jason Crow, Bobby Scott, Derek Tran, and Eugene Vindman. The diversity of service branches matters because it allows the caucus to speak credibly across military communities.

Since its formation, the caucus has engaged in three high-profile confrontations with the Trump administration. Each reveals a different aspect of their strategy.

The Signal scandal broke in March 2025. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had shared operational details about military strikes on Yemen Houthis in a group chat. The messages included targets, weapons systems, and attack sequencing for strikes conducted on March 15, 2025. The problem was that Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally included in the chat.

Democratic veterans didn’t hesitate. Ted Lieu called the breach “reckless” and warned that “had that information gotten to the Houthis, American pilots could have been shot down.” Even Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska acknowledged that “Russia and China saw this stuff within hours.”

By December 2025, the caucus renewed its resignation calls after reports emerged that Hegseth may have ordered a second strike on Venezuelan boat survivors, potentially constituting a war crime. The sustained pressure keeps Hegseth on the defensive and forces Republican colleagues to either defend him or stay silent.

In December 2025, internal VA documents revealed plans to eliminate approximately 35,000 healthcare jobs. The caucus responded within days, holding a Capitol event featuring co-chairs Deluzio and Ryan alongside members Moulton, Thompson, Houlahan, Carbajal, Panetta, Scott, and Vindman.

The regional impact data made the cuts concrete. Pennsylvania’s Pittsburgh VA alone faces roughly 500 job losses, including clinical positions like doctors and nurses. Similar cuts are planned across the country.

Deluzio called the cuts “a betrayal,” warning that reduced staffing would increase wait times and force veterans into privatized care with providers who lack veteran-specific expertise. The caucus framed the fight not as a budget debate but as a broken promise to those who served.

The most dramatic confrontation came in November 2025. Six Democratic veterans released a video urging military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.” The group included Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, plus Representatives Deluzio, Goodlander, Houlahan, and Crow.

Trump’s response was immediate and extreme. On Truth Social, he wrote: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” followed by “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He then reposted calls from supporters for the veterans to be hanged.

The White House later walked back the posts, claiming Trump doesn’t actually want executions. But the damage was done. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that “the President is calling for execution of elected officials” and that such rhetoric “makes political violence more likely.”

The decision to form a partisan caucus wasn’t easy. Pat Ryan, an Army veteran and West Point graduate, acknowledged wrestling with the choice. But he concluded that staying silent in the face of “incredibly political and divisive rhetoric about military issues” from Republican leadership was itself a failure.

Chris Deluzio put it more directly: “It’s a powerful thing for us to organize as Democratic veterans on some of those issues where we can’t reach compromise, and nor should we. We should fight for our values where we can.”

The caucus represents a strategic bet. By organizing explicitly as Democrats, they can take unified positions quickly without waiting for bipartisan consensus that may never come. They can attack Trump administration policies without worrying about Republican colleagues. And they can build a distinct brand for veteran Democrats heading into 2026.

This isn’t the first time Democrats have organized around veteran candidates. In 2006, the “Fighting Dems” recruited over 60 veterans to run for Congress. Only five won.

The difference in 2025 is institutional support. The Democratic Veterans Caucus isn’t a campaign recruitment effort. It’s a governing organization with sitting members, leadership access, and coordinated messaging. VoteVets provides outside muscle with $30 million in spending capacity. The DCCC has expanded its target list and specifically tracks veteran recruitment.

In 2006, veteran candidates ran as individuals trading on their service records. In 2025, veteran Democrats operate as a coordinated faction with shared strategy, rapid response capability, and institutional backing. That’s a fundamentally different model.

Fifty-five House members aren’t returning for the next Congress, matching a modern record. That turnover creates opportunities. The DCCC has expanded its target list, and redistricting in states like California eliminated five Republican-held districts.

For the Democratic Veterans Caucus, 2026 represents a chance to prove their model works. If veteran Democrats win in competitive districts while running on national security themes, the caucus grows and its influence expands. If VoteVets-backed candidates succeed in primaries and general elections, the “pipeline” concept becomes reality.

The caucus also serves as a training ground. Members learn to coordinate messaging, respond rapidly to attacks, and frame military experience as a political asset. Those skills transfer to competitive races. Pat Ryan, for example, has already won two difficult campaigns in a swing district by emphasizing his Army service and West Point background.

Three indicators will reveal whether the caucus model is working.

First, watch membership growth. If the caucus adds members from the 2026 freshman class, it validates the recruitment pipeline. A caucus of 25 or 30 veteran Democrats carries significantly more weight than 18.

Second, track how Republican candidates respond to caucus attacks. The Hegseth resignation calls and VA cuts opposition put Republicans in awkward positions. Do they defend unpopular policies or stay quiet? Either choice creates vulnerabilities.

Third, monitor whether the caucus can sustain rapid response. The quick reactions to the Signal scandal, Trump’s death threats, and VA cuts showed coordination. Maintaining that speed over a two-year cycle requires discipline and resources.

The Democratic Veterans Caucus represents something new in Congressional politics: a partisan organization of military veterans designed to fight, not compromise. In six months, they’ve proven they can coordinate quickly, respond to attacks effectively, and command media attention.

For Democratic strategists, the caucus offers a template. Veteran candidates don’t just win elections. They can also govern as a cohesive bloc with distinct political advantages. The question for 2026 is whether the party can recruit enough veteran candidates to expand the caucus and amplify its power.

Trump’s death threats against caucus members may have been the best recruiting tool Democrats could ask for. Nothing unifies a group like external attack. And nothing validates a strategy like an opponent who can’t help but confirm its effectiveness.