Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

Opinion

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

Veterans often lose VA healthcare, disability benefits, and education access during incarceration, disrupting PTSD and addiction treatment when continuity matters most.

Getty Images
Anthony Badial-Luna
By Anthony Badial-LunaJul 20, 2026
Anthony Badial-Luna
Anthony Badial-Luna is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
See More Writings by author

A veteran’s PTSD doesn’t disappear when they enter prison. Traumatic brain injuries don’t cure themselves. Addiction doesn't vanish behind bars. Yet many of the systems designed to help veterans manage those conditions stop at the prison gate.

When veterans are incarcerated, they often lose access to VA healthcare, struggle to use education benefits, and face major cuts to disability compensation. The problem is not eligibility. The problem is continuity.

Most discussions about incarcerated veterans focus on what happens after release. How do we help them find housing? How do we reconnect them to treatment? How do we reduce recidivism?

Those are important questions. But they ignore a more basic one: Why are we waiting until release to reconnect veterans to services they were already receiving before incarceration?

Veterans in the criminal justice system often struggle with PTSD, addiction, trauma, and other serious chronic health conditions. They also face a higher risk of opioid overdose and suicide than veterans who have never been involved with the legal system. Yet many lose access to the VA care that was helping them before they entered prison.

The solution should start with healthcare. Veterans who were receiving VA treatment for PTSD, addiction, traumatic brain injury, or other serious conditions should not be cut off simply because they enter prison. Prison healthcare is not a substitute for VA care, especially for veterans with service-related conditions. The VA and the Bureau of Prisons should pilot a continuity-of-care model that allows eligible veterans to keep receiving VA-directed care for mental health and addiction through telehealth, care coordination, and partnerships with federal correctional facilities.

This is not about excusing criminal behavior. It is about recognizing that treatment interruptions make reentry harder and the risks greater. A veteran stabilized on medication for opioid use disorder should not lose access because custody begins. A veteran receiving mental health care through the VA should not have to wait until release to reconnect with care.

The same principle should apply to education. Education is one of the most effective tools for reducing recidivism and improving employment after release. A veteran who enters prison with unused GI Bill benefits should not leave in the same position years later. If incarceration is supposed to prepare people to return successfully to their communities, then helping veterans earn a credential, complete coursework, or develop job skills should be part of that mission.

Disability compensation also needs a continuity approach. Under current law, a veteran rated 100% disabled can see monthly compensation drop from as much as $4,000 to less than $200 after 60 days behind bars. The disability has not changed. The veteran’s service has not changed. Only their custody status has.


Anthony Badial-Luna is an Air Force veteran and Master of Science Candidate in Georgetown University's Addiction Policy and Practice program. His research focuses on justice-involved veterans, addiction policy, and continuity of care during incarceration and reentry.


Latest news

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.
Ethics & Leadership

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

An empty grocery cart in a market.
Governance & Legislation

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Economy

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026