An Analysis of H.R. 5401: The Pay Our Troops Act of 2026

I. Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of H.R. 5401, the "Pay Our Troops Act of 2026," a bill introduced in the 119th Congress to ensure the timely payment of U.S. military personnel, designated Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) civilians, and associated contractors in the event of a government shutdown. The primary motivation behind the legislation is to uphold the nation's commitment to its service members and shield them from the financial instability caused by political and fiscal impasses in Washington. The bill enjoys broad, bipartisan support among rank-and-file members of Congress and has been championed by a unified coalition of military and veterans' advocacy organizations who argue it is essential for maintaining military morale, readiness, and the financial well-being of military families.

Despite this widespread support, the bill has become embroiled in a larger strategic debate surrounding the federal appropriations process. Congressional leadership has refrained from bringing the bill to a floor vote, viewing it as a key point of leverage in negotiations over a broader government funding package. The central conflict revolves around the argument that passing such a "piecemeal" funding measure would alleviate the most politically acute pressure on lawmakers to resolve the shutdown, potentially prolonging the funding lapse for other federal agencies and their employees. This has created a dynamic where a popular, bipartisan bill is procedurally stalled not due to opposition to its substance, but as a tactical maneuver in a high-stakes negotiation over federal spending and healthcare policy. The debate over H.R. 5401 thus serves as a microcosm of the current state of U.S. governance, illustrating the tension between targeted, popular policy goals and the strategic imperatives of partisan legislative conflict.

II. Introduction: Fiscal Impasse and the Genesis of H.R. 5401

The political and fiscal environment of late 2025 was characterized by significant partisan gridlock, culminating in the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass the twelve regular appropriations bills required to fund the federal government for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026. As the October 1 deadline passed without either a full-year funding package or a temporary stopgap measure known as a Continuing Resolution (CR), non-essential government operations ceased, and a full government shutdown commenced.1

Anticipating this outcome, Representative Jennifer A. Kiggans (R-VA-2) introduced H.R. 5401, the "Pay Our Troops Act of 2026," on September 16, 2025.4 The bill was designed as a proactive, targeted legislative failsafe to address one of the most politically damaging and operationally disruptive consequences of a shutdown: the interruption of pay for the nation's 1.3 million active-duty service members, who are required by law to continue working without compensation during a funding lapse.3 The legislation was immediately referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.4

H.R. 5401 is not a routine piece of legislation but an emergency measure born from a recurring and systemic dysfunction in the American legislative process. Congress has consistently struggled to complete its appropriations work on time, frequently relying on a series of CRs and last-minute omnibus packages to avert or end shutdowns.9 The introduction of the Pay Our Troops Act reflects a political reality in which shutdowns are no longer viewed as a remote possibility but as a predictable feature of the fiscal landscape, necessitating preemptive action to mitigate their most severe impacts.

It is important to note for the purpose of analytical clarity that the bill number H.R. 5401 has been assigned to different pieces of legislation in previous congressional sessions. For instance, in the 118th Congress, H.R. 5401 pertained to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, while in the 109th Congress, it related to a commemorative coin.10 This analysis is concerned exclusively with the bill introduced in the 119th Congress pertaining to military pay during the FY2026 shutdown.

III. Anatomy of the "Pay Our Troops Act of 2026"

A precise understanding of the legislative text of H.R. 5401 is essential to analyzing its political and policy implications. The bill is a concise piece of legislation focused on creating a temporary, standalone funding stream for a specific set of national security personnel during a lapse in appropriations.5

Section 1: Short Title

This section is purely administrative, establishing the bill's official name as the "Pay Our Troops Act of 2026".5 The title itself is a key component of the bill's political messaging, framing it as a straightforward and morally unambiguous effort to support uniformed service members.

Section 2: Continuing Appropriations

This is the operative core of the legislation. It appropriates, "out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated," such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances for any period during FY2026 in which regular funding is not in effect. The bill specifies three distinct categories of personnel who are covered by this authority:

1. Members of the Armed Forces: This includes all members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force, as defined in title 10 of the U.S. Code. Crucially, the bill also covers reserve components performing active service and members of the U.S. Coast Guard.5 The explicit inclusion of the Coast Guard is a direct lesson from the 2018-2019 shutdown, during which its members went unpaid because their service falls under the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding had lapsed, while the Department of Defense had been funded in advance.18
2. Supporting Civilian Personnel: The bill extends coverage to civilian employees of the DoD and DHS (in the case of the Coast Guard). However, this coverage is not automatic. It applies only to those civilians whom the "Secretary concerned" (the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Homeland Security) determines are providing direct support to the armed forces.5
3. Supporting Contractors: In a significant expansion of scope, the bill also authorizes payments to contractors of the DoD and DHS. As with civilian personnel, this is at the discretion of the relevant Secretary, who must determine that the contractors are providing support to military members.5

The discretionary authority granted to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security is a notable feature of the bill. The legislation's title focuses public attention on uniformed troops, but its text extends financial continuity to a potentially large and undefined number of civilian government employees and private-sector contractors. The power to determine which civilians and contractors are deemed essential support providers effectively gives these political appointees significant control over which elements of the vast defense-industrial complex continue to receive federal funds during a shutdown. This could create an inequitable system where some federal contractors are paid while others are not, and it concentrates considerable economic power within the executive branch during a period of legislative paralysis.

Section 3: Termination Clause

This section ensures the temporary nature of the funding authority. The appropriations granted by the Act are available only until the earliest of three possible events occurs:

1. The enactment of a new law—either a regular appropriations bill or a CR—that funds the purposes covered in Section 2.
2. The enactment of a new funding law that explicitly does not include appropriations for these purposes.
3. A fixed end date of January 1, 2027.5

This termination clause is critical, as it is designed to make the bill a temporary bridge rather than a permanent solution, ensuring that it does not supplant the regular appropriations process indefinitely.

Table 1: Key Provisions of H.R. 5401

Provision	Description	Source(s)
Covered Personnel	1. Members of the Armed Forces (active & reserve), including the Coast Guard. 2. Civilian personnel of DoD and DHS deemed by the Secretary to be supporting the Armed Forces. 3. Contractors of DoD and DHS deemed by the Secretary to be supporting the Armed Forces.	5
Funding Mechanism	Appropriates "such sums as are necessary" from the U.S. Treasury for pay and allowances during a lapse in appropriations for FY2026.	5
Termination	Funding authority ceases upon the earliest of: 1. Enactment of a new appropriation for these personnel. 2. Enactment of a funding bill that does not appropriate for these personnel. 3. January 1, 2027.	5

IV. The Stated Imperative: Protecting National Security from Political Dysfunction

The public arguments in favor of H.R. 5401, articulated by its sponsor, cosponsors, and supporting organizations, are grounded in a consistent set of appeals to national security, fiscal responsibility, and moral obligation. These motivations operate on both a practical and a political level, addressing genuine concerns while also framing the issue in a manner that is highly compelling to the public and difficult for political opponents to counter.

Preventing Financial Hardship for Military Families

The central and most resonant argument is that the men and women of the armed forces, and their families, should not be made to suffer financially due to political disputes in Washington.24 Proponents emphasize that many military families, particularly those of junior enlisted personnel, live paycheck to paycheck. A missed pay period, scheduled for October 15, could trigger a cascade of financial crises, including difficulties paying for rent, groceries, medication, and childcare.19 This concern is substantiated by data from military family advocacy groups like Blue Star Families, which found that one in three military families has less than $3,000 in savings, leaving them acutely vulnerable to any disruption in income.19 The bill is therefore presented as a necessary measure to prevent acute and undeserved hardship for those who serve the nation.

Maintaining Morale and Military Readiness

Beyond the immediate financial impact, supporters of the bill argue that failing to pay the troops has a direct and corrosive effect on the health of the all-volunteer force. Forcing service members to report for duty without pay is described as a severe blow to morale that can negatively impact recruitment, retention, and, ultimately, the overall readiness of the armed forces.1 The argument posits that the nation's security is contingent on a military that is focused on its mission, not distracted by financial stress at home. In this view, ensuring timely pay is not just a matter of fairness but a critical component of national security policy.16

Upholding a "Solemn Duty"

The rhetoric surrounding the bill frequently casts its passage as a moral imperative and a fulfillment of Congress's "solemn duty" to the armed forces.16 Representative Kiggans, a former Navy helicopter pilot, has leveraged her personal military experience to frame the issue as a matter of "keeping faith with those who keep us free".22 This framing elevates the debate above partisan politics, portraying the bill as a fundamental test of the nation's honor and its commitment to its defenders.

While these motivations reflect genuine and widely held concerns for the welfare of military personnel, they also constitute a highly effective political messaging strategy. The act of "paying the troops" is one of the most politically unassailable actions a lawmaker can take. By introducing and championing this legislation, its proponents create a powerful political instrument. Any opposition or procedural delay, regardless of the underlying strategic rationale, can be portrayed as being "anti-military" or "letting military families suffer to win political points".24 This dynamic transforms H.R. 5401 from a simple appropriations measure into a tool for shaping the public narrative of the shutdown, allowing its supporters to place blame for the impasse on those perceived to be obstructing this popular and seemingly non-controversial bill.

V. Legislative Lineage: The 2013 Precedent and Its Influence

The "Pay Our Troops Act of 2026" was not conceived in a legislative vacuum. It follows a direct and powerful precedent set during the 2013 government shutdown: the "Pay Our Military Act" (POMA), H.R. 3210 of the 113th Congress.26 Understanding this predecessor is crucial to comprehending the political expectations and strategic calculus surrounding the current bill.

The 2013 shutdown was, much like the 2025-26 impasse, driven by a contentious policy dispute—in that case, Republican efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA).26 As the shutdown loomed, Congress moved with remarkable speed and unanimity to insulate the military from its effects. POMA was introduced on September 28, 2013, passed the House the next day in a unanimous 423-0 vote, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama just hours before the shutdown began.26

POMA's provisions were functionally identical to those of H.R. 5401, appropriating the necessary funds to pay the armed forces (including the Coast Guard) and certain DoD civilians and contractors during the funding lapse.26 A pivotal development during the 2013 shutdown was the legal interpretation of POMA by lawyers at the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. They concluded that the law permitted nearly all civilian Defense personnel to return to work, arguing that their functions "contribute to the morale, well-being, capabilities and readiness of service members".26 The text of the 2026 bill, by explicitly including civilian personnel and contractors deemed to be "providing support," appears to be a direct attempt to codify this broad 2013 interpretation into law, removing any ambiguity.

The passage of POMA in 2013 did more than solve a one-time political problem; it fundamentally altered the strategic landscape of government shutdowns. Before 2013, the prospect of service members going without pay was a significant deterrent, a mutually understood red line that created immense pressure on both parties to reach a funding agreement. POMA's swift and unanimous passage established a new bipartisan consensus: withholding military pay as a consequence of a shutdown was politically intolerable. This created a powerful precedent and a ready-made legislative template for future impasses.19 As a result, in subsequent shutdown scenarios, the debate is no longer if the troops will be paid, but how and when the inevitable "Pay Our Troops" bill will be passed. This has had the unintended effect of removing one of the most potent deterrents to shutting down the government, arguably making such fiscal crises more likely by neutralizing their most politically toxic consequence.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of H.R. 5401 (2026) and the Pay Our Military Act (2013)

Feature	Pay Our Military Act (2013)	Pay Our Troops Act of 2026 (H.R. 5401)
Sponsor	Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO)	Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA)
Political Context	Government shutdown driven by disputes over the Affordable Care Act (ACA).	Government shutdown driven by disputes over ACA tax subsidy extensions.
Core Purpose	To provide continuing appropriations for military pay during the FY2014 shutdown.	To provide continuing appropriations for military pay during the FY2026 shutdown.
Covered Personnel	Armed Forces, Coast Guard, and DoD civilians/contractors deemed to be "helping the military."	Armed Forces, Coast Guard, and DoD/DHS civilians/contractors deemed to be "providing support."
Legislative Passage	Passed House 423-0 and Senate by unanimous consent; signed into law before the shutdown began.	Introduced with broad bipartisan support (148 cosponsors) but procedurally blocked from a floor vote by leadership.

VI. The Political Battlefield: Core Debates and Strategic Maneuvering

Despite having 148 bipartisan cosponsors (104 Republicans and 44 Democrats), H.R. 5401 has been stalled in the legislative process, unable to reach the House floor for a vote.4 This delay is not due to substantive opposition to the bill's content but is a direct result of its entanglement in the broader, high-stakes strategic battle over the government shutdown.

The Shutdown's Catalyst: A Healthcare Policy Impasse

The FY2026 government shutdown was precipitated by a specific and intractable policy disagreement. Democratic leaders insisted that any short-term funding bill to keep the government open must include an extension of enhanced tax subsidies for health insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges, which were set to expire at the end of the year.19 Republican leadership, controlling the House, refused to link the ACA subsidies to the government funding process, leading to a stalemate that triggered the shutdown.2 This context is essential, as it establishes the core conflict for which H.R. 5401 has become a bargaining chip.

The "Piecemeal" Funding Dilemma

The central debate preventing a vote on H.R. 5401 is the strategic conflict over "piecemeal" funding.

• The Argument Against a Standalone Vote: Congressional leaders and some policy analysts argue that passing targeted funding bills for the most politically popular government functions—like paying the military—is an irresponsible and ultimately counterproductive approach.30 This strategy, they contend, solves the most visible and politically painful problem of a shutdown, thereby releasing the public pressure on Congress to negotiate a comprehensive agreement to fund the entire government. If the troops are paid, the media attention wanes, and the urgency to end the shutdown for all other federal agencies and employees diminishes. This could result in a prolonged, partial shutdown where essential workers outside of the defense sector continue to be furloughed or work without pay indefinitely.30
• The Argument For a Standalone Vote: Proponents of H.R. 5401 vehemently reject this logic, arguing that the financial security of military families is a unique national obligation that should not be held hostage to unrelated political disputes.25 They assert that it is cynical and cruel to use the hardship of service members as leverage in a legislative negotiation.

Leadership's Procedural Obstruction

The bill's fate illustrates the immense power of congressional leadership to control the legislative agenda, even against the apparent will of a bipartisan majority of the chamber. House Speaker Mike Johnson has been heavily criticized, particularly by Democrats and advocacy groups, for not bringing H.R. 5401 to the floor for a vote.24 This inaction is a clear tactical decision to maintain maximum leverage over Democrats in the shutdown negotiations. By holding the bill back, the Republican leadership can continue to pressure Democrats on the broader funding package. On October 10, when Democrats attempted to force a vote on the bill, they were blocked by Republicans, confirming that the objection is procedural and strategic, not substantive.24 Similarly, Senate Republican Leader John Thune has dismissed the idea of a standalone bill, instead holding up a broader GOP funding proposal and stating, "This pays the military... All they have to do is... give us five votes and the military gets paid," effectively blaming Democrats for the impasse.27

This dynamic reveals a fundamental disconnect between the policy preferences of rank-and-file members and the strategic imperatives of their leadership. The 148 cosponsors demonstrate that if the bill were allowed a vote, it would likely pass with an overwhelming majority, just as its 2013 predecessor did. However, leadership in both parties views the timing of the bill's passage as a strategic asset. For the Republican majority, delaying the vote maintains pressure. For the Democratic minority, the ongoing plight of unpaid troops provides a powerful public relations weapon to criticize Republican governance.24 In a profound irony, the bill designed to protect the military from political gridlock has itself become a hostage in that very gridlock.

The Emerging Question of Equity

As the shutdown has dragged on, a new dimension has entered the debate: the question of equity among federal workers. Some Democratic lawmakers have begun to publicly question the logic of creating a special carve-out for military and DoD personnel while other essential federal employees—such as air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and federal law enforcement—are also required to work without pay.34 Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) articulated this view, stating, "I don't want just the military not to miss a paycheck. I want other government employees not to miss their paycheck too".34 This creates a difficult internal dilemma for Democrats, forcing them to balance their traditional support for the military with their role as advocates for the entire federal workforce. While some, like Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), have argued that difficult choices must be made and the military should be prioritized, the "not a good one" message it sends to other civil servants, as noted by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), highlights the growing unease with a two-tiered approach to shutdown consequences.34

VII. A Unified Front: The Role of Military and Veterans' Advocacy

In stark contrast to the strategic divisions within Congress, the community of military and veterans' service organizations (VSOs) has presented a powerful and unified front in support of H.R. 5401. This coordinated advocacy campaign has applied significant grassroots and direct lobbying pressure on lawmakers to pass the bill.

A leading coalition has been formed by organizations representing the reserve components, including the National Guard Association of the U.S. (NGAUS), the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S. (EANGUS), the Reserve Organization of America (ROA), and the Adjutants General Association of the U.S. (AGAUS).1 Their efforts have been swift and targeted. On October 2, 2025, these groups sent joint letters to key congressional figures, including the leadership of the House Appropriations Committee and the chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus. Their requests were specific: for the House to "swiftly pass" H.R. 5401 and for the Senate to introduce and pass a companion bill.7

This effort has been amplified by nearly every other major VSO. The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Blue Star Families, and the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) have all issued strong public endorsements.17 They have collectively described the legislation as a "common-sense, bipartisan measure" essential for protecting service members from political uncertainty.19

These organizations have also leveraged their extensive memberships to conduct grassroots campaigns. EANGUS, for example, established a "Legislative Action Center" on its website, providing pre-written messages and tools for its members to directly contact their elected representatives and urge them to support H.R. 5401.36 This combination of direct lobbying and grassroots mobilization has been instrumental in securing the large number of bipartisan cosponsors for the bill and maintaining public pressure on Congress to act.

Table 3: Stakeholder Positions and Actions on H.R. 5401

Stakeholder / Organization	Stated Position	Key Actions	Source(s)
Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA)	Sponsor. Argues service members should never face financial uncertainty caused by partisan gridlock.	Introduced H.R. 5401 on Sept. 16, 2025. Issued numerous press releases.	22
House/Senate GOP Leadership	Oppose a standalone vote. Use the bill as leverage to pressure Democrats on a broader funding package.	Blocked attempts to bring the bill to a floor vote. Blamed Democrats for the shutdown.	24
House/Senate Democratic Leadership	Support the bill's substance but oppose the GOP's broader funding strategy. Use the delay to criticize GOP governance.	Attempted to pass the bill on Oct. 10. Linked shutdown resolution to ACA subsidy extensions.	19
NGAUS, EANGUS, ROA, AGAUS	Strong support. Argue that forcing troops to serve without pay degrades morale and creates hardship.	Sent joint letters to House and Senate leadership urging swift passage and a Senate companion bill.	1
IAVA, MOAA, VFW, American Legion, Blue Star Families	Strong support. Call the bill a "common-sense, bipartisan measure" to provide financial certainty.	Issued public endorsements and statements. Mobilized members for grassroots advocacy.	17

VIII. Analysis and Conclusion: Symbolism, Strategy, and the State of Governance

The "Pay Our Troops Act of 2026" is more than a piece of emergency fiscal legislation; it is a potent symbol and a revealing case study of the current state of American governance. The bill's journey through the 119th Congress highlights a profound and growing dysfunction within the federal appropriations process, where governing by crisis has become the norm and legislative stopgaps are increasingly substituted for regular order and responsible stewardship.9

On one level, H.R. 5401 represents an enduring and deeply held national consensus: that the nation's uniformed service members should be held harmless from the consequences of political failure. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill's substance among rank-and-file members and the unified voice of the nation's most prominent military advocacy groups underscore this principle. The legislation is a direct response to a legitimate and urgent need to protect military families from financial calamity and to ensure the stability of the all-volunteer force.

On another, more troubling level, the very necessity of such a bill, and the political maneuvering surrounding it, points to a deeper pathology. The creation of legislative "carve-outs" for politically sacrosanct groups—in this case, the military—risks institutionalizing a two-tiered system of consequences during government shutdowns. By selectively mitigating the most politically painful effects of a shutdown, such measures may inadvertently make shutdowns more palatable, more frequent, and longer-lasting. If the public's most visible and sympathetic federal employees are protected, the broader pressure to reopen the entire government can dissipate, leaving other essential but less politically powerful agencies and workers to languish.

Ultimately, the debate over H.R. 5401 is not truly about whether to pay the troops. A broad consensus agrees that they must be paid. The debate is about legislative strategy, political leverage, and the fundamental breakdown of the process by which the U.S. government funds itself. The bill is therefore caught in a paradox: it is at once a symbol of America's unwavering commitment to its armed forces and a symptom of its government's increasing inability to perform its most basic constitutional duties. The conflict surrounding this single piece of legislation reveals a legislative branch where procedural tactics often override policy consensus, and where the welfare of those who serve the nation can become just another bargaining chip in a larger political game.

Works cited

1. United Advocacy: Professional Associations Push Congress to Pass the Pay Our Troops Act of 2026 - caleangus, accessed October 12, 2025, https://caleangus.org/2025/10/02/united-advocacy-professional-associations-push-congress-to-pass-the-pay-our-troops-act-of-2026/
2. What a Government Shutdown Would Mean for Defense Funding in FY 2026 - CSIS, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-government-shutdown-would-mean-defense-funding-fy-2026
3. How will the government shutdown impact the U.S. military? - CBS News, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-impact-u-s-military/
4. Cosponsors - H.R.5401 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Pay Our Troops Act of 2026, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5401/cosponsors
5. Text - H.R.5401 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Pay Our Troops Act of 2026, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5401/text
6. H.R.5401 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Pay Our Troops Act of 2026, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5401
7. NGAUS Pushes Bill to Pay Troops During Shutdown | National ..., accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/ngaus-pushes-bill-pay-troops-during-shutdown
8. HR5401 | US Congress 2025-2026 | Pay Our Troops Act of 2026 | TrackBill - PolicyEngage, accessed October 12, 2025, https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-house-bill-5401-pay-our-troops-act-of-2026/2742656/
9. Congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time | Pew Research Center, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/01/congress-has-long-struggled-to-pass-spending-bills-on-time/
10. US HB5401 | 2023-2024 | 118th Congress - LegiScan, accessed October 12, 2025, https://legiscan.com/US/bill/HB5401/2023
11. Members Discuss Solutions to Expand Broadband Access and Support Historical Sites, accessed October 12, 2025, https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=416268
12. 120 Stat. 395 - Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin Correction, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/120/395?link-type=details
13. House Passes Legislation Honoring American History, Enhancing Outdoor Recreation Opportunities, accessed October 12, 2025, https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=416792
14. Public Law 109–232 109th Congress An Act - GovInfo, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/109/public/232
15. US HR5401 - BillTrack50, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1906227
16. Protecting Military Pay - Aaron Bean - House.gov, accessed October 12, 2025, https://bean.house.gov/media/press-releases/protecting-military-pay
17. Tell Congress: Our Troops Deserve Their Pay - Voter Voice, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.votervoice.net/AmericanLegion/Campaigns/130623/Respond
18. VFW Action Corps Weekly, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.vfw.org/advocacy/grassroots-efforts/vfw-action-corps-weekly
19. Lawmakers seek to guarantee troop pay in case of a government ..., accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/legislative/2025/september/lawmakers-seek-to-guarantee-troop-pay-in-case-of-a-government-shutdown
20. ACT NOW: Urge Your Lawmakers to Pay Our Troops During a Shutdown - MOAA, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.moaa.org/content/publications-and-media/news-articles/2025-news-articles/finance/act-now-urge-your-lawmakers-to-pay-our-troops-during-a-shutdown/
21. H.R. 5401: Pay Our Troops Act of 2026 (119th Congress) Bill Summary | Quiver Quantitative, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.quiverquant.com/bills/119/hr-5401
22. Kiggans Leads Bipartisan Push to Guarantee Military Pay During ..., accessed October 12, 2025, https://kiggans.house.gov/posts/kiggans-leads-bipartisan-push-to-guarantee-military-pay-during-government-shutdowns
23. Bill tracking in US - HR 5401 (119 legislative session) - FastDemocracy, accessed October 12, 2025, https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/us/119/bills/USB00098917/
24. Ensure Military Pay During the Government Shutdown - 5 Calls, accessed October 12, 2025, https://5calls.org/issue/government-shutdown-military-pay/
25. Carbajal Urges House Speaker to Protect Troops' Pay During Republican Shutdown, accessed October 12, 2025, https://carbajal.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3356
26. Pay Our Military Act - Wikipedia, accessed October 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_Our_Military_Act
27. Trump orders Defense Dept. to issue military paychecks during shutdown, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/11/military-pay-shutdown-trump/
28. Senate rejects competing bills to fund government, increasing risk of shutdown on Oct. 1, accessed October 12, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/house-trump-funding-bill-republicans-shutdown-1fea0f79c85ec69b91d9789fbda00834
29. House-passed GOP funding bill fails in Senate, leaving path to avoid shutdown unclear, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-government-shutdown/
30. A Piecemeal Approach to Funding the Government Makes No Sense - Center for American Progress, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/house-republicans-piecemeal-approach-to-funding-the-government-makes-no-sense/
31. Why a Piecemeal Approach to Funding the Government Doesn't ..., accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/why-a-piecemeal-approach-to-funding-the-government-doesnt-make-sense/
32. Significant Problems with Full-Year Continuing Resolutions - House Committee on Appropriations |, accessed October 12, 2025, https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/significant-problems-with-full-year-continuing-resolutions.pdf
33. Mrvan Support for the Pay our Troops Act of 2026, accessed October 12, 2025, https://mrvan.house.gov/media/press-releases/mrvan-support-pay-our-troops-act-2026
34. Democrats float immediately paying feds working through shutdown ..., accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2025/10/democrats-float-immediately-paying-feds-working-through-shutdown-congress-again-rejects-bill-reopen-government/408733/
35. NGAUS Urges Congress Again to Back 'Pay Our Troops' Bill - National Guard Association, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/ngaus-urges-congress-again-back-pay-our-troops-bill
36. Spotlight: Take Action — Visit the EANGUS Legislative Action ..., accessed October 12, 2025, https://caleangus.org/2025/10/07/spotlight-take-action-visit-the-eangus-legislative-action-center/