Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill requiring integrity reviews before military officer promotions.
The problem
Military promotions may proceed without adequate review of officer conduct records, potentially allowing officers with integrity issues into leadership positions.
The proposal
Establishes mandatory integrity verification process before military officer promotions are finalized, requiring review of conduct and performance records.
The impact
Military officers face additional review steps before promotion. Department of Defense gains new procedures. Service members and commanders affected by promotion timeline changes.
Adding integrity checks before promotions helps ensure military leaders meet high ethical standards. This protects troops under their command and maintains public trust in the military.
Catching officers with conduct problems before they reach higher ranks protects soldiers and military readiness. It stops poor leaders from influencing more people.
Ensuring promoted officers have clean records helps maintain public confidence in the armed forces. Strong leadership standards support recruitment and respect.
Formal integrity processes create transparent standards everyone understands. Officers know what conduct matters for advancement and why.
Adding review steps takes time, delaying when qualified officers get promoted. This could slow advancement for good leaders and affect military operations.
Department of Defense needs new staff and systems to conduct integrity reviews. This costs money and creates extra paperwork for military personnel.
New subjective review processes might be applied unfairly across different branches or regions. Officers could face inconsistent standards depending on who reviews them.
Without specific details in the bill, military branches may define integrity differently. This confusion could create unfair or inconsistent promotion decisions.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.