Fighting for the Overlooked Recognition of Groups Operating in Toxic Test Environments in Nevada (FORGOTTEN) Veterans Act of 2025
SB2220, the FORGOTTEN Veterans Act of 2025, would expand federal tracking and legal presumptions for toxic exposure affecting members of the Armed Forces and certain Department of Defense civilian employees, with a particular focus on Nevada test and training sites. The bill directs the Department of Defense to broaden the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER) so it captures all toxic exposures, related medical information, and exposure-related concerns, and makes that information available to the Department of Veterans Affairs when service members transition to civilian life. It also requires service records to note whether a member served at a location with potential toxic exposure, while protecting classified location information.
The bill further creates a presumption that service members and DoD civilians stationed or employed at covered Department of Energy facilities were exposed to toxic substances. It specifically classifies the Nevada Test and Training Range as a contamination location, establishes a process to identify personnel who served there since January 27, 1951, and amends veterans law to treat certain service there as a radiation-risk activity. It also adds a VA presumption of toxic exposure for those assigned to covered locations at the Nevada Test and Training Range and creates a new presumption of service connection for lipomas and tumor-related conditions for covered veterans.
In practical terms, the bill would expand the evidentiary record used by DoD and VA, increase the number of veterans and some civilian employees who qualify for exposure-based presumptions, and likely make it easier for affected individuals to obtain disability compensation and related benefits. It would also require coordination between DoD, VA, the Air Force, and the Department of Energy on recordkeeping, identification of exposed personnel, and benefits determinations.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s committee action is favorable: it was ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. That suggests support for the bill’s purpose of recognizing overlooked toxic exposures, especially tied to Nevada test and training environments, while refining the legislative language before further consideration.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the scope of the new presumptions, the administrative burden of identifying affected personnel over a long historical period, and the implications of classifying additional locations and conditions as presumptively service-connected. The bill also raises potential concerns about how to balance transparency with protection of classified information, and whether the expanded presumptions could affect eligibility and costs for VA benefits.
The bill would amend title 38 of the U.S. Code to add new VA presumptions for toxic exposure and service connection, and it would require the Department of Defense to expand exposure tracking and service-record documentation. It also ties certain Nevada Test and Training Range service to radiation-risk and toxic-exposure presumptions, and it extends a presumption of exposure to DoD civilian employees and service members at covered Department of Energy facilities. These changes would affect veterans, active-duty personnel, former service members, and some civilian employees by easing access to disability compensation and related benefits based on presumed exposure rather than individualized proof.
The available legislative history indicates generally positive sentiment toward the bill. The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs ordered it to be reported favorably, albeit with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which suggests the committee supported the underlying policy goal while making technical or substantive revisions. No recorded votes or transcript debate were provided, so the record does not show organized opposition in the materials supplied.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill’s presumptions are too broad, especially for historical service at Nevada test and training sites and at Department of Energy facilities, and whether the evidence standards are workable for identifying personnel from decades past. Another potential issue is the administrative and fiscal impact on DoD and VA, since the bill would require expanded recordkeeping, research access, and benefits adjudication. There may also be debate over the new presumptive link for lipomas and tumor-related conditions, and over how to document exposure-related service while safeguarding classified information.