Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
This bill ("RESTORING the Sanctity of Public Entombments, Cemeteries, and Tributes Act of 2025" or "RESPECT Act of 2025") amends 38 U.S.C. §2411 to change how and when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Secretary of the Army may reconsider decisions to inter remains or honor the memory of a person in a national cemetery. The bill (1) clarifies applicability to decisions made on or after June 18, 1973, (2) replaces certain statutory language so that disqualifying conduct is tied specifically to meeting the definition of a Tier III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), and (3) repeals subsection (c) of the Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act (Public Law 113–65).
Whether tying reconsideration authority specifically to SORNA Tier III appropriately balances legal clarity and victims’ interests (progressives see narrowing as harmful; conservatives see it as fair).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that directly modifies existing U.S. Code provisions and repeals a subsection of a named public law.
This bill ("RESTORING the Sanctity of Public Entombments, Cemeteries, and Tributes Act of 2025" or "RESPECT Act of 2025") amends 38 U.S.C. §2411 to change how and when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Secretary of the Army may reconsider decisions to inter remains or honor the memory of a person in a national cemetery.
The bill (1) clarifies applicability to decisions made on or after June 18, 1973, (2) replaces certain statutory language so that disqualifying conduct is tied specifically to meeting the definition of a Tier III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), and (3) repeals subsection (c) of the Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act (Public Law 113–65).
The effect, as written, appears to narrow the class of offenses that automatically trigger reconsideration to those that qualify as SORNA Tier III offenses and makes an associated conforming repeal in prior law.
Judged on content alone, the bill is a narrow, technical statutory amendment with low fiscal impact and straightforward implementation, which improves its prospects. However, the subject—eligibility for honors/interment vis-à-vis sex-offender classifications—carries reputational and moral sensitivities that can draw opposition and slow movement, especially in the Senate where broader agreement is typically required. Lack of compromise mechanisms in the text is a small negative factor.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that directly modifies existing U.S. Code provisions and repeals a subsection of a named public law. It names the affected provisions precisely, but the presented amendment text is fragmented and lacks explanatory findings, transitional provisions, fiscal acknowledgment, and oversight measures.
Whether tying reconsideration authority specifically to SORNA Tier III appropriately balances legal clarity and victims’ interests (progressives see narrowing as harmful; conservatives see it as fair).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
The clearest budget scorecard attached to this bill: what it changes for direct spending, revenue, and the deficit.
As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on March 18, 2026
Whether tying reconsideration authority specifically to SORNA Tier III appropriately balances legal clarity and victims’ interests (progressives see narrowing as harmful; conservatives see it as fair).
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill with concern because it narrows the statutory trigger for reconsidering interment or honors to only those who qualify as SORNA Tier III sex offenders.
They would worry that victims, families, and community standards could be sidelined if certain sexual offenders who do not meet the Tier III definition remain eligible for interment or honors.
They would also note the repeal of a subsection of the 2013 Alicia Dawn Koehl law and see that as potentially weakening prior protections.
A centrist/independent would treat the bill as an attempt to add precision to a sensitive administrative authority while raising pragmatic concerns about unintended consequences.
They would appreciate clarity that ties reconsideration to a defined federal classification (SORNA Tier III), but want assurance that the policy will not overlook serious non‑Tier III offenses or the views of victims and families.
Procedural safeguards, clear implementation guidance, and an explanation of why the change is necessary would be important to them.
A mainstream conservative would likely view this bill favorably as a measure to tighten and clarify the standards under which honors or interment can be reconsidered, protecting long‑term entitlements and preventing what they would characterize as administrative or retroactive punishment beyond established federal classifications.
They would emphasize rule‑of‑law and reliance on an objective, federal standard (SORNA Tier III) rather than ad hoc administrative determinations.
Conservatives would also welcome repealing overlapping or unclear prior statutory language.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Judged on content alone, the bill is a narrow, technical statutory amendment with low fiscal impact and straightforward implementation, which improves its prospects. However, the subject—eligibility for honors/interment vis-à-vis sex-offender classifications—carries reputational and moral sensitivities that can draw opposition and slow movement, especially in the Senate where broader agreement is typically required. Lack of compromise mechanisms in the text is a small negative factor.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether tying reconsideration authority specifically to SORNA Tier III appropriately balances legal clarity and victims’ interests (progres…
Judged on content alone, the bill is a narrow, technical statutory amendment with low fiscal impact and straightforward implementation, whi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that directly modifies existing U.S. Code provisions and repeals a subsection of a named public law. It names t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.