S. 1226 (119th)Bill Overview

Restoring Fort Leonard Wood Act of 2025

Armed Forces and National Security|Armed Forces and National Security
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Apr 1, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

Requires the Secretary of the Army to carry out construction project(s) replacing 1,142 military family housing units at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Authorizes $700,000,000 in appropriations to carry out that purpose.

Passage50/100

Moderate chance: narrowly focused, non-ideological, but requires appropriation and must compete for funding or be attached to larger defense must-pass legislation.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative/operational directive that mandates replacement of 1,142 military family housing units at Fort Leonard Wood and authorizes $700,000,000 to do so. It provides a clear objective and funding authorization but contains limited implementation detail.

Contention28/100

Liberal emphasizes labor and green standards; conservatives emphasize fiscal offsets.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Housing market · Local governmentsFederal agencies
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersImproves living conditions for military families stationed at Fort Leonard Wood.
  • Housing marketSupports military readiness by reducing housing-related retention and morale issues.
  • Local governmentsGenerates local construction and related economic activity during project implementation.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesIncreases federal discretionary spending by up to $700 million, affecting budgetary totals.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCreates opportunity costs by allocating funds that could finance other military or domestic priorities.
  • Targeted stakeholdersLacks specified timelines, oversight, or reporting requirements to manage cost and schedule risk.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberal emphasizes labor and green standards; conservatives emphasize fiscal offsets.
Progressive85%

Generally favorable because it funds housing for military families and addresses living-condition equity.

Would seek assurances on labor standards, environmental efficiency, and accountability for contractor performance; those concerns are speculative because the bill text is silent on standards.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Likely supportive overall as a targeted infrastructure investment for military readiness and families.

Wants clearer cost estimates, timelines, and congressional oversight language before enthusiastic backing; those implementation details are not in the bill text.

Leans supportive
Conservative60%

Cautiously supportive because it aids military families and readiness, but concerned about the $700M appropriation without offsets.

Prefers fiscal discipline, competitive contracting, and limited federal expansion into local housing markets.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood50/100

Moderate chance: narrowly focused, non-ideological, but requires appropriation and must compete for funding or be attached to larger defense must-pass legislation.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether appropriators will fund the $700M authorization
  • Presence or absence of CBO cost estimate and offsets
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberal emphasizes labor and green standards; conservatives emphasize fiscal offsets.

Moderate chance: narrowly focused, non-ideological, but requires appropriation and must compete for funding or be attached to larger defens…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative/operational directive that mandates replacement of 1,142 military family housing units at Fort Leonard Wood and authorizes $700,000,000 to…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis