By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
I appreciate Daniel Cortez’s recent guest column in the FXBG Advance about the Fredericksburg VA Health Care Center, “Column Response: The VA Should Not Be a Political Pawn”—a rebuttal to an essay I wrote a few weeks ago for this publication, and a follow-up by Advance Editor Steve Watkins.
Cortez and I disagree on important points, sometimes sharply. But his column does something useful: It keeps attention on our new VA facility and, more importantly, keeps the issue before the veterans it was built to serve. Veterans should be talking about this center. We should tell people when it serves us well. We should speak up when it does not. And we should be able to ask hard questions without those questions automatically becoming Republican questions or Democratic questions.
Cortez says he has received exceptional care at Fredericksburg. I am glad he has.
So have I.
Before this controversy, I wrote about my own positive experience at the center. I praised the professionalism, compassion and resilience of its employees. I wrote about a nurse whose humor put me at ease and a physician who arranged a same-day referral when I needed one. I concluded by thanking those VA employees for their professionalism and compassion.
That remains my view.
The people working at the Fredericksburg VA are not the problem I have been trying to address.
The question is whether there are enough of them, whether veterans can obtain the services they need when they need them, and whether this impressive new facility is progressing toward the capacity for which it was built.
Cortez himself asks what may be the best question in this entire discussion:
“Are we moving fast enough to meet the needs of our veterans?”
I agree.
That is exactly what I have been trying to determine.
How This Discussion Actually Started
Some of the disagreements about my column have become so focused on one staffing number that the original purpose of the column has almost disappeared.
My original column was titled “Fight or Fold: The Pattern Fredericksburg Needs to Test on the VA.”
It was not simply a complaint about the VA. It was about something larger: What can ordinary citizens and community institutions do when they believe a government policy may be hurting their community?
I looked at examples involving businesses, labor organizations and other institutions that had challenged actions of the Trump administration. Sometimes those challenges worked. Policies were changed, funding was restored or decisions were reconsidered. My point was not that every challenge succeeds. My point was that organized, persistent and fact-based resistance can sometimes make government reconsider a decision.
Then I asked whether Fredericksburg could apply that lesson to our VA.
My proposal was deliberately community based, not party based.
I suggested bringing together veterans themselves, the VFW, American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, local business organizations and other civic groups. Collect veterans’ experiences. Track staffing and access to care. Put reliable information before the public. Ask our elected representatives to help. Keep asking questions until we understand what is happening and, where there are problems, work together to fix them.
That distinction matters.
A complaint from one columnist is easy to dismiss as politics. A complaint from one Democratic member of Congress can be dismissed by Republicans. A complaint from a Republican can be dismissed by Democrats.
But a community of veterans—Republicans, Democrats, independents and people who couldn’t care less about political parties—asking the same factual questions is harder to dismiss.
And perhaps that helps explain why my original column produced such a strong reaction from the national VA press office, which Advance Editor Steve Watkins chronicled in a post headlined “Veterans Affairs Top Press Secretary Has a Cow, Says He Wants Advance Commentary Taken Down.”
I cannot know anyone’s motive, and I will not pretend that I do. But I do know what I proposed: Organized community scrutiny of what is happening at our VA.
Government should not fear that.
Government should welcome it.
If everything is going well, the facts will demonstrate that and strengthen veterans’ confidence in the VA. If something is going wrong, finding it gives the VA, Congress, and the community an opportunity to correct it.
Both results help veterans.
I Used an Outdated Number
Now let me address the mistake that has become central to Cortez’s criticism.
My original column said Fredericksburg was staffed at roughly 41 percent of its authorized level. That figure came from information published by Sen. Tim Kaine concerning staffing at the end of 2025.
The figure was real.
But when I used it, it was outdated.
When the VA press secretary challenged the number, I went back and checked my sources. More recent information showed that staffing had increased substantially. I acknowledged the problem and proposed correcting the column.
I don’t see anything complicated about that.
If I publish a number and subsequently discover that newer information makes it inaccurate, I should correct it.
So should a newspaper.
So should a government agency.
So should Daniel Cortez.
Accuracy matters more than winning an argument.
But correcting the 41-percent figure does not answer the question that started this discussion: Does the Fredericksburg VA have enough people and resources to meet the needs of the veterans it serves?
That question remains.
There Is an Elephant in the Room
There is also a larger history here that should not disappear in an argument about percentages.
The Fredericksburg VA Health Care Center did not suddenly materialize after the 2024 election. It was conceived, planned, funded, and largely built before the current administration took office.
It was built because the federal government and the VA had determined that this region’s growing veteran population needed substantially more health-care capacity.
It replaced smaller clinics and was intended to provide a much broader range of services locally.
In other words, there had to be planning assumptions behind it: Expected numbers of veterans, expected patient visits, medical services, physicians, nurses, mental-health professionals, technicians, schedulers, pharmacists and support personnel.
Then the political and management environment changed.
Just as this enormous new facility was preparing to open and build up its workforce, the incoming Trump administration imposed a federal hiring freeze and subsequently pursued substantial workforce reductions across the VA. The VA established exemptions for essential health-care positions and has maintained that veterans’ care would be protected.
Those are facts worth putting next to each other.
But I don’t know exactly what happened between them.
Did those administration policies slow Fredericksburg’s planned staffing buildup?
Did exemptions protect Fredericksburg completely?
Were positions delayed?
Were hiring plans changed?
Were staffing requirements revised because the center was opening in phases?
Did expected workload change?
Or is Fredericksburg exactly where the VA’s original activation plan said it would be at this point?
I don’t know.
And that is precisely why I am asking.
Saying “I don’t know” is not an accusation against the Trump administration. It is an acknowledgment that veterans have not yet been given enough information to know the answer.
Then the VA Challenged the Column
After my original column appeared, the Fredericksburg VA Medical Center press secretary, Quinn Slaven, contacted Fredericksburg Advance editor Steve Watkins and challenged several statements in it.
The VA objected to the 41 percent staffing figure. As I have said, it had a legitimate point. The number was outdated.
The VA also disputed statements concerning veterans waiting longer for care and challenged the wait-time figures I had used.
That became more complicated.
The figures I cited concerning mental-health and primary-care waits had come from Rep. Eugene Vindman’s office. When the VA responded, it offered much shorter figures. Looking more closely at the numbers showed that we were not always comparing the same thing. The public VA data distinguished, among other things, between new and established patients.
That doesn’t mean one side is automatically right and the other wrong.
It means we need to understand exactly what is being measured.
A veteran who has been in the VA system for years and can see his established provider in eight or eleven days has one experience.
A new patient trying to enter the system and waiting substantially longer is having another.
Both numbers matter.
Both veterans matter.
So, I Suggested We Ask the VA
At that point I could have argued with the press secretary.
Instead, I suggested something different to Steve Watkins.
Let’s ask follow-up questions.
If the VA says my staffing number is outdated, fine. What is the correct number?
More importantly, what is the correct requirement?
The VA subsequently said Fredericksburg had nearly 600 employees, with additional candidates being brought aboard, and that staffing was “on schedule and aligned with the number of veterans seen.”
That sounds encouraging.
But it immediately raises an obvious question:
What schedule?
If staffing is on schedule, show veterans the schedule.
If staffing is aligned with workload, tell us what workload is being used and how the VA converts that workload into a staffing requirement.
That is why I suggested a series of follow-up questions.
How many employees does Fredericksburg require for its current workload?
How many positions are authorized?
How many are funded?
How many employees are actually on board?
How many positions remain vacant?
How many candidates are somewhere in the hiring process?
Where are the vacancies—primary care, mental health, specialty medicine, nursing, pharmacy, diagnostics, scheduling or social work?
What is the planned staffing level when Fredericksburg becomes fully operational?
What methodology does the VA use to calculate those requirements?
What workload assumptions drive that calculation?
And, given the timing of the new administration’s hiring freeze and VA workforce reductions, did those policies alter the original Fredericksburg staffing plan or schedule?
Steve published those questions.
Cortez calls them a “diatribe of gotcha questions.”
I see them very differently.
They are management questions.
And more importantly, they are veterans’ questions.
What Does “On Schedule” Mean?
I spent much of my adult life in the military and federal government.
If someone told me an organization was adequately staffed, I would expect that conclusion to rest on something measurable.
What is the mission?
What is the workload?
What are the requirements?
What resources are authorized?
What resources are funded?
How many people are assigned?
What is the difference between what is required and what is actually available?
Those aren’t trick questions.
They are how managers determine whether an organization has the resources to accomplish its mission.
That is particularly important here because we are talking about a new facility.
The old Fredericksburg clinics had one mission and one level of capacity. The new center was built to do considerably more.
So simply telling veterans how many employees work there today doesn’t fully answer the question.
Six hundred employees might be excellent if the current requirement is 575.
Six hundred might be inadequate if the current requirement is 750.
The number means very little without the requirement against which it is measured.
That is what we are trying to learn.
Good Care and Staffing Problems Can Exist at the Same Time
Cortez’s positive experience deserves to be heard.
So does mine.
But neither of our experiences settles the staffing question.
A veteran can receive superb care from a doctor while another veteran is waiting to get an appointment with that doctor.
A nurse can be compassionate, professional and exceptionally capable while working in a unit that needs additional nurses.
A pharmacist can fill prescriptions accurately while the pharmacy needs more staff.
A mental-health professional can provide outstanding treatment while other veterans wait for access.
Quality and capacity are different questions.
We should be capable of holding two thoughts at the same time:
The Fredericksburg VA can employ excellent people who provide excellent care.
And the Fredericksburg VA can still have staffing, access or capacity problems that need attention.
Acknowledging the second does not insult the people responsible for the first.
In fact, making sure those employees have enough colleagues and resources may be one of the best ways we can support them.
Who Owns This Issue?
This is where I think Cortez and I may be closer than his column suggests.
He argues that the VA should not become a political pawn.
I agree.
But the way to prevent that is not to stop asking questions because the president happens to be a Republican or because the members of Congress asking some of those questions happen to be Democrats.
The answer is to broaden who asks the questions.
This issue should not belong to Donald Trump.
It should not belong to Tim Kaine.
It should not belong to Eugene Vindman.
It should not belong to Daniel Cortez, Steve Watkins, or Phil Huber.
It belongs to veterans.
And it belongs to this community.
That takes us directly back to the point of my original “Fight or Fold” column.
Bring the veterans organizations together.
Bring the VFW.
Bring the American Legion.
Bring Disabled American Veterans.
Bring local business and civic organizations.
Bring veterans who voted for Trump and veterans who voted against him.
Bring veterans who love the care they receive at Fredericksburg and veterans who have experienced problems.
Collect their experiences.
Separate anecdotes from patterns.
Track the numbers.
Ask the VA for its numbers.
Ask our congressional representatives for theirs.
When the numbers conflict, find out why.
When we publish something wrong, correct it.
When the VA is doing something well, say so.
When it needs help, fight to get it that help.
And when a policy adopted in Washington may be affecting veterans in Fredericksburg, ask about it regardless of which party controls the White House.
That is community oversight, not partisan warfare.
I Don’t Want the VA to Fail
There is one point I particularly want Cortez and other veterans to understand.
I have no interest in proving that the Fredericksburg VA is failing.
Why would I?
I use it.
My fellow veterans use it.
I want it to succeed.
I want its doctors to have enough nurses.
I want its nurses to have enough support.
I want its mental-health professionals to be able to see veterans promptly.
I want veterans to receive specialty care without unnecessary delays.
I want the enormous investment taxpayers made in this facility to deliver everything it was intended to deliver.
If the VA answers our questions and demonstrates that Fredericksburg is appropriately staffed for its present workload, that its hiring and activation plans are proceeding properly, that remaining vacancies are manageable and that veterans are receiving timely care, I will gladly write that column.
Nothing would please me more.
But confidence in a government institution should not require veterans simply to accept an assurance that everything is “on schedule.”
Show us.
So Let’s Answer Cortez’s Question
Cortez asks:
“Are we moving fast enough to meet the needs of our veterans?”
That question can bring this entire discussion back to where it belongs.
Let’s answer it.
Not with campaign talking points.
Not by questioning one another’s motives.
Not by deciding that a veteran who praises the VA must be defending Trump or that a veteran who questions VA staffing must be attacking him.
Let’s answer it with facts.
Tell veterans what staffing the Fredericksburg center requires today.
Tell us how many people are working there.
Tell us how many authorized and funded positions remain vacant.
Tell us where the vacancies are.
Tell us what services remain short of their planned capacity.
Tell us the difference between new-patient and established-patient wait times.
Tell us what the VA means when it says Fredericksburg is “on schedule.”
Tell us what the schedule is.
And tell us whether the federal hiring freeze and subsequent VA workforce reductions changed Fredericksburg’s original staffing and activation plan. If they did not, tell us that and show us why.
Then let veterans judge the results.
Daniel Cortez’s column helps keep those questions alive. For that, I appreciate it.
Steve Watkins helped by publishing the questions.
Now the VA has an opportunity to help by answering them.
And the rest of us—Republican, Democrat, independent or politically unaffiliated—have an opportunity to do something even more important: keep this discussion centered on the veterans who depend on this facility rather than the politicians arguing over it.
That was the purpose of my original column.
It remains my purpose today.
This isn’t about winning a political argument. It is about making sure the Fredericksburg VA succeeds.
That isn’t partisan politics. It is community accountability. And veterans have earned the right to demand it.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel, federal civil servant and consultant who writes on civic education. He lives in Fredericksburg.
