LaMalfa & The Military

Rep. Doug LaMalfa has represented California’s 1st District since 2013. Still, his voting record on war powers, veterans’ health care, and core defense policy reads like a case study in putting factional House politics ahead of troops and veterans. On pivotal roll calls—from repealing obsolete war authorizations and constraining unauthorized deployments to aiding allies and expanding toxic-exposure benefits—LaMalfa repeatedly aligned with hard-line Republican positions even when those stances risked U.S. security, military readiness, and the health of veterans back home (Clerk of the House, 2021, 2023a, 2024a, 2024b; Congress.gov, 2021, 2023a, 2024a; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], 2024). 

Blocking Guardrails on War—and Prolonging Risk to U.S. Forces

In June 2021, the House voted to repeal the outdated 2002 Iraq AUMF (H.R. 256). LaMalfa voted No, siding with 161 members to keep a dormant war authorization on the books (Clerk of the House, 2021). Keeping that statute available invites executive overreach and mission creep—precisely the pattern that produces open-ended deployments without fresh congressional mandate, increasing risk to U.S. personnel and diminishing democratic accountability (Congress.gov, 2021). For District 1 families with loved ones in uniform, the vote preserved a legal backdoor for future military action rather than restoring Congress’s constitutional role (Congress.gov, 2021). (Clerk of the House, 2021; Congress.gov, 2021). 

In March 2023, LaMalfa voted No on a War Powers resolution to remove U.S. forces from Syria within 180 days (H.Con.Res. 21), sustaining an indefinite deployment with no new authorization or strategy debate (Clerk of the House, 2023a; Congress.gov, 2023a). That choice kept roughly 900 troops in harm’s way with continuing exposure to ISIS cells and IRGC-linked threats—costs borne by servicemembers and their families while Congress declines to take ownership (Clerk of the House, 2023a). (Clerk of the House, 2023a; Congress.gov, 2023a). 

Undercutting Deterrence and Stockpile Readiness

When Russia’s full-scale war put European security on the line, the House approved the Ukraine Security Supplemental (H.R. 8035) in April 2024 by 311–112 to replenish U.S. stocks and sustain support for allies. LaMalfa voted No (Clerk of the House, 2024b; Congress.gov, 2024b). Opposing this package undercut allied deterrence and slowed resupply of U.S. munitions. This combination increases long-run risks for forward-deployed Americans and raises the odds of costlier interventions later—hardly the posture northern California’s military families need (Clerk of the House, 2024b; Congress.gov, 2024b). 

Saying “No” When Sick, Veterans Needed “Yes”

The most far-reaching expansion of veterans’ toxic-exposure care in decades—the Honoring Our PACT Act—first passed the House in March 2022 (H.R. 3967) despite LaMalfa’s No vote (Clerk of the House, 2022). The reform ultimately became law via S. 3373 later that summer (Congress.gov, 2022). VA’s implementation data since enactment show extensive screenings and benefits delivered to veterans and survivors—the very outcomes opponents of the House bill would have slowed or denied (VA, 2024). In a district with a large veteran population, voting No at the crucial early stage meant delaying care and compensation for burn-pit and other toxic exposures (Clerk of the House, 2022; VA, 2024). 

Turning Must-Pass Defense Bills into Culture-War Vehicles

LaMalfa also helped turn annual defense bills into culture-war platforms that harm force health and cohesion. He voted Yes on the House version of the FY2024 NDAA (H.R. 2670), which was loaded with riders to restrict abortion-related travel reimbursement and curb DEI functions before many were stripped in conference (Clerk of the House, 2023b). He then voted Yes again on the FY2025 NDAA (H.R. 8070)—and the House adopted the Van Duyne amendment to prohibit DoD from paying for or reimbursing abortion-related travel (Roll Call 263) (Clerk of the House, 2024a; Congress.gov, 2024a). Whatever one’s social views, the operational effect is apparent: constraining lawful medical access for troops and families—especially those stationed under state restrictions—raises out-of-pocket costs, delays care, and worsens retention and readiness in an already stressed all-volunteer force (Clerk of the House, 2024a; Congress.gov, 2024a). For CA-01’s Guard and veteran communities, that’s real-world harm masquerading as “values” policy. 

Bottom Line for CA-01

Across these episodes, LaMalfa reliably sided with the most hard-line GOP caucus blocs even when that meant: preserving obsolete war authorities; sustaining deployments without new authorization; opposing aid that strengthens deterrence; and attempting to restrict veterans’ and servicemembers’ access to health care. Those are not victimless positions. They translate into longer and riskier deployments, brittler alliances, thinner munitions stockpiles, delayed VA care, and higher personal costs for military families in the North State (Clerk of the House, 2021, 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2024a, 2024b; Congress.gov, 2021, 2022, 2023a, 2024a, 2024b; VA, 2024). The pattern isn’t “supporting the troops.” It’s party over country—and CA-01 pays the price.