![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/us-military-soldiers-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in Political Research Quarterly suggests that members of the United States House of Representatives with military experience are more effective at passing legislation and more likely to work with colleagues across party lines. These differences are especially pronounced among veterans who served on active duty. As Congress faces ongoing dysfunction and deepening polarization, these findings lend support to the growing argument that electing more veterans could help improve legislative performance and cooperation.
The study was motivated by a noticeable trend in American politics. Over the past several decades, the number of military veterans serving in Congress has sharply declined, falling from over 70 percent in 1971 to just 17 percent in recent years. During that same period, Congress has become more polarized and less productive, while public trust in the institution has eroded. Veteran candidates and their supporters often link these trends, arguing that military service fosters values—such as duty, teamwork, and selfless service—that could help restore function and civility in Washington.
To test these claims, researcher Joseph Amoroso analyzed data from the House of Representatives spanning the 104th to the 116th Congresses, covering the years 1995 to 2021. The study focused on two main questions: Are veterans more effective at advancing legislation? And are they more willing to work with members of the opposing party?
To measure effectiveness, Amoroso used Legislative Effectiveness Scores, which track how far lawmakers’ bills progress through the legislative process—from introduction to committee consideration, House passage, and eventual enactment into law. These scores also account for the substance of each bill, giving more weight to meaningful policy efforts. For bipartisanship, the study examined cosponsorship patterns—how often members support bills introduced by lawmakers from the other party—as well as data from the Lugar Center’s Bipartisan Index, which combines measures of offering and receiving cross-party support.
Across all 13 Congresses studied, lawmakers with military backgrounds were consistently more effective at advancing significant legislation. On average, veterans scored higher on legislative effectiveness, and those who served on active duty stood out the most. Even after accounting for other factors that influence effectiveness—such as seniority, committee positions, and party leadership—veteran status remained a positive predictor of legislative success. In statistical terms, active-duty veterans were about 20 percent more effective than their nonveteran peers, a difference roughly half the size of the advantage gained by being in the majority party.
The data also showed that veterans played a key role in moving high-impact legislation forward. Although they made up only about a quarter of lawmakers in the dataset, veterans were responsible for nearly half of all substantive and significant bills introduced between 1995 and 2021. About a third of these efforts came from active-duty veterans, highlighting their outsized influence. In terms of outcomes, veterans were more likely to see their bills progress at each stage of the legislative process. For instance, about 25 percent of veterans had at least one major bill become law, compared to just 12 percent of nonveterans.
On the question of bipartisanship, the results were more nuanced. Veterans did show a greater tendency to cosponsor bills introduced by members of the opposite party. While the difference was modest, it was statistically significant and held up even after accounting for factors like party affiliation, ideology, and electoral competitiveness. Interestingly, this effect was more strongly associated with veterans who had non-active-duty experience, such as service in the National Guard or Reserves. In contrast, active-duty service did not have a significant impact on bipartisan cosponsorship in the broader dataset.
However, when focusing on more recent sessions of Congress—specifically from 2013 to 2020—the data painted a slightly different picture. During this highly polarized period, veterans scored significantly higher than nonveterans on the Lugar Center’s Bipartisan Index, which offers a more comprehensive measure of cross-party cooperation. Here, active-duty veterans were particularly prominent, outperforming both nonveterans and non-active-duty veterans in bipartisan activity. The study suggests that during times of heightened partisanship, the team-oriented values instilled through active military service may play a stronger role in shaping lawmakers’ behavior.
As with any study, the findings come with some limitations. The study cannot fully separate whether the observed differences are due to self-selection—people who are naturally inclined to work hard and collaborate may be more likely to join the military—or whether military service itself changes people’s behavior. The distinction between self-selection and socialization is difficult to parse, though the stronger results among active-duty veterans suggest that more intense military experiences may have a greater impact.
Additionally, while the analysis shows meaningful differences between veterans and nonveterans, the effects are not large enough to suggest that military experience alone can fix Congress. Polarization and gridlock are driven by a complex mix of institutional, political, and cultural factors. However, the findings do indicate that veterans bring a distinctive approach to lawmaking that can help counter some of these forces.
The study, “Deployed to the Hill: Military Experience and Legislative Behavior in Congress,” was published November 15, 2024.
