The Department of Veterans Affairs is exploring new policies that could allow federal attorneys to initiate guardianship or conservatorship proceedings for certain veterans—potentially placing them under involuntary mental health treatment or institutional care.
The stated goal is to help vulnerable veterans transition out of homelessness and into medical care. That goal is understandable.
But history teaches that systems allowing the government to declare individuals mentally unfit must be approached with caution.
Throughout history, governments have sometimes used claims of mental instability to discredit or neutralize political opponents. Even in democratic societies, accusations about someone’s mental fitness can carry enormous legal and social consequences once they enter the system.
In this video, Nate Charles—a former Navy SEAL officer, former federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and now a civil liberties attorney—explains why he believes this issue deserves close attention.
Drawing on both historical examples and personal experience with how mental-fitness allegations can shape legal proceedings, he argues that any expansion of government authority over veterans’ liberty must be examined carefully.
Veterans fought to defend the Constitution. Systems that allow the government to restrict their liberty deserve serious public scrutiny.
If you care about civil liberties, the rule of law, and the future of American democracy, subscribe for thoughtful commentary from a former national security insider who isn’t afraid to ask hard questions.
New videos and analysis on law, national security, civil resistance, and the defense of democratic institutions.
