HB1377 – Final VMI Task Force Bill Advances

When the Virginia House of Delegates voted on Feb. 5, 2026, to advance House Bill 1377 to establish a Task Force to study and investigate the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the bill no longer explicitly asked whether the VMI should remain a state-sponsored institution. That change—adopted through floor amendments the previous day with VMI's full concurrence and endorsement—cleared the way for the bill's passage. Yet as HB1377 now moves forward, debate has shifted from what the bill says to what it does. At issue is whether the amended legislation, which establishes a Democrat General Assembly-appointed task force to examine VMI, meaningfully removed the risk of defunding—or whether it preserved the same analytic pathway through which funding, mission, or structure could later be altered. From Defunding Question to Oversight Study As introduced in January 2026, HB1377 did not directly "defund" VMI as some claimed. Rather, it directed a task force to determine whether VMI "should continue to be a state-sponsored institution of higher education" in a report that would not be published until after the current General Assembly session and associated budget decisions. The report, however, will recommend funding and other impacts on VMI for the General Assembly's decision and action. Despite this, the original language triggered immediate concern among VMI leadership, alumni, and legislators representing the Lexington region. The version that ultimately passed the House removed that specific state sponsorship directive. Instead, the House bill instructs the task force to "examine higher education" at VMI and to assess the Institute's responsiveness to the 2021 State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) investigative report, as well as other institutional issues. On Feb. 4, following the adoption of the floor amendments, the Bill's Chief Patron, Del. Dan I. Helmer (D), informed the General Assembly the changes were agreed to in the closed-door meeting with VMI Superintendent Lt. Gen. David J. Furness '87 and other "stakeholders." Furness issued a statement welcoming the changes and expressing his full and unqualified support: VMI is pleased to offer its support of HB1377 as amended on the floor of the House of Delegates today. We are appreciative to the House of Delegates for their bipartisan efforts to amend the bill to remove references threatening VMI's state funding. We are confident that an impartial task force will find that VMI is a Virginia treasure that produces citizen-soldiers ready to serve selflessly as military officers or civilian leaders. While no institution is perfect, VMI is open to improvement in our constant pursuit of excellence. Should the bill be signed into law, we look forward to working with the task force and sharing the VMI experience with them. That endorsement was cited during the House debate and entered the legislative record as evidence of institutional agreement with the amended bill. Del. Helmer (D) told the General Assembly: We have worked closely with stakeholders [VMI Superintendent, Delegate Terry L. Austin (R)] to ensure we have a excellent task force that examines education at VMI, the direction of the education, the mechanisms by which it has moved past "Lost Cause" ideology, the quality of the education and officers produced. The following day, HB1377 passed the House of Delegates with Del. Austin (R) breaking ranks with his party to vote for it. What the Amended Bill Authorizes Under the engrossed version, HB1377 establishes a task force composed of: Four House members (at least one with military service) appointed by the Democratic Speaker of the House Two Senators (at least one with military service) appointed by thee Democrat controlled Senate Committee on Rules One State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) representative Four civilian members "who collectively have subject matter expertise or expertise in workforce development, oversight of student welfare at public institutions of higher education, and educational instruction at public institutions of higher education." Two are appointed by the Democrat controlled Senate Committee on Rules, and two are appointed by the Democrat Speaker of the House of Delegates. The bill makes no provision for consultation with the Department of War, the service branches, or federal commissioning authorities, despite directing an inquiry that could materially disrupt officer supply to all military Services. The task force is authorized to, among other areas: To determine VMI's responsiveness to the recommendations of the 2021 SCHEV Report. …explore other changes that should be made at VMI to distance itself from the Lost Cause and foster an inclusive environment. Determine the extent by which VMI provides leaders to the Armed Forces of the United States at an advantageous cost or with advanced training and capability as compared to other institutions of higher education or other commissioning sources in the Commonwealth [Determine] the feasibility of expanding programs at other public institutions of higher education to replace the role of VMI in providing taxpayer funded commissioned officers to the Armed Forces of the United States. [Determine] the quality of graduates as reflected in graduation rates or other data from initial officer and advanced training and performance in the Admissions practices, including legacy admissions. Evaluate the rigor of current academic curriculum offerings at VMI as compared to other public institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth. [Evaluate] the extent at which current academic offerings at VMI meet the defense and non-defense needs of the Commonwealth. [Evaluate] whether additional academic program offerings should be approved by SCHEV and provided to students enrolled at VMI, should VMI remain a state-funded institution of higher education. Thoroughly audit any actions taken by the leadership of VMI following the release of the 2021 special investigative report to SCHEV… [Audit] to determine if VMI has initiated any substantial changes to its policies, values, and preventative, investigative, and disciplinary procedures to reduce acts within its student body that could be perceived or classified as racist, sexist, or misogynistic or as an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault [Audit to determine if VMI] has actively made efforts to distance itself from the lost-cause narrative or other celebrations or promotions of the Confederacy in the American Civil War. [Audit to determine if VMI] has been able to successfully make progress on these efforts and remaining gaps to achieve progress. [Audit to determine if VMI] possesses the capacity as an institution to end celebration of the Confederacy. Analyze admissions data for each year of incoming students beginning in 2021 to determine if VMI has been successful in recruiting and admitting a more diverse body of students and if admissions priorities have shifted away from a focus on students with legacy status or other alumni relatives."The Task Force shall be authorized to explore any other questions or concerns about VMI that may arise and shall include any such questions or concerns, and the resulting investigations, analyses… Ultimately, the recommendation returns to whether VMI should continue to receive state funding: Based on these analyses and evaluations, provide a recommendation any actions that should be undertaken by VMI as a state-sponsored institution of higher education, as well as any required legislation or budgetary changes to ensure VMI meets the higher education needs of the Commonwealth. [emphasis added] The bill further directs that current and former members of the VMI Board of Visitors, leadership, administrators, educators, cadets, alumni, and others, as may be determined by the Task Force, make available all documents or records requested: Unless otherwise prohibited by law, current and former members of the Board of Visitors of VMI and all current and former leadership, administrators, and educators of VMI shall make available all documents or records, including working papers or related unofficial communications, requested by the task force. The task force shall be permitted to conduct interviews of enrolled or former students and any individuals currently or previously providing education instruction, serving in an administrative role, serving in a leadership role, serving on the Board of Visitors for VMI, or any individual otherwise employed at VMI, and such individual shall make himself available for interview upon request of the task force. [emphasis added] The task force must complete its work by Nov. 30, 2026, and submit a report and executive summary to the Governor and General Assembly ahead of the 2027 session. The Defunding Question: Removed Language, Retained Structure Opponents of HB1377 argue that, while the amended bill removed explicit defunding language, it did not remove the analytical mechanisms or the path through which defunding or structural dismantling could later occur. An opposition memorandum circulated following the passage of the amended bill states: Although the engrossed version of HB1733 removes explicit language referencing defunding or revoking state sponsorship of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the bill does not eliminate the threat of defunding. Instead, it conceals that threat through rhetorical reframing, while preserving—and in some respects strengthening—the structural mechanisms by which defunding or functional dismantling of VMI could later be justified. Central to that critique is the bill's requirement that the Task Force evaluate whether other public institutions could "replace the role of VMI" in producing "taxpayer-funded commissioned officers." In higher-education finance practice, such replaceability analyses are commonly used to justify consolidation, reallocation, or withdrawal of public funding. While HB1377 does not itself mandate funding changes, the opposition memorandum argues that it requires the creation of precisely the evidentiary record that could later support such decisions. The memorandum further notes that the bill continues to emphasize VMI's receipt of "significant funding" from the Commonwealth and frames that funding as a conditional "return on… public investment," implicitly linking institutional evaluation to appropriations authority. Scope, Power, and Method Beyond funding implications, critics have raised concerns about the task force's scope and investigative authority. Sections I–VI of the opposition memorandum highlight several issues: Unlimited scope: The bill authorizes investigation of "any other matter raised by the Task Force" and "any other questions or concerns," making it difficult to define the boundaries of inquiry in advance. Coercive access provisions: The requirement that individuals make themselves available for interviews and provide records is described as unusually expansive for a single-institution review. Lack of defined standards: Although the bill directs the task force to "audit" VMI's actions following the 2021 SCHEV report, it does not specify audit standards, methodologies, or evidentiary thresholds. Adversarial framing: The bill's prefatory "Whereas" clauses assert contested historical and cultural conclusions, which critics say risk confirmation and other bias before the study begins Supporters of HB1377 counter that legislative oversight inherently involves judgment, and that the task force is necessary to verify whether reforms promised after the 2021 SCHEV investigation have been fully implemented. Comparison to the 2021 Barnes & Thornburg Equity Audit In 2021, SCHEV commissioned the law firm, Barnes & Thornburg, to conduct an independent equity audit of VMI following allegations of racism and sexism. That audit was governed by a detailed Request for Proposals that specified methodology, confidentiality protections, timelines, and deliverables. Contrasting that process with HB1377's task force, arguing that the earlier audit: It was conducted by independent third-party investigators, which was later challenged. Used defined research methods and confidentiality safeguards that were later questioned. Focused on diagnosis and reform recommendations, not institutional replaceability or funding consequences By contrast, HB1377 places investigative authority directly in a legislative body, with a broader scope and fewer procedural constraints. Revisiting the changes VMI made as a result of the 2021 study also contradicts the statements made by former VMI Superintendent Maj. Gen.. Cedric T. Wins, in his June 5, 2025, publication to the Corps, "A final message from Maj. Gen. Wins. '85": By directly addressing these issues and making difficult, and at times unpopular, decisions, I helped keep VMI relevant as a public college capable of fulfilling its unique mission. And Despite our success in fostering a more diverse Corps during my tenure, assertions have suggested a decline in quality, with no empirical data to support that claim. Each chosen leader, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, demonstrated admirable leadership, rapid maturation, and performance comparable to that of their predecessors. Again, progress in this area is easily measurable and must remain a cornerstone of VMI as a 21st century institution. And ...the previous Board of Visitors made the right decisions about which historical iconography and traditions should remain and what should be removed. What remains reflects the best of VMI's history, progress, and future to be built upon. Federal and Defense Context VMI is one of six federally recognized Senior Military Colleges (SMC) under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Federal law provides special protections for officer commissioning pipelines at these institutions, including prohibitions on terminating or reducing ROTC units without the institution's consent. Critics argue that HB1377's directive to assess whether other institutions could replace VMI's commissioning role intrudes into an area traditionally governed by federal military policy rather than state higher-education review. Critics frame this as a national security concern, noting that the bill does not require consultation with the Department of War, despite directing analysis of the officer production function. VMI Support, Then Recalibration Following VMI Superintendent Lt. Gen. David Furness' Feb. 4 statement expressing unqualified support for the amended bill, the VMI alumni Agencies Also quickly supported the amended bill. Subsequent communications were measured and attempted to partially retract the previous endorsement. In a Feb. 6 message to alumni and supporters, Lt. Gen. Furness wrote: My recent statement regarding HB1377 can be found here, but to be clear, portions of the preamble do not represent VMI now, nor will they represent VMI in the future. I stand strong in my position. With the hard work of our friends in the legislature and the removal of content from HB1377 that initially called for the defunding of VMI, I now support the legislation. That same day, the VMI Alumni Agencies issued a statement noting: ...we support an improved version of the legislation, yet we feel strongly that portions of the HB1377 preamble do not reflect what is happening at VMI. Neither statement withdrew support, with Furness stating, "I now support the legislation." The Alumni Agencies' statement did not specify what it now opposed. However, both narrowed the scope of endorsement to shift emphasis away from the bill itself and toward advocacy for VMI's mission and outcomes. The General Assembly record, however, reflects the Feb. 4 endorsement at the time the bill passed. The Feb. 6 statements by Lt. Gen. Furness and the Alumni Agencies both refer to "portions of the preamble" for HB1377 and state that they "do not represent VMI now, nor will they represent VMI in the future." Critics point to two sections of HB1377, the statements did not challenge as valid in VMI's history or recent past: Whereas, notwithstanding its contributions to the Commonwealth and the United States, VMI has celebrated for over a century its role in committing treason against the United States government as a key instrument of Confederate forces in the Commonwealth, including celebrating the traitor Stonewall Jackson as a martyr, and annually celebrating the role of the VMI Corps of Cadets in violently attacking forces of the United States government at New Market in an effort to preserve the institution of slavery… and Whereas, VMI's Board of Visitors ended the tenure of Retired Major General Cedric Wins after the shortest tenure as Superintendent in VMI history following repeated efforts by the Retired Major General to end racism, discrimination, and sexual assault and harassment at VMI; further, the decision to not renew Retired Major General Cedric Wins' contract took place in the wake of efforts by the Administration of United States President Donald Trump to remove female and non-white Flag Officers, which efforts were deemed reckless by five former U.S. Secretaries of Defense... Both Feb. 6 statements referring to VMI today and in the future leave in place what the Bill's language applied to VMI in the past. Cadets have also released statements, news segments, and memorandums surrounding the bill. Cadets Mike Ferrara '26 and Devine Auzenne '26 spoke on Fox News "America's Newsroom" on Feb. 3rd. Both spoke on their experience at VMI, living and working with Cadets from all backgrounds. Cadet Auzenne closed by stating, "The value of our institution is not a partisan issue". This key quote states that VMI's value is not a matter of political debate. Why This Is Important For the VMI community, HB1377 is not simply another Richmond study or oversight exercise. It represents a moment when language, structure, and process matter as much as stated intent. First, the bill illustrates how institutional outcomes are often shaped indirectly. While HB1377 no longer explicitly asks whether VMI should remain state-funded, it mandates a set of analyses—particularly around replaceability, cost, and return on public investment—that traditionally precede funding and structural decisions in higher education. Understanding that distinction is essential for evaluating both the bill's immediate scope and its potential long-term implications. Second, the bill grants unusual investigative authority over a single public institution to a legislatively appointed task force, without the participation of the appropriate federal agencies with jurisdiction over those areas. For cadets and faculty, this could shape expectations about participation, disclosure, and institutional autonomy. For alumni and parents, it raises questions about how VMI's mission, traditions, and federal military role are interpreted by policymakers unfamiliar with the Institute's unique environment. Third, HB1377 highlights the importance of timing and public record. Statements of institutional support made during legislative debate became part of the General Assembly's official record. Subsequent clarifications and narrowed endorsements, while significant to the VMI community, do not alter that record. This underscores how quickly legislative momentum can solidify based on statements made at critical moments. Fourth, the bill intersects with national defense considerations that extend beyond Virginia's higher-education policy. As a federally recognized Senior Military College (SMC), VMI occupies a distinct position under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Any state-level inquiry into the replaceability of its officer-commissioning role has implications not only for funding, but for federal reliance, military readiness, and civil–military relations. The Task Force does not include any Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to assess the racial and gender allegations within the Federal, not State, mandate and authorities. It is gaining increasing attention from the Secretary of War. Sean Parnell, Chief Pentagon Spokesman and Senior Advisor, posted Feb 3 on X: DoW reserves the right to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of VMI, and our commitment to the cadets and midshipmen currently training there remains steadfast. Finally, HB1377 matters because it sets a precedent. How this task force is structured, how its scope is interpreted, and how its findings are used may inform how other specialized institutions—military or otherwise—are reviewed in the future. For supporters and critics alike, the outcome will help define the balance between accountability, oversight, and institutional independence. For the VMI community, engagement with this process is not about assuming an outcome, but about understanding how decisions are made—and ensuring that VMI's mission, record, and role are accurately represented as those decisions unfold. Looking Ahead HB1377 does not, on its face, defund VMI or alter its legal status. What it does do is require a comprehensive, legislatively controlled evaluation of whether VMI's mission, culture, and military role justify continued public investment—using analytic tools commonly associated with funding and structural decisions. Although they are not specified, Del. Helmer's statements on the record in the General Assembly and Lt. Gen. Furness's comments to the Corps: "I'm not concerned about statues and portraits and whatnot. And if I had to move those all, get rid of that, move forward, I will to protect what are the core values of VMI," are important. For cadets, alumni, and parents, the central question moving forward is not whether defunding language appears in the bill, but whether the study it mandates produces findings that could later be used to justify outcomes far beyond oversight. As the task force is constituted and begins its work, that distinction is likely to remain at the center of scrutiny. The online version of this article at www.cadetnewspaper.com contains links to the source materials and videos of relevant events. Please help The Cadet remain the independent voice of the Corps and alumni/ae by supporting us at https://www.thecadetfoundation.org