From Feres to Accountability: Inside the Decades-Long Fight to Sue the Military for Sexual Trauma

When a service member is harmed not only by an individual perpetrator, but also by institutional negligence, what remedy exists?

The Military Sexual Trauma Accountability Act is a bipartisan Senate bill introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) on June 25, 2026. The purpose of the Act is to allow service members and Veterans to bring civil claims against the United States when government negligence contributed to military sexual trauma during their service. In other words, it would create a legal path for military sexual trauma (MST) survivors to sue the federal government in certain cases where the military failed to prevent, properly investigate, or otherwise negligently handled sexual assault or related misconduct.

The Military Sexual Trauma Accountability Act is not an isolated reform; however, it is the latest step in a decades-long struggle over whether service members should have a meaningful remedy when the government’s negligence causes or compounds serious harm. Currently, military sexual trauma is discussed through reporting systems, command climate, VA claims, and victim support. These systems are critical, but they do not fully answer whether the government itself can be held accountable when it fails to prevent, investigate, or respond to sexual trauma.

The stakes of this legislation become clear when looking at the current legal landscape. But if a civilian is sexually assaulted on a military installation due to negligent security or ignored reports of a known predator, they have a clear path to civil justice: they can sue the federal government. If an active-duty service member is assaulted in the exact same barracks, under the exact same circumstances, they are entirely barred from seeking civil damages.

To understand why the Military Sexual Accountability Act matters, we have to start not in 2026, but in 1946, when Congress first opened the door for ordinary people to sue the federal government for negligence.

1946: The Federal Torts Claims Act Opens the Door

Before the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) was created in 1946, people generally could not sue the federal government for ordinary negligence because of sovereign immunity: a legal doctrine that the U.S. government cannot be sued without its consent. The FTCA created a limited waiver of that immunity by allowing injured parties to bring certain tort claims against the U.S. for negligence by federal employees.

The most striking examples of the need for the FTCA came in 1945, when a B-25 bomber piloted by U.S. Army LTC William F. Smith Jr. crashed into the Empire State Building in heavy fog, killing three people aboard the aircraft and eleven people inside the building. Although the crash did not cause the FTCA, the legislation had already been pending in Congress for years; it demonstrated the practical consequences of a system that left victims dependent on private relief bills or discretionary government payments instead of a consistent legal remedy.

And importantly, it showed Congress’s willingness to make the bill retroactive by allowing victims to seek recovery under the new law. The FTCA represented a shift away from absolute immunity and toward the basic principle that when the federal government causes harm through negligence, there should be a meaningful path to accountability. However, active-duty service members were soon carved out of that protection.

1950: The Feres Doctrine Narrows the Door for Service Members

The case that gave rise to the Feres doctrine began with a 1947 fire at Pine Camp (now Fort Drum, New York). A fire broke out around 2:30 a.m. in a two-story wooden barracks where fifteen officers were sleeping. Four officers, including Lt. Rudolph J. Feres, died in the fire, and a fifth officer later died from his burns.

Lt. Feres’ widow alleged the Army had been negligent by housing him in barracks it knew, or should have known, were unsafe because of a defective heating system. She further alleged the Army failed to maintain an adequate fire watch to help prevent or respond to the fire. The Feres case was one of three cases combined for a Supreme Court appeal addressing the applicability of the FTCA to military personnel.

In Feres v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. government is not liable under the FTCA for injuries to service members when those injuries arise out of activity “incident to service.” The Court offered several rationales: the relationship between the federal government and troops is “distinctively federal;” there is no true private equivalent to active-duty service; and Congress likely did not intend service members to receive both statutory military benefits and a separate FTCA remedy for the same harm.

The Feres doctrine placed a broad barrier to lawsuits by active-duty service members against the federal government. The doctrine transformed a law designed to allow accountability into a doctrine that often prevents service members from accessing it entirely. For decades, the legal question remained static: would Congress accept Feres as permanent, or would they create specific exceptions?

2019: The Stayskal Act Shows Congress Can Create Targeted Exceptions

After decades of treating Feres as nearly untouchable, in 2019, Congress acknowledged a service member’s injury should not always be beyond remedy simply because it occurred in a military setting.

Sergeant First Class Richard Stayskal was an Army Green Beret whose terminal cancer diagnosis became a national example of the Feres doctrine’s reach. After military doctors allegedly missed signs of lung cancer and he was barred from suing because he was on active duty, Stayskal became an advocate for reform. The SFC Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act of 2019 was a critical turning point for servicemembers. The law was included in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act and created a process for active-duty members, or their representatives, to file certain claims for medical malpractice by Department of War health care providers.

While the Stayskal Act did not repeal Feres, it did something narrower but very important: it showed Congress can recognize a specific category of military harm and create a limited accountability pathway. As such, the Act has become a precedent of possibility. If Congress can create a narrow accountability pathway for medical malpractice, the question becomes whether survivors of military sexual trauma should also have a pathway when government negligence contributed to their harm.

2025: The System Still Struggles With MST Survivors After Service

In 2025, Congress continued addressing the unique barriers faced by military sexual trauma (MST) survivors through H.R. 2201, the Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims Act. The bill, which passed out of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, focused on the VA benefits process rather than civil liability.

The bill sponsors stated that VA received 57,400 MST claims in fiscal year 2024. It would require improved training for contracted disability compensation examiners, annual training for Veterans Benefits Administration employees, stronger quality assurance protections, and automatic collection of service and personnel medical records for certain PTSD claims based on in-service personal assault.

In the broader legal road, H.R. 2201 matters because it shows congressional recognition that MST survivors face distinct procedural burdens even after leaving service, but it still addresses benefits, not institutional accountability.

The Military Sexual Trauma Accountability Act as the Next Step

The Military Sexual Trauma Accountability Act, introduced by Senators Jeanne Shaheen and John Kennedy, would allow service members and Veterans to bring civil claims against the United States when government negligence contributed to MST.

Survivors face the lasting impact of MST years after the initial incident, including PTSD, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, relationship and parenting difficulties, employment challenges, and the fear of being assaulted again. Often, maintaining daily functioning requires ongoing therapy, support groups, exercise, and significant personal expense.

The MST Accountability Act is not an isolated proposal; it is the next logical question in a legal history that has repeatedly balanced government immunity against individual accountability. The MST Accountability Act builds on this progression but asks a distinct and necessary question: if MST survivors deserve a more trauma-informed benefits process, should they also have a civil accountability pathway when government negligence contributed to their harm?

The answer matters because the MST Accountability Act is not merely about compensation; it is about whether institutions can be held accountable when they fail to prevent foreseeable harm, mishandle reports, ignore warning signs, or compound trauma through inadequate response. A civil remedy can serve functions that benefits and internal processes cannot always provide: transparency, deterrence, public accountability, and restored trust. The MST Accountability Act is not a departure from the legal road that came before it; it is where that road has been leading.

The Data and Scale of the Crisis

The scale of this crisis explains the urgency behind the push for civil liability. According to the Department of Defense, there were more than 8,000 reports of sexual assault involving service members in fiscal year 2024 alone, and because military sexual trauma is heavily underreported, the actual numbers are likely much higher. If the MST Accountability Act becomes law, it could open the door to tens of thousands of civil claims over the next decade.

Public opposition to the MST Accountability Act has not yet been prominent, but critics of Feres doctrine exceptions have traditionally warned that allowing service members to sue the government could interfere with military discipline, invite civilian courts to second-guess command decisions, and open the door to broader litigation against the military.

Cody Harnish, Esq., a military defense attorney who frequently navigates military investigations, agrees that civil liability would harm discipline and cautions against equating reports with liability.

"There were over 8,000 reports in FY24, but a report is not a finding," Harnish noted. "I believe over 3,000 of those were restricted reports that are never investigated by design. Yes, underreporting is real, so the true number is likely higher, but a reported number isn't a count of proven (or credible) crimes either."

Harnish also pointed to discrepancies between military training and the law as a potential catalyst for unsubstantiated claims.

"Troops have been trained that one drink means you can't consent. That's not the law," Harnish explained.

"The law asks whether a person was incapable of consenting due to impairment, and whether the accused knew or should have known it. When trusted professionals teach the wrong standard, people can honestly and in good faith believe they were assaulted because alcohol was involved."

Furthermore, he highlighted the lack of an objective, external standard of care, unlike medical malpractice.

"There's no textbook standard of care for preventing a crime or running an investigation, so 'negligent failure to prevent' becomes hindsight litigation over command judgment calls, which is exactly what Feres is designed to avoid."

Harnish also notes that the MSTAA would carve out a highly specific legal exception that does not exist for other violent crimes.

"This bill would make ‘sexual misconduct’ the only crime by a fellow service member you can sue the government over," he argues. "If Private Smith punches Private Williams in the face and the command ignored every warning sign, Williams still can't sue even if the MSTA is passed."

Supporters of the MST Accountability Act argue that those concerns should not shield the government from accountability when negligence contributes to sexual assault, harassment, or related misconduct, particularly when existing military and VA systems have failed to provide survivors with meaningful civil justice. Legal advocates, however, point out that opening the courthouse doors does not guarantee a plaintiff victory. Survivors would still bear the heavy burden of proving institutional negligence in federal court, but the legislation would finally grant them the right to try.

Veteran Organizations Rally Behind the Act

Support from Veteran organizations is critical to the future of the MST Accountability Act because these groups understand both the legal barriers service members face and the lasting harm caused when survivors are denied accountability.

For decades, these groups have helped military families and survivors push back against the Feres doctrine, arguing that service members should not lose access to justice simply because their injuries occurred in uniform. Veteran advocacy groups help elevate those concerns beyond individual stories, showing lawmakers that the MST Accountability Act is not only about one case or one survivor, but about closing a broader accountability gap.

Protect Our Defenders (POD) is one group that has expressed full support for the MST Accountability Act. The organization argues the bill is necessary because the Feres doctrine has historically blocked service members from bringing these kinds of civil claims. POD Senior Vice President Josh Connolly framed the bill as a long-overdue measure.

“Survivors have never asked for sympathy. They've asked for accountability, and for decades, the law has given them everything but," Connolly stated following the bill's introduction.

"It tells every service member that when the institution they trusted betrays them, they will have a way to make it answer.”

Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) also expressed strong support for the bill, calling it major news for MST survivors. In a Facebook post, SWAN noted that it has been working behind the scenes on the legislation for months. SWAN Policy Director Rita Graham emphasized that the bill would remove legal barriers that have historically prevented survivors from seeking civil justice.

“Service members deserve protection, transparency, and recourse when institutions fail to prevent or properly investigate sexual misconduct," Graham said.

The American Legion’s 2026 legislative priorities show strong support for improving the systems MST survivors must navigate after services. The Legion identifies disability claims as a significant concern, citing high denial rates, evidentiary barriers, poor coordination, and wrongful denials when survivors lack traditional military documentation. It urges Congress to pass reforms that remove barriers to care and compensation and ensure MST survivors receive dignity, support, and justice.

The Potential Impact on Military Leadership

In practice, the legislation extends beyond individual compensation to address how military leadership handles reports on a daily basis. Currently, commanders who fail to properly address sexual harassment or assault are subject primarily to the military’s internal disciplinary processes.

However, the scope of a commander's role has fundamentally shifted in recent years.

"Commanders still own prevention and response: climate, training, victim support, safety, etc. But they no longer own the investigation or prosecution of SA," Harnish explained.

Under current regulations, unrestricted reports must immediately go to independent agencies like CID or NCIS, formal harassment complaints go to outside investigators, and the independent Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) decides whether cases go to trial. When commanders fail to execute their prevention and reporting duties, "that's a UCMJ violation," Harnish notes.

"The system polices this hard,” Harnish explained. “Part of my practice is defending service members who are themselves under investigation for failing to properly report an allegation. So, the question is not whether the command investigates these cases; because it can't."

While Harnish acknowledges the OSTC is strictly a prosecution office and was never designed to provide institutional accountability, he cautions against viewing the MSTAA as the only solution.

"If a district attorney loses a rape case, or the police fail to investigate one, the victim as a rule can't sue the DA's office or the police department," he said.

"So, this bill wouldn't give service members what civilians have. It would give them a remedy no civilian in America has against their own government."

Beyond liability, Harnish points to functional limitations within the newly formed independent prosecution system itself.

"My real concern with the OSTC is structural," he stated. "Its prosecutors rotate through like every other JAG billet, so they rarely build the courtroom experience of a career civilian sex-crimes prosecutor. That's a personnel and retention problem that won’t be fixed with tort liability."

If the MST Accountability Act becomes law, those same failures would become grounds for external civil action. A decision to ignore a report or delay an investigation could be subject to civilian legal scrutiny, complete with outside discovery and sworn depositions.

Advocates view this shift toward external liability as a necessary tool to enforce compliance with safety and reporting policies that the military has historically struggled to execute internally.

Ultimately, navigating this framework leaves deep scars on those involved. Harnish points out that the military actually provides victims with more resources than civilian jurisdictions, including free Special Victims' Counsel, expedited transfers, and lifetime VA compensation, but the emotional toll remains devastating.

"By the end of the process, both the victim and the accused usually walk away with a deep distrust of the system," Harnish said. "It's adversarial and slow, and nobody comes out feeling protected."

The Road Ahead for MST Accountability

The MST Accountability Act is not a comprehensive solution to the military’s sexual assault crisis, but it would mark an important step toward accountability for survivors who have long been denied access to civil justice.

By creating a narrow path for service members and Veterans to bring claims when government negligence contributed to military sexual trauma, the bill challenges the idea that wearing the uniform should mean surrendering the right to seek accountability.

For MST survivors, the question before Congress is not only whether the military can acknowledge the harm they endured, but whether it is willing to provide a meaningful path toward justice when the system meant to protect them failed.

The Army declined to comment on the pending legislation.