Who Will Control the Virginia Military Institute?

Recent legislative developments in the Virginia General Assembly have placed the future governance and military character of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) at the center of an intensifying state-federal debate. Supporters of two bills—HB1374 and HB1377—argue that the measures are necessary to modernize oversight, increase accountability, and ensure that VMI reflects broader public interests as a state-supported institution. (Both bills are sponsored by Democrats with an “inclusive” agenda.) Critics, however, contend that the legislation risks weakening alumni influence, politicizing governance, and encroaching on federally protected aspects of VMI’s military mission. As the bills have advanced in amended form, alumni groups, national organizations, and defense advocates have voiced concern. Coverage by The Cadet, VMI’s independent campus newspaper, has documented each stage of the process.

At the heart of the disagreement is a fundamental question: How much authority should the Commonwealth of Virginia exercise over a state-funded institution that also operates as a federally designated Senior Military College? Proponents of the aforementioned bills maintain that restructuring the Board of Visitors (BOV) and establishing a formal review task force fall squarely within the state’s prerogative. Opponents counter that even incremental governance changes could alter the character of an officer-producing institution governed in part by federal statute, potentially implicating defense interests under Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

At the heart of the disagreement is a fundamental question: How much authority should Virginia exercise over a federally designated Senior Military College? HB1374: Board Restructuring and Governance Changes

Originally, HB1374 proposed dissolving VMI’s BOV and transferring governance authority to the board of Virginia State University (an HBCU). That language was later removed in committee. However, as detailed in The Cadet’s article “House Committee Narrows HB1374—But the Bill Still Reshapes VMI’s Future,” the amended bill still significantly alters the composition of the BOV by capping alumni representation at no more than eight members (and potentially none) among the 16 gubernatorial appointees while removing their Virginia-resident requirement. It also mandates that at least six members be non-alumni Virginia residents and that at least five possess senior U.S. military experience.

While the bill no longer dissolves the board, it incrementally shifts longstanding alumni influence and may politicize governance. Critics argue that, while the bill no longer dissolves the board, it incrementally shifts longstanding alumni influence and may politicize governance at a federally recognized Senior Military College. According to a February 18, 2026, letter from Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS), legislative restructuring risks altering “the governance, control, and oversight” of an officer-producing institution central to federal defense interests. The letter emphasizes that VMI operates under 10 U.S.C. § 2111a and contributes significantly to ROTC commissioning pipelines.

HB1377: Advisory Task Force and Institutional Review

HB1377 establishes the Virginia Military Institute Advisory Task Force. The bill’s original language questioned whether VMI should remain state-supported. Amendments removed that explicit phrasing but retained broad authority for a task force to examine VMI’s academic quality, military training, governance, diversity efforts, commissioning outcomes, return on investment, and the question of whether VMI’s programs can be replaced by other Virginia colleges, thus eliminating it.

As reported in “HB1377—Final VMI Task Force Bill Advances,” the measure advanced to the Senate after clearing the House, setting up a review process that will culminate in recommendations to the General Assembly and governor.

The STARRS analysis warns that HB1377 signals sustained political scrutiny of VMI’s military model and creates uncertainty affecting recruiting, donor confidence, and cadet morale. The concern is that legislative oversight could extend into areas traditionally reserved for federal military authority, including officer development and training standards.

National Organization Calls for Federal Representation

The Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) adopted a formal resolution urging federal intervention. As covered in The Cadet’s article “National Organization Calls for Federal Representation to Protect VMI,” AFSA has called for Department of Defense and Department of Justice involvement in any task force reviewing VMI.

AFSA’s resolution argues that state restructuring of a Senior Military College could implicate the Supremacy Clause and federal statutory protections under Title 10. The organization specifically requests that the Department of Defense assess whether the bills “materially impair VMI’s status as a Senior Military College” and whether commissioning pipelines could be disrupted.

Pentagon Warns of “Extraordinary Measures”

Amid the legislative debate, a Pentagon spokesperson reportedly warned that, if state actions materially interfere with federal military interests, the Department of Defense could consider “extraordinary measures” to protect the integrity of officer production. While no specific action has been announced, the language underscores the federal government’s stake in institutions designated as Senior Military Colleges.

Federal oversight could expand if state legislation is deemed to conflict with statutory defense purposes. The STARRS letter similarly requests that the Department of Defense review whether governance changes are consistent with federal law and coordinate with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The implication is that federal oversight could expand if state legislation is deemed to conflict with statutory defense purposes.

Broader Context and the Public Response

Coverage by The Cadet also situates the bills within a larger historical and cultural framework. Articles such as “The History of VMI and Its Connection to Virginia’s HBCUs” and “Virginia Counties Rally Behind the Corps to Oppose Legislation Affecting the Virginia Military Institute” examine VMI’s evolving institutional identity and the mobilization of local governments and alumni in opposition to the proposed changes.

Taken together, HB1374 and HB1377 represent a pivotal moment for VMI. While proponents frame the measures as accountability and modernization efforts, critics argue that they risk destabilizing governance and encroaching on federally protected military functions. The debate now moves forward with heightened attention from alumni groups, state lawmakers, and potentially the Pentagon itself.

Col. (Ret.) Bob Morris is a graduate of the VMI Class of 1979 and a military veteran of 31 years active-duty service. He is the president of The Cadet Foundation, an independent 501(c)(3) dedicated to freedom of speech at VMI and to preserving VMI’s core values.