Zeus 95 Memorial Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a national monument to honor specific fallen service members, with the Department of the Air Force responsible for all associated costs.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of the Army to place a monument in Arlington National Cemetery, or an alternative location outside its entrance, honoring the crew members of Zeus 95 who died on March 12, 2026, during Operation Epic Fury. It waives certain statutory restrictions for placement and requires the monument's design to be approved by both the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, with all costs for construction and maintenance to be borne by the Air Force.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides a fitting and permanent tribute to service members who made the ultimate sacrifice, ensuring their memory is honored in a prominent national cemetery. They contend it offers a crucial place of remembrance and solace for the families and comrades of the Zeus 95 crew, recognizing their valor and service to the nation.
Opponents contend
Opposition to a bill honoring fallen service members is generally rare. Any potential concerns might center on the specific location within Arlington National Cemetery, the precedent set for future monument requests, or the allocation of costs, though these are typically minor compared to the symbolic importance of the memorial.
The bill is exceptionally brief and clear, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)
Mandate for Monument Placement
This provision requires the Secretary of the Army to place a monument in Arlington National Cemetery to honor the crew members of Zeus 95 who were killed in action on March 12, 2026, during Operation Epic Fury. It explicitly overrides a specific federal statute (38 U.S.C. 2409(b)(2)(C)) that might otherwise restrict such placement. If an appropriate site cannot be found within the cemetery, the Secretary is authorized to place the monument just outside the cemetery's entrance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a fitting tribute to military personnel who died in service, offering a permanent place of honor and solace for those they left behind, and recognizing their sacrifice at a nationally significant site.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions honoring fallen service members. Potential, though unlikely, concerns might revolve around the specific location within Arlington or the precedent set for similar future requests.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to honor specific fallen service members with the existing regulations governing monuments in Arlington National Cemetery, explicitly waiving a restriction to achieve its goal.
Section 2(b) and 2(c)
Monument Design Approval and Cost Agreement
This section outlines the requirements for the monument's design and funding. It mandates that the design must be approved by both the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, and that the monument must be placed on a non-burial plot. Crucially, the Secretary of the Army can only proceed with the monument's placement if an agreement is established with the Secretary of the Air Force, ensuring the Air Force covers all costs for site preparation, construction, installation, and ongoing maintenance.
The bill explicitly states 'Notwithstanding section 2409(b)(2)(C) of title 38, United States Code,' which allows the monument to be placed in Arlington National Cemetery. This section of code generally restricts the placement of monuments in Arlington to those honoring groups of individuals rather than specific incidents or smaller groups, or requires specific criteria.
Section 2(a)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to overcome existing statutory hurdles for a specific purpose. It's not necessarily evasive, but requires legal knowledge to fully grasp its significance.
Case for: Proponents argue this waiver is necessary to ensure the monument can be placed in the most appropriate and honorable location, Arlington National Cemetery, despite existing general restrictions that might not have anticipated such specific acts of valor or loss.
Case against: Critics might argue that such waivers, if too frequent, could undermine the established criteria for monument placement in Arlington, potentially leading to overcrowding or a dilution of its significance. However, for a specific incident like this, opposition is unlikely.
Estimated impact: Allows for the placement of this specific monument in Arlington, which might otherwise be prohibited, ensuring a prominent national location for remembrance.