Who’s Dominating the Billion-Dollar Struggle for Veterans’ Benefits?

Veterans’ advocates are facing challenges in their long-standing efforts to eliminate unaccredited consultants exploiting veterans. Recent developments in Congress and court rulings have raised concerns about the future of these initiatives.

With the Republican majority, a bill allowing for-profit claims consultants to operate nationally has progressed to a full House vote for the first time, moving past the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. In contrast, a Democrat-sponsored bill aimed at penalizing these companies has stalled.

A federal appeals court recently indicated that a New Jersey law banning such companies might infringe upon their First Amendment rights, as they provide paid advice to veterans. This follows an investigation revealing that North Carolina-based Veterans Guardian has invested over $4 million in lobbying efforts to push its agenda, even suing New Jersey’s attorney general to overturn a recent ban.

“It’s a significant win for Veterans Guardian,” said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. “This has implications for those regulated by the government.”

Although federal law has historically prohibited charging veterans for disability claim advice, enforcement has been lax. This has allowed numerous for-profit companies to flourish, generating substantial revenues despite warnings from the VA about the need for accredited assistance.

Critics argue that these companies have profited handsomely, especially since the passing of the PACT Act of 2022, which expanded veterans’ benefits. “They’re not truly serving veterans’ interests,” remarked Rep. Mark Takano, a Democrat from California. “Their goal seems to be financial gain at veterans’ expense.”

Debate within Congress continues, with two opposing bills fighting for attention. The CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Jack Bergman, has cleared key hurdles and would allow for-profit consultants to seek accreditation and charge fees nationwide, albeit with some restrictions, including a $12,500 cap on fees.

Bergman’s ties to lobbying entities have sparked scrutiny. Recent reports indicated substantial contributions from Veterans Guardian’s political action committee to his campaign. In response to inquiries about these donations, Bergman’s communications director emphasized the bill’s intent to modernize the current system and prioritize veterans’ needs.

Nevertheless, some veteran advocates remain skeptical, arguing that no fees should be charged. “This approach is unacceptable,” said Scott Hope of Disabled American Veterans. “Veterans should never be required to pay for assistance.”

Rep. Chris Pappas is pushing a competing measure aimed at imposing penalties on unauthorized fees. He criticized the CHOICE Act, stating it perpetuates profit-driven motivations in the veterans’ support system.

Retired Army Colonel Nicholas Chimienti shared a different perspective, noting the value he found in using claims consultants to successfully navigate the complicated VA benefits process. Despite the high costs, he expressed appreciation for the significant increase in his benefits. Yet, he lamented the recent ban in New Jersey, calling for legal recognition across the board.

Veterans Guardian’s ongoing lawsuit underscores the tension surrounding the legality of for-profit consulting. The firm has argued that New Jersey’s restrictions violate its free speech rights, echoing broader themes of deregulation. Legal experts have noted the implications of such cases for businesses challenging state laws under First Amendment grounds.

As states grapple with similar legislation, the outcome of the New Jersey lawsuit may influence legislative efforts nationwide. In Connecticut, for instance, lawmakers are reconsidering proposals following the developments in New Jersey. Meanwhile, some states, like Colorado, have opted for modified approaches, promoting regulatory frameworks that permit consulting operations.

The dialogue surrounding claims consulting companies illustrates the ongoing struggle between ensuring veterans receive the support they need and protecting them from predatory practices. As Congress deliberates, the future of veterans’ assistance remains precarious.