Who’s Winning the Multibillion Dollar Battle Over Veterans Benefits? With lobbying and lawsuits, for-profit companies scored two recent victories in the courts and on Capitol Hill. 

Veterans’ advocates have worked for years to stop unaccredited consultants from charging vets thousands of dollars for help filing disability claims​, b​ut setbacks in court and on Capitol Hill indicate their quest to ban the deep-pocketed companies could be in peril.

With Republicans in control of Congress, a bill legalizing for-profit claims consultants nationwide will advance to a full House of Representatives vote, the first time such a measure has made it out of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Meanwhile, a competing bill introduced by a Democrat, which would crack down on for-profit companies by imposing criminal penalties, has not advanced.

And in a case closely watched by other states, a federal appeals court has suggested that a New Jersey law banning the companies in the Garden State could violate their First Amendment right to advise veterans—even if they’re doing it to make a profit. 

The decisions signal how a leading claims consulting company’s strategy of lobbying and lawsuits— revealed in a War Horse investigation—is paying dividends. North Carolina-based Veterans Guardian and other companies have spent more than $4 million on lobbying federal and state lawmakers over the past two years, the investigation published in April found. The company is suing the attorney general of New Jersey to be allowed to operate in the state, where it was recently outlawed. 

“Unquestionably, it’s a win for Veterans Guardian,” said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney with the nonprofit organization Institute for Justice and author of a brief in support of Veterans Guardian in its New Jersey lawsuit. “I think it has important implications for anyone who speaks for a living and is subject to government regulation.”

For years, federal law has prohibited charging veterans for advice on filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. But with no penalties tied to the practice, many of the for-profit companies have continued to operate, raking in millions despite warnings from the VA that only VA-accredited advisers, such as veterans service organizations, can help vets file benefits.

The companies say they are giving veterans a much-needed choice to navigate the bureaucratic VA disability claims process, and many veterans say they welcome the alternative. 

But critics say they are making millions by cashing in on the passage of the PACT Act in 2022, the largest expansion of veterans benefits in decades.  

“They’re not really out for the interest of the veteran,” said Rep. Mark Takano, a Democrat from California and the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “They’re out to see if they can steal money from that veteran.”

A Congressional Win

Claims consulting companies have been the focus of hot debate in Congress for several years, where warring bills have been trying to either criminalize or legalize the companies’ practices. Most of these bills have died in committee, but in May, the Certified Help Options in Claims Expertise for Veterans Act of 2025, or CHOICE for Veterans Act, advanced to the full House for a vote. If signed into law, the bill would allow individuals who work at for-profit companies to seek accreditation and legally charge veterans fees for assisting them in filing disability benefits claims in all 50 states. 

This bill was introduced by Michigan Republican and Marine Corps veteran Rep. Jack Bergman and passed along party lines.

Bergman’s bill does include guardrails, such as a fee cap of $12,500 and a prohibition on overseas call centers.

The War Horse’s investigation found Veterans Guardian charged some veterans a one-time fee of more than $20,000 based on the increases they received in their disability ratings. A whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former employee and interviews with current and former employees accused the company of focusing on the most profitable cases and manipulating claims to reap the most benefits—allegations the company said were not true. 

The investigation also found Veterans Guardian’s political action committee had contributed $26,200 to Bergman’s campaign for 2024, and it gave thousands more to others who supported a similar federal bill. 

When asked about the political donations, James Hogge, Bergman’s communications director,  said in a statement: “Let’s be clear: General Bergman’s priorities are driven by one thing—delivering results for America’s Veterans. As a retired Three-Star General and the highest-ranking combat Veteran ever elected to Congress, his legislative agenda is shaped by the men and women who’ve served this country, not by campaign donations.”

Hogge said Bergman’s bill “aims to modernize a system that too often fails those it was built to serve—expanding access, cutting red tape, and putting Veterans in control of their own destiny—not bureaucrats.” 

For some advocates, however, the bill’s safeguards don’t go far enough.

 “I think it is egregious, and no veteran should have to pay ever,” said Scott Hope, the deputy national service director for training at Disabled American Veterans. “It’s the wrong answer for veterans.” 

Rep. Chris Pappas, a Democrat from New Hampshire, has been trying to pass a competing bill that would impose fines on people who charge veterans unauthorized fees for help filing disability claims. He called the CHOICE Act “deeply concerning legislation” that allows claims consulting companies “to continue to be able to expand the profit center that they’ve developed on the backs of our veterans.”

Pappas said one reason this iteration of the bill was successful is that lobbying efforts from claims consulting companies have recently increased dramatically.  

“I do think there’s a connection between the way that these for-profit companies have been organizing and communicating with policymakers,” Pappas said. 

First Amendment Fight

Nicholas Chimienti, a retired Army colonel, said he’s glad he had the option to use a claims consulting company to help file for his VA disability compensation. After Chimienti suffered multiple neck and back injuries as a result of his service, a friend referred him to Vet Comp & Pen, now called Trajector Medical, which helped him increase his disability rating from 60% to 100%. 

He tried getting free help from veterans service organizations like Veterans of Foreign Wars and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, but “they just weren’t helpful,” he said. “They just said, ‘Here, fill out the form,’ and then the form was too complicated.” 

Trajector filled out all the forms for him and used the right “buzzwords,” he said. All he had to do was review the forms and sign. The process cost him more than $10,000, he said, but it was worth it for his new benefit increase of just over $2,000 a month. “I would rather have kept the money. But I probably wouldn’t have gotten those increases without them,” he told The War Horse.  

Recently, however, when Chimienti has tried to recommend Trajector to friends, he ran into a snag—his home state of New Jersey outlawed claims consultants. “I think it should be legal everywhere,” he said. “It’s healthy competition for the government.”

In a statement, Trajector CEO Jim Hill told The War Horse, “Veterans deserve choices, transparency, and access to tools that work—not scare tactics designed to preserve a broken status quo.” 

New Jersey is one of 10 states that have outlawed claims consulting companies statewide while Congress argues over federal legislation. But the companies haven’t gone down without a fight. Soon after New Jersey banned the for-profits in 2023, Veterans Guardian sued, alleging the state was violating the company’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. When a district court ruled against Veterans Guardian’s claim, the company appealed the decision. It’s a lawsuit that might have ramifications far beyond one state. 

Amanda Shanor, an assistant professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said that the case is part of a broader pattern of businesses using the First Amendment as a tool for economic deregulation, similar to the Citizens United ruling that equated political spending with free speech. “This is part of a much bigger thing that’s happening,” she said. “The First Amendment has just spread as a way to challenge laws people don’t like.” 

In April, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling that sent Veterans Guardian’s lawsuit back for further review to the district court—but also marked a victory for claims consulting companies. In the court opinion, Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote, “Veterans Guardian has a reasonable probability of showing that its services are speech and that New Jersey’s law burdens that speech.” 

The Attorney General’s office declined to comment due to pending litigation.   

In a statement, a spokesperson for Veterans Guardian told The War Horse that it is encouraged by the court’s unanimous ruling: “We agree with the Court and their assessment that ‘laws that ban charging for speech burden the right to speak.’”

A Chilling Effect

The recent ruling—and the lawsuit itself—has had a chilling effect on similar legislation across the country. The War Horse has spoken with multiple state representatives who said that Veterans Guardian’s lawsuit against the state of New Jersey, and a similar one the company filed in Maine, have made them think twice about attempting to pass legislation that would criminalize claims consulting companies in their own states. 

In Connecticut, State Rep. Jaime Foster, a Democrat, said that she would be watching the decisions in the New Jersey lawsuit in her pursuit to ban claims consulting companies. “That might impact the way we draft this legislation,” she said. 

Rebecca Keltie, a Republican state representative from Colorado, initially proposed a bill that would ban companies like Veterans Guardian from her state altogether. But, curious about their services and a veteran herself, she decided to try the company out—and was impressed.

“For like 20-some years I had been trying to get my disability,” she said, noting that the VA and VSOs were unhelpful and filled out paperwork incorrectly. For a $1,000 fee, Veterans Guardian was able to get her a $200-a-month increase within just a couple of months. “For me it’s worth it, but that’s my decision as a grown-up adult,” she said. 

Keltie killed her bill that would have stopped the company from operating based on her experience—and, she admitted, the fear of getting her state sued. 

Instead, she’s backing a different bill, similar to the federal CHOICE Act, that would allow the company to operate in Colorado with some guardrails, like a fee cap. That bill was sent to the Colorado governor’s desk in May.  

“I do not want to be the reason why my state’s going to spend 10, 20, $100,000 in lawsuits,” she said. “I wanted to do no harm.”

---

This War Horse story was edited by Mike Frankel, fact-checked by Jess Rohan, and copy-edited by Mitchell Hansen-Dewar. Hrisanthi Pickett wrote the headlines.

The War Horse