Many American veterans have lived through horrors most citizens will never experience. Some watched fellow soldiers fall beside them. Others returned home bearing invisible wounds, including PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, or rare cancers linked to toxic exposure.
For many of these men and women, disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are not a luxury—they are the financial backbone that enables veterans to cover medical expenses, support their families, and rebuild their lives after service.
Yet accessing those benefits is far more complicated than it should be. The VA’s disability system is notoriously intricate, requiring detailed documentation, strict procedural adherence, and a level of bureaucratic navigation that can overwhelm even the most organized applicants. A single error can delay benefits for months or years.
This complexity has driven many veterans to seek assistance. Some turn to volunteer Veteran Service Organizations. Others consult accredited attorneys when appealing decisions. Increasingly, veterans are partnering with paid consultants who specialize in preparing and submitting disability claims.
The growing demand for help has ignited a legislative battle across Congress and state legislatures. At the heart of this conflict are three competing approaches: federal legislation like the CHOICE Act and state bills such as the SAVE Acts aim to regulate the industry while preserving veterans’ freedom to choose assistance. These measures prioritize transparency, fee caps, and consumer protections without restricting access to professional help.
In contrast, the GUARD Act—introduced in both Congress and numerous state legislatures—takes a restrictive stance, assuming non-accredited consultants are predatory and seeking to eliminate or criminalize much of the private assistance currently used by veterans.
Veterans absolutely deserve protection from fraud. But banning an entire category of support does not address the root problem: the VA system remains complex, backlogged, and difficult to navigate.
States are beginning to recognize this reality. Across the country, legislatures increasingly favor regulatory models like SAVE over restrictive prohibitions. In Virginia, lawmakers advanced HB 398—a SAVE-inspired bill that enforces clear consumer protections while allowing veterans to work with consultants. The state’s GUARD alternative, HB 1268, stalled in committee.
A similar pattern emerges in Missouri, where SB 974 regulates compensation and oversight for benefits consultants without curtailing veterans’ ability to hire assistance. Meanwhile, Missouri’s GUARD proposal, SB 1107, has struggled to gain momentum.
Other states—including Mississippi, Connecticut, and Idaho—are exploring comparable regulatory approaches that balance oversight with access.
Legislatures are trending toward policies that protect veterans while preserving their choices—not eliminating options entirely.
This progress makes it increasingly puzzling why many Democrats continue advancing GUARD-style legislation that has repeatedly stalled at both federal and state levels. California stands as a notable exception, having moved forward with a GUARD bill after intense pressure from federal officials.
Continuing to pursue the same failed approach year after year does not help veterans—it merely prolongs policy gridlock while the underlying issue remains unresolved.
The truth is that veterans need more help navigating the VA system, not fewer avenues to find it. The longer lawmakers debate ideological approaches, the longer veterans remain stuck waiting for the assistance they require.
There exists a clear workable middle ground: legislation like the CHOICE Act and SAVE Act demonstrates how it’s possible to protect veterans from abuse while respecting their independence and freedom to seek help.
Veterans fought for this nation’s freedom. They should not lose that same freedom when trying to access the benefits they earned.
If lawmakers are serious about helping veterans, they must stop reviving legislation that has already failed and begin collaborating on solutions that expand access to assistance.
The longer Washington delays finding this middle ground, the longer America’s veterans will struggle through a system designed to serve them.
