Rep. Jack Bergman and the “Claims Shark” Industry

The case against Bergman

• Bergman took $64,000 from the owners and PAC of Veterans Guardian, a company a federal judge has ruled illegally charged disabled veterans, including one veteran billed $21,360 for a claim he could have filed for free.
• As the checks cleared, Bergman carried the industry's bill: he is the lead sponsor of the PLUS Act, which would legalize charging veterans up to $12,500 for help that should be free according to the American Legion, DAV, VFW and 44 Republican and Democratic state attorneys general.
• Not only would Bergman's PLUS Act legalize the claim shark model, it would grant immunity to Veterans Guardian and other companies that have been ripping off veterans for tens of thousands of dollars.
• Additionally, Bergman's PLUS Act would prohibit states from protecting veterans by regulating the industry themselves; several states have passed laws that are effective in protecting veterans from the claim sharks.
• The claim-shark industry spent $2.3 million lobbying Congress, and Bergman is their top House recipient.
• A total of 44 attorneys general, including 20 Republicans and 23 Democrats, signed onto a letter opposing the claim sharks and the practice of profiting off veterans. Major veterans organizations oppose Bergman's bill. The only people who support it are the companies that profit from it, and they're paying Bergman.
• One state made it easier for the claim sharks to operate instead of reigning them in: Jack Bergman's true home state of Louisiana, which passed a state bill named the “PLUS Act” that was explicitly modeled after the federal bill. It was struck down by a federal court in February.

Why the Louisiana ruling matters to the federal fight

The federal court held that a state cannot legalize what federal law prohibits. That is precisely why the industry needs Bergman's bill: only Congress can change the federal accreditation regime, and both the 2025 PLUS Act and the CHOICE Act contain an express preemption clause overriding any inconsistent state law “whether adopted before or after” enactment (H.R. 1656 §5; H.R. 3132 §7). Louisiana was the test case; Bergman's bill is the fix for what the test case failed.

“States cannot rewrite federal law to accommodate companies that rip off veterans.”

— VFW National Commander Carol Whitmore, on the ruling (VFW, Feb. 11, 2026)

Summary

Since early 2023, Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI-01) has been the lead House sponsor of the “PLUS for Veterans Act,” a claim shark industry-backed bill that would legalize charging disabled veterans for help with filing VA disability claims. Currently, federal law bars unaccredited companies from charging veterans to file, as the form is simple and help is free from accredited veterans service organizations.

Over the same period, the owners, PAC, family, and lobbyists of Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, the industry's biggest political spender and a company a federal judge has now found violated federal law, have put roughly $64,000 into Bergman-controlled committees. Bergman's 2024-cycle haul from Veterans Guardian ($26,200) was the largest of any House member identified by The War Horse.

The problem: companies charging veterans for what should be free

VA disability claims can be filed for free with help from VA-accredited representatives (VSOs like the American Legion, DAV, VFW; county veterans service officers; accredited agents and attorneys). Federal law (38 U.S.C. §§ 5901, 5904) restricts claims assistance to accredited representatives and bars anyone from charging a fee for an initial claim. But Congress removed the criminal penalty in 2006, and since then the VA can only issue cease-and-desist letters it cannot enforce.

Into that gap moved a for-profit “claims consulting” industry led by Veterans Guardian (Pinehurst, NC) and Trajector Medical (Gainesville, FL; formerly Vet Comp & Pen). Their model: charge the veteran roughly five times any monthly increase in benefits — typically $3,000 to $20,000+ — while insisting they merely “coach” and do not “prepare” claims.

In Ford v. Veterans Guardian (M.D.N.C.), Chief Judge Catherine Eagles certified a nationwide class in December 2025 and ruled on May 20, 2026 that Veterans Guardian “acts as an agent … in the preparation of VA disability claims,” “is not accredited, as federal law requires,” and charged fees in violation of federal law; North Carolina's deceptive-trade-practices statute triples damages. A parallel nationwide class action was filed against Trajector in April 2026, and Trajector's parent filed for Chapter 11 in July 2026.

The state attorneys general

On August 9, 2023, a bipartisan coalition of 44 state and territorial attorneys general — including Michigan's Dana Nessel and Republicans such as Florida's Ashley Moody — wrote Congress urging passage of the GUARD VA Benefits Act. They described “claim sharks” who advertise superior results while “the veterans do all of the work,” demand veterans' VA logins and bank details, and “charge five times the amount of the veteran's retroactive compensation,” and warned that the PACT Act's expansion of benefits would create a larger pool of targets.

PLUS Act vs. GUARD Act — and Bergman's role

The GUARD VA Benefits Act (H.R. 1139/S. 740 in 2023; H.R. 1732 in 2025; Rep. Chris Pappas, D-NH) is a two-page bill: it restores the criminal penalty Congress removed in 2006 for anyone who charges veterans for help with a VA claim without being accredited. Nothing else changes. It has the backing of 44 attorneys general, the American Legion, DAV, VFW, MOAA, and every other major VSO.

The PLUS for Veterans Act is the industry's counter, introduced by Bergman two months later (March 28, 2023, with Rep. Mace; reintroduced Feb. 27, 2025 as H.R. 1656; folded into the CHOICE for Veterans Act, H.R. 3132, on May 1, 2025). Bergman markets it as “reinstating penalties” too — but the bill's own text shows what it actually does:

• It writes the claim-shark business model into federal law. Today, no one — accredited or not — may charge a veteran for an initial claim; accredited attorneys and agents may charge only on appeals, typically 20% of back pay. The PLUS Act would legalize contingency fees on initial claims of up to five times the veteran's monthly increase, capped at $12,500 and indexed to inflation. “Five times the monthly increase” is not a number Congress came up with; it is Veterans Guardian's and Trajector's existing price list — the same formula that produced the $21,360 bill Judge Eagles found unlawful.
• It grants amnesty for past violations. H.R. 1656 states that VA “may not suspend, exclude from further practice before the Department, fine pursuant to section 5905 of this title, or refuse to recognize as an agent or attorney” anyone on the basis that, before enactment, they “charged a claimant a fee for services rendered in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of an initial claim” or “charged a claimant a fee for such services while such individual was not recognized under this section.” The CHOICE Act keeps the same clean-slate language for accreditation. In plain terms: the very conduct that a federal court has now ruled illegal, and that VA warned Trajector about in 2017 and 2022, becomes a non-issue for getting a federal license — and the companies that did the most of it walk in the front door.
• It preempts the states. Both the 2025 PLUS Act and the CHOICE Act “supersede any State law that is inconsistent with the rights established by this Act … whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment.” That would override the state bans and consumer-protection laws AGs have been passing (Alabama's 2025 ban, for one), and would arguably reach the state-law claims — like the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, with its treble damages — on which the certified class in Ford v. Veterans Guardian is suing. The AGs who wrote Congress asking for GUARD would be told their laws no longer apply.
• Accreditation by default. If VA cannot verify an applicant's qualifications within 90 days (180 in the CHOICE Act), VA “shall recognize” the applicant on a “conditional and temporary basis” — renewable indefinitely until VA catches up. Given VA's backlog, this is a rubber stamp. The American Legion: it “would give them a free pass to prey on veterans.”
• The Trajector carve-out. Section 2 declares that “the administration of a medical examination, or the completion of a report with respect to such medical examination … shall not constitute the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a claim.” That is precisely Trajector Medical's legal fig leaf — the company insists it sells “medical evidence,” not claims help — and it would put NPR's findings (pre-filled forms, a bot dialing VA with veterans' Social Security numbers to trigger invoices) outside the reach of the accreditation law entirely.
• Fees come out of the disability check. The bill specifies that the fee is payable “after commencement of the monthly period of payment of monetary benefits” — i.e., from the veteran's award — and lets a company collect if “all or any part of the relief sought is granted,” even a partial or token increase.
• The “penalties” are delayed, prospective, and self-funded. The reinstated criminal penalty in Bergman's bills does not take effect until VA writes regulations plus 90–180 days (a full year in the 2023 version), applies only to future conduct, and is paired with a $500 “assessment” on the newly licensed companies that funds VA's oversight of them.

The House VA Committee advanced the CHOICE Act on a party-line vote on May 6, 2025, the first time an industry-backed bill had cleared committee. DAV's Scott Hope: “no veteran should have to pay ever.” Ranking Member Takano said the companies are “out to see if they can steal money from that veteran.” Veterans Guardian publicly endorsed the PLUS Act and spent $2.3 million lobbying Congress over three years — more than $1 million in 2024 alone — through Cornerstone, Akin Gump, the Vogel Group and Ballard Spahr, while its owners were writing Bergman their largest checks.

Veterans' stories

What the attorneys general and veterans organizations have said

Note: the 44-AG coalition letter endorses the GUARD Act and does not name the PLUS Act; the AGs' quotes below describe the companies and the fee model. The veterans service organizations have opposed Bergman's bills by name.