VFW had a seat at the table. Now they're trying to flip it.
That's why I introduced the CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025 — a bill that protects veterans from fraud and exploitation and ensures they have the right to choose how to navigate the benefits process. My legislation allows veterans to choose help from accredited private claims agents if they prefer, all while keeping in place the full range of free support options — such as those offered by Veterans Service Organizations like the VFW.
The CHOICE for Veterans Act includes strong safeguards: no upfront fees, mandatory disclosure of free alternatives, capped fees and no payment unless benefits are secured. This ensures that veterans don't go into debt to file claims. The CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025 is about trust, transparency and real choice.
I spent months in conversation with the major Veterans Service Organizations like the VFW and American Legion. I directly addressed their legitimate concerns about fraud and exploitation. My office invited them in, listened carefully, and incorporated into the bill strong language that addressed every objection they raised. Their input helped shape the final version of the CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025.
That's why the VFW's recent public opposition is so frustrating. They know that the bill doesn't put veterans in debt because they helped shape the very safeguards it includes. The truth is, the CHOICE for Veterans Act contains some of the strongest financial protections ever included in legislation designed to serve our veterans.
The bill was crafted to expand access to disability claims services by offering accredited private help without removing any existing options. Veterans can still work with Veterans Service Organizations or file claims on their own — that hasn't changed. This bill simply ensures the right to seek specialized assistance. Nothing in the bill eliminates current options. The claims assistance system remains intact, with the added benefit of giving veterans the choice of specialized assistance. No two disability claims are the same, and they shouldn't be treated as such.
The VFW's claims are misleading and directly contradicted by the bill's text. The CHOICE Act clearly requires that veterans are informed of all available free options at every step of the claims process. This includes the VA itself and the Veterans Service Organizations that veterans have always had access to. Veterans deserve honesty about what this bill actually does — and it's time for the VFW to stop misleading them.
If a veteran does choose to work with a paid consultant, the rules are strict. No upfront fees are allowed. Veterans cannot be charged one penny until their claim is resolved in their favor. When a claim is resolved, a veteran must be given the option to pay in installments that don't exceed their monthly increase from the VA, and no interest can ever be charged on payment plans. Veterans secure lifetime benefits in exchange for a limited, interest-free fee, paid only to accredited experts. Our goal has always been to expand access to benefits through an all-of-the-above approach that protects disabled veterans from poverty, debt and exploitation.
These protections are not hidden, nor are they optional. They are mandated by the bill.
What veterans are asking for is simple: faster results and fewer delays. They want someone who can help them navigate a complex process without making it worse. This is a recurring issue I hear from veterans in my district.
The political games and false narratives surrounding the CHOICE for Veterans Act must stop. This issue is far too important to be bogged down by mis- and dis-information campaigns. As a proud veteran myself, I look forward to the day when President Trump signs this bill into law, so we can begin to seriously confront the crises facing disabled veterans in America.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apple set to dodge bulk of India tariffs
Apple (AAPL) is set to largely escape the Trump administration's upcoming promise of 50% tariff on goods made in India destined for the US. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that Apple's semiconductor-powered devices, which include its iPhone, will be unaffected by Trump's 25% 'reciprocal' tariffs set to go into effect Thursday. The same goes for an upcoming promise of an additional 25% levy related to India's use of Russian oil that is set to be in place in about 3 weeks' time. IPhones and other similar products will be subject to a separate tariff authority which has not yet been unveiled. Apple said during its most recent earnings call that it made the majority of its US-bound iPhones in India. The news comes after The White House announced that Apple will announce an additional $100 billion investment in US manufacturing during a 4:30 pm ET press event Wednesday. That's in addition to the $500 billion Apple said earlier this year it would invest in the country. Trump has criticized Apple's decision to move manufacturing from China to India and not the US, saying during his May trip to the Middle East that he had a 'little problem' with CEO Tim Cook. Other Trump administration officials have also lambasted Apple for not producing its phones in the US, with trade adviser Peter Navarro calling it the 'longest-running soap opera in Silicon Valley,' during a July interview with CNBC. But according to experts, it would take years for Apple to stand up a smartphone supply chain base in the US. What's more, there are no phone manufacturers in the country and not enough workers to fill the necessary roles. Todd Weaver, developer of Purism's Liberty Phone, a privacy-centric smartphone that uses US-built electronics, says it took his company years to set up the facilities and source the necessary components to ensure the phone's processing and communications features all come from America. Even so, he explained, the phone's body is still made overseas. Apple began expanding its supply chain beyond China following the lockdowns and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. But it started specifically concentrating US iPhone manufacturing in India to avoid Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. Apple hasn't been entirely immune from the impact of tariffs, though. In Q3, the company said it took an $800 million hit from Trump's levies and it expects an additional $1.1 billion in charges in the fourth quarter. While Apple might be able to dodge tariffs on goods out of India, the company isn't entirely out of the woods. The Trump administration is expected to unveil the results of its Section 232 investigation into semiconductor tariffs, which could impact everything from smartphones to automobiles. The exact timing for the tariff announcement is still up in the air, but Trump has said he could reveal them as soon as next week. Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Library of Congress Website Deleted Part of the Constitution That Trump Doesn't Like. Now They're Calling It a 'Coding Error'
The removed portions of the Constitution include clauses that limit Congress' power to suspend habeas corpus and forbid titles of nobility in the United StatesNEED TO KNOW Portions of the Constitution were deleted from the Library of Congress' website after President Donald Trump ousted the longtime librarian from her role in May The omitted portions of Article I cover limitations on Congress' ability to suspend habeas corpus and grant titles of nobility After internet users noticed the quiet omission, the Library of Congress claimed it was a "coding error"The Library of Congress removed two and a half sections of the Constitution from its website sometime after President Donald Trump ousted the library's longtime leader in May. In recent days, internet users noticed that portions of Article 1 were missing from the Library of Congress' Constitution Annotated website: Sections 9 and 10, and part of Section 8. Article 1 appeared on the site in full at the start of the summer, according to internet archives. On Aug. 6, the Library of Congress insisted that deletion of several clauses in Article 1 were the result of a website "coding error" and ensured the issue would be resolved in a timely manner. But despite the library's statement, some have continued to express suspicion given the timing of the removal and the specific clauses that were cut. Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government and details the various powers of Congress. Section 9, which focuses on the limitations of Congress' authority, notably includes a clause that Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus — which grants everyone in custody the right to challenge their detention in court — unless necessary for safety in moments of "rebellion or invasion." Trump's White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told reporters in May that the administration is "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus, per PBS, amid the government's mass detention and deportation of immigrants. Without habeas corpus, Trump's aggressive deportation program would have fewer roadblocks and move more quickly. Another constitutional clause that was removed from the Library of Congress' website included a line that bars Congress from offering Americans titles of nobility — a limitation that sought to safeguard the United States government from being influenced by European monarchies. During his second term starting in January, Trump has repeatedly referred to himself as a "king" multiple times, including through the White House's official social media. Trump's flirtation with the title inspired the sweeping "No Kings" protests on June 14 — Trump's 79th birthday — in opposition to his perceived abuse and wielding of government power. Meanwhile Section 10 of Article 1, which was also removed, restricts U.S. states from engaging in certain actions that could undermine the federal government's authority. The update to the Library of Congress' digital Constitution came shortly after Trump fired the longtime Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, in May. Hayden was appointed to a 10-year term in the role by former President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in a 74-18 vote in 2016. At present, it's disputed who is serving as the acting Librarian of Congress. Following the removal of Hayden, Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — his former criminal attorney — to the post, though the library staff chose to recognize Robert Newlen, who was functionally next in line for the job, as their new leader. Read the original article on People
Chicago Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
UCLA says Trump administration has frozen $584 million in grants, threatening research
The Trump administration has suspended $584 million in federal grants for the University of California, Los Angeles, nearly double the amount that was previously thought, the school's chancellor announced Wednesday. UCLA is the first public university whose federal grants have been targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. The Trump administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges. 'If these funds remain suspended, it will be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation,' Chancellor Julio Frenk said Wednesday in a statement, noting the groundbreaking research that has come out of the university. The departments affected rely on funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, Frenk said. The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' The announcement came as UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. The new UC president, James B. Milliken, said in a statement Wednesday that it has agreed to talks with the administration over the allegations against UCLA. 'These cuts do nothing to address antisemitism,' Milliken said. 'Moreover, the extensive work that UCLA and the entire University of California have taken to combat antisemitism has apparently been ignored.' Milliken said the 'cuts would be a death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy, and fortifies our national security. It is in our country's best interest that funding be restored.' As part of the lawsuit settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university's Jewish community. It also has created an Office of Campus and Community Safety, instituting new policies to manage protests on campus. Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias. Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.
