The SAFEGUARD Veterans Act of 2026 would reinstate criminal penalties for charging veterans unauthorized fees for help with claims for VA benefits and would expand restrictions on who may assist with preparing, presenting, or prosecuting those claims. It amends Title 38 to make it a misdemeanor, with fines and up to one year in prison, for unaccredited persons to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive fees for claims assistance, and it bars repeat violators from recognition as VA agents or attorneys for specified periods. The bill also directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to begin rulemaking to define covered claims-assistance activities, while carving out medical opinions, disability benefits questionnaires, and expert opinions from that definition.
In addition to penalties, the bill adds consumer-protection and disclosure requirements. The VA would have to notify unrepresented claimants about accredited representation, maintain an online tool listing accredited, suspended, and excluded persons, and place warnings on claims portals about potential fees and predatory practices. Claim forms would need to ask whether a claimant was charged for assistance or coaching and allow naming the person involved. The bill also requires a report reviewing VA recognition procedures, creates an accreditation system with complaint-reporting features, and limits robocalls to federal departments and agencies under the Communications Act.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it expressly preempts state and Freely Associated State laws relating to recognition of individuals as agents or attorneys for VA claims, including laws governing fee agreements and authority to charge for those services. Practically, it would centralize regulation of veterans’ claims representation at the federal level and strengthen VA oversight of accredited representatives, attorneys, and unaccredited claims consultants. It would also require new VA administrative systems, notices, and reporting processes, with potential compliance and enforcement consequences for individuals and entities assisting veterans.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship is strongly protective of veterans and aimed at stopping fraud, abuse, and exploitation in the claims process. The measure is framed as a consumer-protection and integrity bill, emphasizing transparency, accreditation, and warnings against sharing login credentials or paying unauthorized fees. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests its main policy concern is curbing unaccredited claims assistance while preserving legitimate representation.
Notable points of contention are likely to center on the scope of the fee ban, the definition of covered claims-assistance activities, and the federal preemption of state rules. The bill distinguishes between accredited representatives and unaccredited persons, and it specifically excludes medical professionals’ opinions and expert opinions from the prohibited conduct, which may be important to stakeholders such as private physicians, claims consultants, veterans service organizations, and attorneys. Another possible issue is the administrative burden on VA systems and the new reporting, warning, and accreditation requirements.
The bill would amend Title 38 of the U.S. Code to restore criminal and professional penalties for unauthorized fee-charging in connection with VA benefits claims, expand VA notice and disclosure obligations, require new online accreditation and complaint tools, and direct rulemaking and reporting on recognition procedures. It would also supersede conflicting state and Freely Associated State laws on recognition and fee authority for VA claims representatives, shifting regulation of this area to the federal level and affecting veterans, accredited agents and attorneys, veterans service organizations, and unaccredited claims assistants.
The bill appears to have a strongly protective, anti-fraud orientation, with sponsors presenting it as a way to safeguard veterans from predatory or unaccredited claims assistance. The available record shows no committee transcript or vote data, so there is no documented bipartisan or partisan controversy in the supplied materials. Overall, the tone of the legislation is supportive of veterans and skeptical of unauthorized third-party claims services.
The main areas of potential contention are the reinstatement of criminal penalties, the breadth of the prohibition on charging fees for claims assistance, and the bill’s federal preemption of state laws governing recognition and fee agreements. Stakeholders who provide claims-related services outside VA accreditation may view the bill as restrictive, while veterans service organizations and accredited representatives are likely to support it as a consumer-protection measure. There may also be debate over the administrative feasibility of the required VA systems, notices, and rulemaking, and over how broadly the term “preparation, presentation, or prosecution” should be interpreted.