Associate Professor Jack Yoest published "Pass the CHOICE Act to Help Veterans" in Real Clear Politics.
Yoest highlights the bipartisan potential of the CHOICE Act (H.R. 3132), a bill aimed at improving how veterans access their VA disability benefits. Currently, veterans must either navigate the complex process alone, rely on volunteers, or pay expensive attorneys. Some turn to unregulated consultants, which exposes them to scams.
The CHOICE Act would:
-
Allow veterans to work with accredited, fee-based private companies,
-
Cap fees at $12,500 per claim,
-
Penalize fraudulent actors, and
-
Establish formal accreditation and oversight.
Despite only having Republican sponsors so far, the bill presents an opportunity for both parties to unite on veterans' issues, much like they did in 2014 with the Veterans Access Act and in 2019 with the Blue Water Navy Act.
With nearly 200,000 claims still pending as of June 2025, the article argues that veterans deserve efficient, safe options and that passing the CHOICE Act would show true leadership, putting service members above politics.
Yoest also published "End the Tax Perks for Foreign Lawfare" in Real Clear Defense and "When Junk Science Shapes Justice, Public Health Suffers" in Real Clear Health.
In "End the Tax Perks for Foreign Lawfare", Yoest states a growing concern in the U.S. is third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside investors—often foreign adversaries like China and Russia—secretly fund lawsuits in exchange for a share of the winnings. This practice turns the legal system into a profit-driven market, distorts justice, and allows funders to manipulate cases for higher returns.
TPLF has become a $15 billion industry in the U.S., contributing to $368 billion in tort costs, lost economic output, and job losses. It also poses a national security risk by enabling foreign entities to weaponize the American court system against U.S. companies.
These funders often benefit from favorable tax treatment, paying capital gains rates or avoiding taxes altogether, unlike the plaintiffs, who pay ordinary income tax on settlements.
To address this, Sen. Thom Tillis and Rep. Kevin Hern introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, which:
-
Ends capital gains treatment for litigation funders,
-
Creates a new tax category for these profits,
-
Imposes tax withholding requirements,
-
Closes loopholes for foreign investors and sovereign wealth funds.
The bill is projected to raise $3.5 billion over 10 years and has been praised as a pro-growth, pro-taxpayer measure. Advocates argue it's essential to protect U.S. legal integrity, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty by stopping courts from becoming tools for anonymous profiteers. Congress is urged to pass it swiftly.
In "When Junk Science Shapes Justice, Public Health Suffers", Yoest offers that public trust in experts—especially in science and medicine—is eroding, with dangerous consequences in the courtroom. Jurors increasingly distrust expert testimony, a shift driven by social media, partisan news, and aggressive legal advertising.
Trial lawyers and litigation financiers are spending billions on ads that often mislead the public, especially regarding pharmaceuticals. From 2017 to 2021, nearly $7 billion was spent on legal ads targeting drugs and medical devices, frequently using fear-based messaging without referencing FDA approval or encouraging medical consultation. These ads can have deadly consequences: a 2019 FDA study linked such advertising to patients stopping critical medications, resulting in strokes, injuries, and deaths.
This problem is worsened by third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where hedge funds and private investors finance lawsuits and influence their strategy, including the hiring of biased expert witnesses. These financial interests can turn the justice system into a profit-driven platform, distorting scientific facts to sway juries.
To protect public health and legal integrity, the article calls for:
-
Stricter judicial oversight of expert testimony to ensure it’s scientifically valid.
-
Stronger regulation of legal advertising, including clear disclosures that ads are legal solicitations, not medical advice.
Without reform, the combination of mistrust, misleading ads, and manipulated science threatens both the courts and public health.