Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a federal grant program to empower states with resources to combat senior financial fraud through enhanced enforcement, education, and regulatory improvements.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010 to establish a new competitive grant program administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The program provides federal funds to state securities commissions and insurance departments to enhance their efforts in protecting individuals aged 62 and older from financial fraud. Grant funds can be used for hiring staff, technology, training, educational materials, comprehensive anti-fraud plans, and improving state laws.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that senior financial fraud is a rapidly growing problem, with billions lost annually, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations like servicemembers. They contend that state regulators are on the front lines of this issue, and this bill provides crucial federal resources to bolster their capacity to identify, investigate, and prosecute fraudsters, as well as to prevent fraud through public education.
Opponents contend
No direct opposition is immediately apparent for a bill focused on protecting seniors from fraud, as it is a widely supported objective. However, potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the efficiency of federal grant programs, the potential for administrative overhead, or whether the proposed funding level is sufficient or optimally allocated to address the scale of the problem.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed evaluation by a reader.
Section 3, amending new Section 989A(b) of the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010
Establishment of a Competitive Grant Program for Senior Financial Fraud Protection
This provision directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create a competitive grant program for state securities commissions and insurance departments. These grants are specifically for activities aimed at protecting individuals aged 62 and older from financial fraud. States can use the funds for various purposes, including hiring staff, acquiring technology, training personnel, developing educational materials for seniors, creating comprehensive anti-fraud plans, and improving state laws related to senior financial fraud.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the rising tide of senior financial fraud by empowering state regulators, who are often the first line of defense. By providing dedicated funding, states can enhance their capacity to prevent, detect, and prosecute these crimes, thereby safeguarding vulnerable seniors' assets and well-being.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision's core intent, as protecting seniors from fraud is a widely supported goal. Potential concerns might focus on administrative efficiency or the allocation process of federal funds, rather than the objective itself.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies in balancing federal oversight and state autonomy. While federal funds provide needed resources, states must adhere to SEC guidelines and reporting requirements, potentially influencing state-specific priorities or methods.
Section 3, amending new Section 989A(b)(1)(A) and (B)
Permitted and Prohibited Uses of Grant Funds
This provision explicitly outlines how the grant funds can be used by eligible state entities. Permitted uses include hiring staff for investigations and prosecutions, funding technology and training, providing educational materials to seniors, developing anti-fraud plans, and enhancing state laws. Crucially, it also specifies that funds cannot be used for indirect expenses such as rent, utilities, or general administrative costs not directly related to the grant program's purpose.
Section 3, amending new Section 989A(g)
Funding Authorization for the Grant Program
This provision authorizes the appropriation of $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2030 to carry out the senior financial fraud protection grant program. This sets the maximum amount of federal funding that can be allocated to the program over a six-year period, totaling up to $60,000,000 if fully appropriated.
Defines 'senior' as any individual who has attained the age of 62 years or older.
Section 3, amending new Section 989A(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront for clarity and consistency throughout the bill.
Case for: Supporters argue this definition provides clarity and a consistent standard for who qualifies for protection under the grant program, ensuring resources are directed to the intended demographic, including those who may be vulnerable before traditional retirement age.
Case against: Some might argue that the age threshold could be different (e.g., 65, or a more flexible definition based on vulnerability rather than strict age) to better target resources, though 62 is a common early retirement age.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries of the state programs funded by these grants, broadening the scope of protection compared to a higher age threshold.
Expresses a Sense of Congress that the SEC should use its authority to delegate the functions of the grant program to an employee or employee board with experience working with state regulators on senior investor protection.
Section 3, amending new Section 989A(b)(2)(B)
Why it matters:'Sense of Congress' provisions are often used to signal legislative intent or preference without creating a binding legal requirement, making them less prominent than operative clauses.
Case for: Supporters argue this encourages the SEC to leverage existing expertise and foster better collaboration with state regulators, ensuring the program is administered by those most familiar with the challenges and solutions in senior investor protection.
Case against: Critics might argue that such advisory language is unnecessary and could be seen as micromanaging the SEC's internal organizational decisions, or that it could lead to an overly specialized board that lacks broader institutional perspective.
Estimated impact: Influences the administrative structure and expertise guiding the grant program, potentially enhancing its effectiveness and state-level coordination.