Inventory Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 8, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates federal agencies to implement comprehensive procedures for the discovery, secure handling, and regular auditing of seized digital assets and cryptographic keys, aiming to enhance accountability and prevent loss.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that all federal agencies collecting or seizing electronically stored information must establish programs to scan for, securely store, and annually audit digital assets and associated cryptographic key material. It directs the Attorney General to issue binding directives, develop technical standards, and establish training programs, while also providing a funding mechanism for digital forensic tools through existing forfeiture funds.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is crucial for national security and law enforcement integrity, as it modernizes federal asset seizure practices to properly manage valuable digital assets. It prevents loss, misuse, and ensures accountability, standardizing practices across agencies in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the significant cost of implementing new technologies and training requirements, which could impose substantial unfunded mandates on agencies. They may also highlight potential for overreach in scanning electronically stored information or the technical complexity and resource burden on smaller agencies.
The bill is relatively short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 3(a)
Mandate for Digital Asset Discovery and Safeguarding Program
This provision requires the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretaries of Homeland Security and the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence, to issue a binding directive within 180 days. This directive will mandate all federal agencies to scan seized electronically stored information for high-value cryptocurrency private key material, secure these assets as soon as practicable, and conduct annual audits to ensure comprehensive discovery, documentation, and secure handling and storage of all digital assets in government custody.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for modernizing federal asset seizure practices, ensuring that valuable digital assets are not lost or mishandled, and bringing consistency to agency operations in the digital age.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this imposes a significant unfunded mandate on agencies, requiring substantial investment in new technology and personnel training, potentially diverting resources from other critical law enforcement functions.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the critical need for secure digital asset management with the potential resource strain and implementation challenges for federal agencies.
Section 3(b)
Immediate Scanning Requirement for Seized ESI
This section mandates that for every criminal, civil, or administrative case in which a federal agency seizes, forfeits, or otherwise acquires custody of electronically stored information, the agency shall, as soon as practicable, scan the electronically stored information for digital assets and associated cryptographic key material.
Section 3(c)
Development of Digital Asset Technical Standards
This provision directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to develop and publish technical standards. These standards will govern the discovery and scanning tools for cryptocurrency private keys and wallet material, secure extraction, storage, and access control of cryptographic key materials, preservation of chain of custody and evidentiary integrity, and logging and monitoring of all access to digital asset custody systems.
Section 4
Annual Agency Audits and Congressional Reporting
This section mandates that each federal agency collecting, seizing, or maintaining custody of electronically stored information must conduct an annual digital asset audit. These audits are to identify and account for all digital assets and cryptographic materials, verify secure custody and access controls, identify any loss or deficiencies, and document corrective actions. Within 180 days of completing each audit, the agency head must submit a report detailing findings and remediation measures to the Attorney General and relevant Congressional committees.
Section 8
Funding Digital Forensic Tools via Forfeiture Funds
This section amends existing law to allow for the use of funds from the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund (28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)) and the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund (31 U.S.C. 9705(a)(1)) for payments related to the acquisition of digital forensic tools. These tools are specifically for carrying out the mandates of the 'Inventory Act of 2026'.
The bill defines 'digital asset' by referencing Section 2 of the 'Genius Act (12 U.S.C. 5901)'. This means the precise scope of assets covered by this bill is not self-contained and depends entirely on the definitions provided in another piece of legislation.
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal frameworks. However, it can make the bill less accessible to readers unfamiliar with the referenced 'Genius Act'.
Case for: Proponents would argue that referencing an existing definition ensures consistency across federal law, preventing conflicting interpretations and streamlining legal frameworks for digital assets.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying on an external definition makes the bill less transparent and requires additional effort for readers to fully grasp its implications, potentially obscuring the full scope of assets subject to these new mandates.
Estimated impact: This provision broadly impacts the types of digital assets federal agencies must inventory and audit, potentially including cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other distributed ledger technology-based assets as defined by the Genius Act, which could evolve over time.
This subsection clarifies that nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit any existing lawful audit or oversight authority, authorize the collection, search, seizure, retention, review, disclosure, or use of electronically stored information, digital assets, or cryptographic private key material except as otherwise authorized by law, or limit any existing right, remedy, defense, privilege, protection, suppression argument, or procedural requirement otherwise available under law.
Section 5(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to explicitly clarify that new authorities do not supersede or expand existing legal protections or powers. Its comprehensive nature is intended to reassure that existing rights and legal safeguards are preserved.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clause is essential for protecting civil liberties and ensuring due process, explicitly stating that the Act does not inadvertently expand government surveillance or seizure powers beyond what is already authorized by law.
Case against: No specific case against this provision itself, as it primarily clarifies existing legal boundaries. However, some might argue that such a broad disclaimer could be interpreted to limit the *effectiveness* of the new mandates if existing legal hurdles are too high or cumbersome.
Estimated impact: This provision has significant implications for civil liberties and legal precedent, as it explicitly preserves existing legal safeguards related to digital evidence and asset seizure, ensuring that new agency mandates operate within established legal boundaries.