CLAIM Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The CLAIM Act aims to normalize insurance access for the state-legal cannabis industry by shielding insurers from federal penalties, thereby reducing risk and potentially lowering costs for cannabis businesses.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CLAIM Act, establishes a federal safe harbor for insurers providing services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses operating legally under state, local, or tribal law. It prohibits federal agencies from penalizing or discouraging insurers for engaging in such business and protects insurers from federal liability solely for providing these services or investing related income. The bill also mandates a GAO study on barriers faced by minority-owned and women-owned cannabis businesses.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current federal prohibition on cannabis creates an untenable situation where state-legal businesses cannot access essential financial services like insurance, hindering their growth, increasing operational risks, and disadvantaging workers and consumers. They contend that this bill provides a crucial step towards aligning federal policy with state laws, promoting safety, and fostering economic development in a burgeoning industry. Furthermore, proponents highlight the importance of the GAO study in addressing equity concerns for minority and women entrepreneurs in the cannabis sector.
Opponents contend
Critics, while potentially limited given the bill's narrow scope, might argue that creating safe harbors for cannabis-related businesses, even for insurance, implicitly legitimizes an industry that remains illegal under federal law, potentially undermining federal drug enforcement efforts. Some may also express concerns that such carve-outs could lead to a patchwork of regulations that are difficult to enforce or could be seen as a piecemeal approach to a larger issue of federal cannabis legalization, which they oppose.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy comprehension within the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(b) and 2(c)
Protection for Insurers Engaging with Cannabis Businesses
This provision prevents federal agencies from taking adverse actions against insurers solely because they provide insurance services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses operating legally under state, local, or tribal laws. It explicitly protects insurers, their officers, directors, and employees from federal liability for engaging in such business or investing income derived from it. This means federal regulators cannot prohibit, penalize, or discourage insurers from serving the cannabis industry.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to level the playing field for state-legal cannabis businesses, allowing them to access critical insurance products like property, liability, and workers' compensation insurance, which are often difficult or impossible to obtain due to federal prohibition. This reduces business risk, protects employees, and fosters a safer, more legitimate industry.
Critics contend
No specific organized opposition is typically raised against the concept of providing insurance access to legal businesses. However, those generally opposed to cannabis legalization might view this as another step towards federal legitimization of a federally illegal substance, potentially complicating future federal enforcement efforts.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal government's stance on cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance with the reality of widespread state-level legalization. It aims to mitigate the practical challenges faced by legal businesses without fully legalizing cannabis at the federal level, creating a tension between federal and state legal frameworks.
Section 3
Study on Barriers for Minority and Women-Owned Cannabis Businesses
This section mandates the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to conduct a study. The study will examine the obstacles faced by potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses, specifically focusing on barriers to marketplace entry, including licensing processes, and access to financial services. Following the study, the GAO must submit a report to Congress detailing its findings and recommending regulatory or legislative changes to remove these barriers and expand access.
The definition of "financial service" explicitly includes "the business of insurance" (subsection (i)), as well as payment processing, money transmitting, and armored car services (subsections (ii)-(iv)).
Section 2(a)(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure comprehensive definitions. The bill's primary focus is insurance, but by defining "financial service" broadly, it implicitly acknowledges the broader financial challenges faced by cannabis businesses and sets a precedent for potential future expansions of safe harbor protections.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad definition ensures that the protections for insurers are robust and cover all aspects of financial interaction related to insurance, preventing loopholes. It also subtly signals a broader intent to address financial access for the cannabis industry.
Case against: Critics might argue that such broad definitions, even if not immediately operative for all listed services, could be seen as an incremental step towards federal legitimization of other federally illegal activities, potentially expanding the scope of federal carve-outs without explicit debate.
Estimated impact: This broad definition reinforces the scope of the safe harbor for insurers and implicitly acknowledges the interconnectedness of various financial services for cannabis businesses.