Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 7128 are substantively identical, with the only differences being administrative details related to the bill's legislative progression from the House to the Senate. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
TRIA Program Reauthorization Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Flood, Mike [R-NE-1]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill reauthorizes a critical federal backstop for terrorism risk insurance, ensuring market stability for commercial property and casualty insurance against terrorist attacks, while also refining the process for federal certification of such events.
What it actually does
This bill extends the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP) until December 31, 2034, which provides a federal backstop for commercial insurance losses resulting from certified acts of terrorism. It also updates the certification process by imposing strict deadlines for the Secretary of the Treasury to make determinations, increases the minimum aggregate insured loss threshold for certification to $10 million starting in 2029, and mandates new reporting requirements on certification reviews.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that extending TRIA is essential to prevent market disruption in the terrorism insurance sector, ensuring businesses can obtain coverage and protecting the economy from the catastrophic financial fallout of future terrorist attacks. They contend that the program provides necessary stability and predictability for insurers and policyholders alike, and that the proposed improvements to the certification process enhance transparency and efficiency.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might argue that a permanent or long-term extension of TRIA perpetuates government intervention in a market that should eventually privatize, potentially distorting risk pricing and disincentivizing private sector innovation in terrorism risk management. Some might also raise concerns about the federal government's ongoing financial exposure.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2
Extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
This section extends the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) of 2002, which provides a federal backstop for commercial insurance losses resulting from acts of terrorism, from its current expiration date of December 31, 2027, to December 31, 2034. This ensures the program continues for an additional seven years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the extension is crucial for maintaining stability in the terrorism insurance market, preventing a potential collapse that could leave businesses vulnerable and hinder economic activity. They emphasize that the threat of terrorism remains, and the private market alone cannot fully absorb such catastrophic risks.
Critics contend
Some critics might argue that a long-term extension delays the private market's full assumption of terrorism risk, potentially creating moral hazard or hindering the development of fully private solutions. However, widespread organized opposition to TRIA reauthorization has historically been limited due to broad industry support.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for market stability and protection against catastrophic events with concerns about government intervention in the insurance market and the potential for long-term federal financial exposure.
Section 3(1)(B)
Adjustment of Minimum Aggregate Insured Loss Threshold
This provision amends the definition of an 'act of terrorism' under TRIA by increasing the minimum aggregate insured loss threshold required for an act to be certified. Currently, the threshold is $5,000,000. Starting in 2029, this threshold will increase to $10,000,000 for acts occurring in 2029 or any year thereafter.
Section 3(2)
Establishment of Certification Review and Determination Periods
This section revises the process for the Secretary of the Treasury to certify an act as an act of terrorism. It mandates that the Secretary must publish a notice in the Federal Register within 30 days of beginning a review. The review process must conclude within 90 days of this notice, with an exception allowing for a single extension of up to 365 days from the date of damage if insufficient information is available. If certified, a final determination must be issued within these periods and is irrevocable. It also adds that an act is not certified if a final determination is not issued within the applicable period.
Section 4
Annual Report on Certification Reviews
This section amends the existing reporting requirements for the Secretary of the Treasury. It mandates that the annual report to Congress must now include a list of all acts for which the Secretary published a notice of review in the Federal Register during the preceding calendar year. For each such act, the report must include any final certification determination or a concise explanation if no final determination was issued.
Section 5(a)
Adjustment of Recoupment Period References
This section makes technical amendments to Section 103(e)(7)(E)(i) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, updating specific year references related to the recoupment of federal funds. It changes '2022' to '2029', '2024' to '2031', '2023' to '2030', and '2029' to '2036' in various subclauses. These changes align the recoupment schedule with the extended program duration.
This amendment explicitly states that an act is not considered an 'act of terrorism' under the program if the Secretary did not issue a final determination to certify it before the expiration of the applicable review period.
Section 3(1)(C) adding new subparagraph (iii) to Section 102(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure clarity in definitions and the consequences of administrative deadlines. It closes a potential loophole where an act might remain in an ambiguous state indefinitely.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provides crucial clarity and finality. If the Secretary cannot certify an act within the specified timeframe, it should not be eligible for the federal backstop, preventing indefinite uncertainty for insurers and policyholders.
Case against: No direct opposition, but some might argue that in exceptionally complex cases, strict adherence to deadlines could inadvertently exclude a legitimate act if the investigation is truly prolonged despite best efforts.
Estimated impact: Provides definitive closure for events not certified, potentially shifting liability entirely to private insurers for such events if they fall outside the federal backstop due to missed deadlines.
This 'rule of construction' clarifies that nothing in the new certification process requires the Secretary to issue a final determination about any act that the Secretary does not certify as an act of terrorism.
Section 3(2) adding new subparagraph (iv) to Section 102(1)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended interpretations. It ensures the Secretary isn't forced to issue a negative determination, which could be politically sensitive or legally problematic, if they simply let the deadline pass without certifying.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides necessary flexibility for the Secretary, allowing them to avoid issuing potentially controversial or premature negative determinations while still ensuring that non-certified acts do not receive federal backing.
Case against: Critics might argue that a lack of explicit negative determination could still leave some ambiguity, even if the act is technically not certified by default. However, the preceding provision (Section 3(1)(C)) largely addresses this.
Estimated impact: Primarily impacts administrative procedure and legal interpretation, reducing potential legal challenges against the Secretary for not issuing a formal 'non-certification.'