SAFER Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Liccardo, Sam T. [D-CA-16]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes federal minimum dormancy periods for financial assets before state escheatment, aiming to protect individuals' and entities' property rights against premature state seizure.
What it actually does
This bill establishes federal minimum dormancy periods before states can seize (escheat) certain financial assets, including securities, digital assets, and investment accounts, held by financial institutions. It mandates that for natural persons, escheatment can only occur at least three years after confirmed death and no fiduciary interest, and for other entities, after five years of no contact. The bill also requires financial institutions to periodically check death databases for accounts of natural persons who have reached retirement age.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill protects individuals, especially seniors, from losing their hard-earned assets to state escheatment laws that may have shorter dormancy periods or less rigorous notification requirements. They contend it safeguards retirement savings and digital assets, ensuring that property is not transferred to the state prematurely without sufficient effort to locate the owner or their heirs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill infringes on states' traditional authority to manage unclaimed property, potentially reducing state revenues from escheatment and creating a complex federal overlay on established state systems. They may also contend that existing state laws already provide adequate protections and that a federal mandate is an overreach.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed evaluation by interested readers.
Section 2(a)
Restrictions on Escheatment of Covered Assets
This provision prohibits financial institutions from transferring custody of covered assets (securities, digital assets, investment accounts) to a state under unclaimed property laws unless specific conditions are met. For natural persons, this means confirmation of death at least three years prior, and no fiduciary interest for three years. For other entities, it requires no record of contact for at least five years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a crucial federal safeguard, preventing states from seizing assets too quickly, especially from deceased individuals whose heirs may need time to settle affairs. It ensures a reasonable period for owners or their representatives to be located.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that this provision represents federal overreach into an area traditionally governed by states, potentially disrupting established state unclaimed property programs and reducing state revenues used for public services.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances individual property rights and the rights of heirs against state interests in collecting unclaimed property and the administrative burden on financial institutions.
Section 2(b)
Mandatory Death Database Checks for Retirement-Age Accounts
Financial institutions are required to compare their records with a state or federal government database of deaths every five years for covered assets owned by natural persons who have reached retirement age, after a five-year period of no contact. This is to identify if the account holder is deceased.
Section 2(d)
Federal Preemption of Conflicting State Laws
This section explicitly states that the Act preempts any state law, regulation, or ordinance that requires a financial institution to remit or transfer custody of assets to a state in a manner that conflicts with the provisions of this Act.
Section 2(f)
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms such as 'covered asset' (securities, digital assets, investment accounts, excluding ERISA plans), 'digital asset' (cryptographically-secured distributed ledger), 'financial institution' (broadly defined under 31 U.S.C. 5312, including national banks, transfer agents, and centralized digital asset exchanges), and 'investment account' (including retirement accounts).
This section clarifies that the Act applies to covered assets held on or after the date of enactment, and specifically to those whose custody has not yet been yielded to a state as of the enactment date.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying effective dates and applicability, but its placement can obscure its importance for assets already in a state of dormancy.
Case for: Ensures that the protections of the Act apply broadly to existing assets that are currently in limbo, rather than only to newly acquired assets, maximizing its protective scope.
Case against: States might argue that applying it retroactively to assets already considered 'unclaimed' under their existing laws could create administrative complexities and legal challenges, potentially requiring them to return assets already escheated if a claim is made.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts a large volume of currently dormant or nearly dormant assets across states, preventing their escheatment under prior, shorter state dormancy periods.
This section states that the Act does not preempt state laws requiring communication between states and financial institutions/asset owners, nor does it prevent owners from seeking remedies through state or federal law for mishandling or improper escheatment.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:Could be seen as an attempt to mitigate state opposition to the preemption clause by clarifying limitations, but its non-binding nature and placement might reduce its perceived importance.
Case for: Acknowledges the ongoing role of states in unclaimed property administration and ensures that individuals retain their rights to legal recourse, providing a political olive branch to states.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 'Sense of Congress' is insufficient to truly protect state authority or individual remedies if the operative preemption language is interpreted broadly by courts.
Estimated impact: Minimal direct legal impact due to its non-binding nature, but serves as an interpretive guide for courts and regulators.