Technical corrections only. The v2 version of the bill includes additional co-sponsors and notes that it was reported out of committee. There are no substantive changes to the legislative text between v1 and v2.
GUARD Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 9, 2026
Bottom line
The GUARD Act aims to bolster law enforcement's capacity to combat evolving financial fraud schemes by re-purposing existing federal grant funds, mandating comprehensive data collection, and facilitating inter-agency cooperation on emerging technologies.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the GUARD Act, permits State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to use existing eligible Federal grant funds for investigating elder financial fraud, 'pig butchering' scams, and general financial fraud. It specifies various permissible uses for these funds, including hiring personnel, providing specialized training, obtaining technical tools, and enhancing inter-agency coordination. Additionally, it mandates several reports from federal agencies on the state of financial fraud and scams in the United States and clarifies that federal law enforcement can assist in using blockchain tracing tools.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical step in equipping law enforcement with the necessary resources and training to combat increasingly sophisticated financial fraud, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations like the elderly and those involving new technologies like cryptocurrency. They contend that by allowing the use of existing grant funds, the bill provides flexibility without requiring new appropriations, and the mandated reports will provide invaluable data for future policy decisions and a better understanding of the problem's scope.
Opponents contend
Potential critics might raise concerns that re-purposing existing grant funds, even for a worthy cause, could dilute the effectiveness of the original programs for which those funds were intended. Some may also argue that the extensive reporting requirements could impose an administrative burden on smaller State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, potentially diverting resources from active investigations. No organized opposition is explicitly stated in the bill text.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Expanded Use of Eligible Federal Grant Funds for Fraud Investigations
This provision allows State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to use specific existing federal grant funds for investigating elder financial fraud, 'pig butchering' scams, and general financial fraud. These funds can be used for various purposes, including hiring specialized personnel, providing training on complex financial investigations (including blockchain tools), acquiring necessary software, and fostering coordination with financial institutions. This expands the permissible scope of these grants to directly address modern fraud types.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision directly addresses a critical gap in law enforcement capabilities by allowing existing funds to be used for rapidly evolving financial crimes. They contend it empowers local agencies to fight fraud more effectively without requiring new federal appropriations.
Critics contend
Some might argue that diverting existing grant funds, even for important new priorities, could inadvertently weaken other critical programs that those funds were originally intended to support, potentially creating new resource gaps.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to address emerging fraud types with fiscal responsibility by re-purposing existing funds, which could lead to tensions over resource allocation among different crime prevention priorities.
Section 3(b) and Section 6
Mandatory Reporting on Grant Fund Utilization and Fraud Statistics
Section 3(b) requires any law enforcement agency using the re-purposed federal grant funds to submit a report to the federal grant provider within one year. This report must detail how the funds were used, provide statistics on relevant fraud types in their jurisdiction, and assess the impact on deterring fraud. Section 6 then mandates that each federal agency providing these grants compile and submit an annual report to relevant Congressional committees, summarizing the information received from the local agencies.
Sections 4 and 5
Comprehensive Federal Reports on Financial Fraud and Scams
Section 4 requires the Treasury Secretary and FinCEN Director, in consultation with other federal agencies, to submit a report to Congress within one year on efforts and recommendations regarding general financial fraud, pig butchering, elder financial fraud, and scams. Section 5 mandates a more detailed report within two years on the 'state of scams in the United States,' including estimates of scam prevalence, consumer losses, attribution to overseas actors, and an overview of federal enforcement actions and expenditures. This section also requires public comment solicitation for the report.
Section 7
Federal Assistance for Blockchain Tracing Tools
This section clarifies that Federal law enforcement agencies are permitted to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, as well as fusion centers, in the use of tracing tools for blockchain and related technology. This explicitly authorizes federal support for local efforts to track funds involved in cryptocurrency-related fraud.
The bill defines 'eligible Federal grant funds' by specifically listing four existing grant programs: the Economic, High-Technology, White Collar, and Internet Crime Prevention National Training and Technical Assistance Program (Title IV of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008), the Justice Information Sharing Training and Technical Assistance Program (28 CFR part 23), cybercrime enforcement grants under the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, and the COPS Technology and Equipment Program (Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968).
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms precisely and reference existing statutes. It's not intended to be evasive but requires careful reading to understand the financial scope.
Case for: Proponents would argue that specifying the exact grant programs ensures that the re-purposing of funds is targeted and does not inadvertently affect other unrelated federal funding streams. It provides clarity on the scope of the bill's financial impact.
Case against: Critics might argue that by limiting the eligible funds to these specific programs, the bill might miss other relevant funding sources that could also be effectively utilized for combating financial fraud, thus limiting its overall potential impact.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that the bill's financial impact is primarily a re-prioritization of existing funds within these specific programs, rather than creating new federal spending.