3 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENGROSSED IN SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Apr 27, 2026)

Technical and procedural updates only. v3 reflects the bill as passed by the Senate, changing its designation from 'A BILL' to 'AN ACT' and adding an attestation of passage, while removing the introductory sponsor and committee referral information. No substantive policy changes were made to the text of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2026.

Skipping v2 (REPORTED TO SENATE). Those versions changed too little to need their own analysis, so they reuse INTRODUCED IN SENATE's. Changes are measured from the most recent version analyzed on its own.

S. 4395119th CongressIntroduced Apr 27, 2026

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2026

Passed SenateFinance and Financial SectorSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]
Committees: Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 5, 2026

This analysis was written for v1 (INTRODUCED IN SENATE, Apr 27, 2026). ENGROSSED IN SENATE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v1

Bottom line

The bill extends the federal backstop for terrorism risk insurance, ensuring continued availability of coverage and market stability for another seven years.

What it actually does

This bill reauthorizes the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) of 2002 for an additional seven years, extending its termination date from December 31, 2027, to December 31, 2034. It also updates the timing for mandatory recoupment of federal assistance provided under the program, shifting the relevant dates forward by seven years to align with the new termination date.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that extending TRIA is crucial for maintaining stability in the commercial insurance market, ensuring that businesses can obtain affordable terrorism risk coverage, and protecting the economy from the potentially catastrophic financial fallout of future terrorist attacks. They contend that the private market alone cannot adequately price and cover such unpredictable, high-severity risks, making the federal backstop essential for critical infrastructure projects, large commercial properties, and major events.

Opponents contend

Critics, though often limited given TRIA's broad support, might argue that a permanent federal backstop distorts the private insurance market, creates moral hazard by reducing insurers' incentives to manage terrorism risk, and ultimately shifts potential liabilities from the insurance industry to taxpayers. They may contend that the private market has matured sufficiently to absorb more of this risk without government intervention.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core purpose and provisions quickly.

Section 2(a)

7-Year Extension of Terrorism Risk Insurance Program

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends Section 108(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 to change the program's termination date. Currently set to expire on December 31, 2027, the bill extends this date by seven years, pushing the new termination date to December 31, 2034. This ensures the federal government's backstop for terrorism risk insurance remains in effect for an extended period.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupCommercial property owners and businessesImpactContinued access to terrorism risk insuranceMechanismFederal backstop encourages insurers to offer coverageScaleBroad, affecting any business seeking terrorism coverage

GroupInsurance industryImpactReduced exposure to catastrophic terrorism lossesMechanismFederal reinsurance covers a portion of losses above a certain thresholdScaleSignificant, particularly for large commercial insurers

GroupFederal government/taxpayersImpactContinued contingent liability for terrorism lossesMechanismGovernment acts as a reinsurer of last resortScalePotentially very large in the event of a major attack

Supporters argue

Proponents argue that this extension provides crucial long-term certainty for the insurance market and businesses, allowing for better planning and investment in projects that require terrorism coverage. They emphasize that the private market still struggles to quantify and price terrorism risk effectively, making the federal backstop indispensable for economic stability.

Critics contend

Opponents, if any, might argue that a seven-year extension delays the market's full assumption of terrorism risk, perpetuating a federal intervention that should ideally be temporary. They may suggest that a shorter extension or a phased withdrawal would encourage greater private sector innovation in risk management.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the need for market stability and availability of coverage against concerns about federal intervention in private markets and the assumption of contingent liabilities by taxpayers. A longer extension provides more certainty but also prolongs the federal role.

Section 2(b)

Adjusted Timing of Mandatory Recoupment

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This provision amends Section 103(e)(7)(E)(i) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 by updating specific dates related to the mandatory recoupment of federal funds paid out under the program. All references to years like '2022', '2023', '2024', and '2029' are uniformly shifted forward by seven years to '2029', '2030', '2031', and '2036' respectively. This ensures that the recoupment schedule for federal assistance aligns with the newly extended program termination date.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.