CLAIM Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
The CLAIM Act aims to normalize the insurance market for state-legal cannabis businesses by removing federal disincentives for insurers, thereby increasing access to essential coverage and promoting market stability.
What it actually does
This bill creates a federal 'safe harbor' for insurers, prohibiting federal agencies from penalizing or discouraging them from providing insurance services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses operating legally under state or tribal law. It also protects insurers and their employees from federal liability solely for engaging in such business or investing income derived from it. Additionally, the bill mandates a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on barriers to marketplace entry and access to financial services for minority-owned and women-owned cannabis businesses.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step towards resolving the conflict between state and federal cannabis laws, allowing legitimate, state-legal cannabis businesses to access vital insurance products without fear of federal reprisal for insurers. They contend that this will enhance public safety, reduce operational risks for businesses, and foster economic growth in an emerging industry, while also addressing equity concerns through the mandated GAO study.
Opponents contend
Critics, primarily those opposed to cannabis legalization, might argue that while this bill addresses a practical issue, it implicitly legitimizes an industry that remains federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. They may express concerns that such measures, even if limited to insurance, could be seen as a step towards broader federal endorsement of cannabis, potentially leading to unintended societal consequences or a perception of federal inconsistency.
The bill is concise and can be read and understood within a reasonable timeframe, allowing for informed evaluation.
Section 2(b)
Federal Safe Harbor for Insurers
This provision explicitly prohibits federal agencies from taking adverse actions against insurers solely because they engage in the business of insurance with cannabis-related legitimate businesses. This includes preventing agencies from prohibiting, penalizing, or discouraging such activities, or from terminating policies or taking supervisory actions against insurers or policyholders based on their involvement with state-legal cannabis operations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this safe harbor is essential to allow state-legal cannabis businesses to operate safely and legitimately, reducing their exposure to uninsured risks and fostering a more stable economic environment. They contend it addresses a critical market failure caused by the federal-state conflict.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this provision, while practical, further erodes the federal prohibition on cannabis by carving out exceptions, potentially setting a precedent for other industries to seek similar protections without a comprehensive federal policy change.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to support state-legal businesses with the ongoing federal prohibition, creating a carve-out for a specific industry (insurance) without fully legalizing cannabis at the federal level.
Section 2(c)
Protection from Federal Liability
This section provides explicit protection under federal law for insurers, their officers, directors, and employees. They cannot be held liable solely for engaging in the business of insurance with a cannabis-related legitimate business or for investing income derived from such business, provided these activities are permissible under relevant state, political subdivision, or Indian Tribe law.
Section 3
GAO Study on Diversity and Inclusion in Cannabis Industry
This section mandates the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the barriers faced by potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses. The study will specifically examine marketplace entry, including licensing processes, and access to financial services. A report with findings and legislative/regulatory recommendations must be submitted to Congress.
The definition of 'Federal agency' includes 'a private attorney described in section 3002(1)(B) of title 28, United States Code.'
Section 2(a)(4)(B)
Why it matters:This inclusion is likely standard legislative practice for defining the full scope of entities that might act on behalf of the federal government in a legal capacity, ensuring comprehensive protection.
Case for: Supporters would argue that including private attorneys acting on behalf of the U.S. government ensures that the safe harbor protections are comprehensive and prevent indirect federal actions against insurers through private legal channels.
Case against: Critics might argue that this broadens the scope of federal entities constrained by the safe harbor in a way that is not immediately obvious, potentially limiting future enforcement flexibility.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the safe harbor applies to all relevant federal actors, direct or indirect, involved in legal proceedings.
The definition of 'financial service' includes not only the business of insurance but also payment processing, money transmitting, and armored car services, specifically when facilitating payments for cannabis-related legitimate businesses.
Section 2(a)(5)
Why it matters:This expansion is likely intended to provide a more robust and practical safe harbor, recognizing that insurance often involves other financial services. It's a pragmatic inclusion to make the bill more effective.
Case for: Proponents would argue that including these related financial services is crucial because insurance transactions often involve payments and funds transfers. Without these broader protections, the safe harbor for insurance alone would be incomplete and less effective.
Case against: Critics might contend that this subtly expands the scope of federal accommodation for the cannabis industry beyond just insurance, potentially opening the door for similar safe harbors for other financial services without explicit legislative debate on each.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of protected financial activities, making it easier for cannabis businesses to conduct all aspects of their financial operations, not just insurance.
Insurers and their personnel are protected from federal liability not only for engaging in the business of insurance but also 'for further investing any income derived from such business of insurance.'
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a critical financial protection for insurers, ensuring they can manage and invest their profits from cannabis-related insurance without federal interference. It's a necessary component for full financial normalization.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this clause is essential for the financial viability of insurers engaging in this market, allowing them to manage their capital like any other business without fear of federal asset forfeiture or money laundering charges related to their profits.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision further normalizes and integrates cannabis-derived funds into the broader financial system, which could be seen as undermining federal anti-drug policies by legitimizing the profits from a federally illegal substance.
Estimated impact: Provides significant financial security for insurers, allowing them to fully integrate profits from cannabis insurance into their investment portfolios.