A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The CLAIM Act seeks to create a safe harbor for insurance companies working with cannabis-related legitimate businesses. It prohibits federal agencies from discouraging, penalizing, or terminating insurance policies solely because they involve cannabis-related activities conducted under state or tribal law. The bill provides legal protections for insurers and their employees from federal liability when engaging in these business transactions. Additionally, it does not force insurers to provide coverage to these businesses. Finally, the Act mandates a study by the Comptroller General regarding barriers to market entry and financial access for minority and women-owned cannabis businesses.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill protects cannabis-related legitimate businesses and their landlords from adverse federal supervisory actions.
- Scored +5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill protects businesses and their landlords from federal interference regarding insurance policies related to cannabis.
- Scored +3
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
The bill requires a study on financial access barriers facing minority-owned cannabis businesses.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection against federal interference for insurers: Federal agencies are prohibited from discouraging or penalizing insurers from working with cannabis-related legitimate businesses (Section 2(b)(1)).
-
Stability for insurance policyholders: The bill prevents federal agencies from recommending the downgrade or cancellation of insurance policies solely because a policyholder is an owner, employee, or operator of a cannabis-related legitimate business (Section 2(b)(3)).
-
Protection for real estate and equipment owners: The act prevents adverse supervisory actions against owners who lease real estate or equipment to cannabis-related legitimate businesses (Section 2(b)(4)(C)).
-
Legal safety for insurance industry workers: Insurers, including their officers, directors, and employees, are protected from being held liable under federal law or regulation for engaging in the business of insurance related to legal cannabis transactions (Section 2(c)).
-
Increased insight into business barriers: The Comptroller General is required to study barriers to market entry and financial service access for minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses (Section 3(a)).
-
Potential for improved business equity: The required GAO report must include recommendations for removing barriers to entry and expanding access to financial services for minority and women-owned businesses (Section 3(b)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No requirement for coverage: The bill explicitly states that it does not require an insurer to actually engage in the business of insurance in connection with a cannabis-related legitimate business (Section 2(d)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill protects cannabis-related legitimate businesses and their landlords from adverse federal supervisory actions. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires a study on financial access barriers facing minority-owned cannabis businesses. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires a study on financial access barriers facing minority-owned cannabis businesses. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires a study on financial access barriers facing minority-owned cannabis businesses. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill's provisions apply to transactions occurring within Indian country and involve Indian Tribes. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill provides legal protections for insurers and business owners involved in the cannabis industry. Would women be better off under this? — The bill mandates a study on barriers to market entry and financial services for women-owned cannabis businesses.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill mandates a study on barriers to market entry and financial access specifically for women-owned cannabis businesses. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill mandates a study on barriers to market entry and financial access specifically for minority-owned cannabis businesses.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill protects businesses and their landlords from federal interference regarding insurance policies related to cannabis.
- 7/21/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
5 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona