This blog was last updated on May 14, 2026

The federal government is taking coordinated action on state unclaimed property practices. In April 2026, Congress launched both legislative and investigative initiatives targeting what lawmakers characterize as the “premature seizure” of investment assets. 

On April 15, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a detailed oversight letter to the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA) demanding comprehensive data on state escheatment practices. The very next day, Representative Liccardo introduced H.R. 8338—the “Safeguarding Americans’ Fairly Earned Retirement Act of 2026” (SAFER Act)—which would establish new federal standards limiting when states can take custody of investment accounts. 

The SAFER Act: New Federal Standards 

The SAFER Act represents the most significant federal intervention in state escheatment authority in decades. The bill creates a two-tier framework based on account ownership: 

For individual accounts, financial institutions may not remit covered assets to states unless: 

• The institution has confirmed the account owner’s death at least three years prior to escheatment. 

• No estate fiduciary has expressed interest in the asset during that same three-year period. 

• For jointly owned assets, all account holders must be confirmed deceased before the assets may be remitted to the state. 

For entity-owned accounts, the SAFER Act 2026 would prohibit escheatment unless the financial institution has had no contact with an authorized representative for at least five years. 

Which assets would the 2026 SAFER Act cover?  

The requirements apply to securities, digital assets, investment accounts (including IRAs), and related proceeds, including dividends, principal distributions, forks and airdrops.  

The bill also includes an explicit preemption clause overriding conflicting state laws while preserving states’ abilities to require due diligence, reporting obligations, and other compliance mandates that don’t directly conflict with the custody-yielding restrictions. 

Senator Warren’s NAUPA Inquiry 

Senator Warren’s letter to NAUPA provides the evidentiary foundation that underscores the need for reform. The inquiry highlights three trends that directly align with the SAFER Act’s policy objectives: 

Growing State Unclaimed Property Holdings 

While states returned $4.49 billion to rightful owners in 2024, they collectively hold approximately $70 billion in unclaimed property—up from an estimated $20 billion in 2002. Just four states hold over $34 billion. 

The Dormancy Period Squeeze 

Between 2004 and 2020, 17 jurisdictions shortened their dormancy periods for banking properties, with many moving from five years to three—directly conflicting with the SAFER Act’s proposed minimums. 

The “Inactivity” Standard Shift 

States increasingly replace “Returned by Post Office” triggers with “inactivity” standards, where dormancy begins simply because an account holder hasn’t initiated contact—even if mail is being delivered successfully. 

Investor Protection Focus

Both initiatives address the same core problem: state practices that conflict with prudent investment behavior. Senator Warren’s letter explicitly notes that “buy and hold” strategies—cornerstones of retirement planning—now carry escheatment risk under inactivity standards. Long-term investors may find their securities escheated and liquidated by states, permanently losing capital appreciation even if they eventually reclaim the funds. 

NAUPA was required to respond by May 1, 2026 to eight detailed information requests covering dormancy triggers and dormancy period reductions, ten-year escheatment trends, reunification processes, contract auditor roles, and state motivations for policy changes. 

What This Means 

The convergence of Warren’s oversight and the SAFER Act mark a potential turning point in federal-state balance on unclaimed property. For decades, escheatment has been almost exclusively a matter of state law. These initiatives suggest Congress may be ready to assert federal authority over investment assets, prioritizing investor protection over state revenue interests. 

The coming months will reveal whether this two-pronged approach succeeds in reshaping the unclaimed property landscape. For now, holders should prepare for potential changes while maintaining full compliance with current state requirements.