HR-2978-119
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-709, Part I.
Sponsored by Zachary Nunn (R-IA)
What it does
The GUARD Act would allow state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that already receive certain federal grants to use those funds for investigating elder financial fraud, "pig butchering" cryptocurrency scams, and general financial fraud. It would also clarify that federal law enforcement agencies may assist state, local, and Tribal agencies in using blockchain tracing tools. The bill would require Treasury, FinCEN, and other agencies to produce two reports to Congress — one on enforcement efforts and one on the overall scope of scams in the United States.
Who benefits
Elderly Americans and adults with disabilities who are disproportionately targeted by financial fraud. Victims of cryptocurrency "pig butchering" scams, which have grown rapidly and often involve overseas organized crime networks. State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that would gain flexibility to redirect existing grant funds toward financial fraud cases. Financial institutions that would gain a formal liaison point of contact with law enforcement. Consumers broadly who may benefit from improved fraud data collection and reporting. Researchers and policymakers who would gain access to comprehensive federal scam data through the mandated reports.
Who is hurt
Fraudsters and scam networks — particularly overseas organized crime operations — that currently operate with limited state and local law enforcement attention. Law enforcement agencies that currently use the covered grant funds for other purposes may face indirect pressure to reallocate resources. Federal agencies required to produce the two reports (Treasury, FinCEN, DOJ, DHS, and others) would bear administrative and staffing costs. Taxpayers would indirectly bear any increased administrative costs associated with reporting requirements and grant reallocation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that elder financial fraud costs Americans an estimated $28 billion annually, according to AARP and FBI data, and that state and local agencies — the first responders to most fraud cases — currently lack clear authority to use existing federal grants for these investigations. They contend that "pig butchering" scams, which often involve transnational criminal networks and cryptocurrency, require specialized blockchain tracing tools that local agencies cannot currently fund through these grants, and that this bill closes that gap without requiring new appropriations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill redirects existing grant funds without providing new money, meaning any agency that shifts resources toward fraud investigations may reduce capacity in other areas those grants were designed to cover — such as cybercrime against individuals or domestic violence enforcement. They contend that the mandated federal reports, while informative, impose real administrative burdens on multiple agencies without guaranteed funding to carry them out, and that the bill's definitions — particularly "general financial fraud" — are broad enough to create ambiguity in how agencies prioritize limited resources.