The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act - a bill that has passed the House seven times over multiple congressional sessions - cannot, apparently, get a conversation going on Capitol Hill right now. Multiple lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers say they have heard essentially nothing about a plan to advance the legislation before the year closes out. Not a timeline. Not a signal. Not even hallway chatter.
A Bill With a Long History and a Short Runway
The basic premise of SAFE Banking is straightforward: it would shield financial institutions from federal penalties for providing services - checking accounts, payroll processing, basic credit - to cannabis businesses operating legally under state law. As federal statute currently stands, banks face regulatory exposure when working with marijuana-related businesses, which forces much of the legal cannabis industry to operate largely in cash. That's a public safety problem, a tax administration problem, and a basic business viability problem, all wrapped together. Thirty-two state and territory attorneys general, in a recent bipartisan letter, called on Congress to act urgently. The bill hasn't been filed this session in either chamber.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), tapped to carry the measure in the Senate this Congress, had previously suggested the fall as a plausible window for movement. That was before a historically prolonged government shutdown consumed the legislative calendar and reshuffled priorities across the building. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who sponsored earlier versions of the bill, told Marijuana Moment the issue has been put "on the back burner" - with Senate Democrats concentrating on preserving health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Fair enough, as far as competing priorities go. But the bill was already quiet before the shutdown.
Bipartisan Silence, Bipartisan Frustration
What's striking here is that the stall spans both parties and both chambers. Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) said it "feels like I've heard nothing" and that "by now we should've had some buzz on it." Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV), a co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, confirmed she has "not heard anything moving." Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the other Cannabis Caucus co-chair, said he's heard of "none" - though he expects the issue to resurface in the new year.
Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), who is again leading the House effort, told Marijuana Moment earlier this year that he would file the bill this session, but that introduction was "not imminent." Months later, it still hasn't been filed. In a chamber that has passed versions of this legislation seven times, that's not a minor procedural delay - it's a telling absence.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), among the most consistent opponents of cannabis liberalization in Congress, offered his usual position without much equivocation: federal illegality should preclude banking access, full stop. He acknowledged the bill might yet pass this year but said he hasn't heard it moving either. When even the opposition isn't actively mobilizing, it usually means the proposal isn't close enough to a vote to warrant attention from either side.
The Rescheduling Variable
One factor lurking in the background is the possibility that the Trump administration moves to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act - a process that was set in motion under the Biden administration and has not been formally resolved. Whether rescheduling would grease the wheels for SAFE Banking is genuinely contested among the people closest to the issue.
Moreno has said he believes it would be an "important domino." Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called it a potential catalyst - a signal that would push Congress toward "a modern approach" to marijuana law. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), the bill's longtime Republican Senate sponsor, was less convinced; his read is that many colleagues keep their views on financial services access separate from the broader scheduling question entirely. That divergence matters. If there's no consensus on what conditions would unlock the legislation, there's no obvious pressure point to build around.
In practice, though, rescheduling would not itself legalize marijuana or change the underlying friction between state-legal markets and federal banking law. Cannabis would remain a controlled substance. The cash-heavy, compliance-intensive reality of the industry wouldn't dissolve overnight. SAFE Banking - or something like it - would still be necessary. That argument has been made repeatedly for years. It hasn't been sufficient.
What Stasis Actually Costs
The downstream effects of inaction are concrete. Licensed cannabis businesses, unable to access conventional banking, rely heavily on armored cash transport, uninsured revenue, and limited credit options. Workers in those businesses often face similar barriers - direct deposit complications, difficulties securing personal loans tied to employment in the sector. State tax agencies collecting cannabis revenue face their own logistical burdens. These aren't hypotheticals; they are documented operational realities that advocates, regulators, and now dozens of state attorneys general have placed before Congress.
Titus noted the possibility that SAFE Banking provisions could eventually be folded into a broader legislative vehicle - an appropriations bill, a financial services package - rather than advancing as standalone legislation. It has happened before in other policy areas. But that kind of attachment requires momentum somewhere, a bill moving that offers a viable host. Right now, even that secondary path seems theoretical.
The year ends where it began: with a bill that has more demonstrated House support than almost any cannabis-related measure in recent memory, no filed version in either chamber, and lawmakers on both sides describing its status with some variation of "haven't heard a thing." Not dead. Not moving.
