FBI records shared for licensing checks

Summary#

Although the supplied listing calls it the SHARE Act of 2026, the bill text gives its short title as the States Handling Access to Reciprocity for Employment Act of 2025, or the SHARE Act of 2025. It would amend the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Its stated purpose is to let the FBI provide criminal-history information for certain occupational licensing checks; the supplied status says the bill is still in progress, so it is not law.

  • The FBI must provide criminal-history record information to a state licensing authority, through an agreement with a state law-enforcement agency or state identification bureau, when an interstate compact or its rules require the information for a background check.
  • This applies to licenses or compact privileges to practice an occupation or profession in a compact-member state.
  • A covered state licensing authority must use the records only for that licensing purpose. It may not share them with the compact’s commission, another state entity or licensing authority, or the public.
  • The authority may tell the compact commission that the check is complete and whether it was satisfactory, without sharing the underlying records.

What it means for you#

  • People seeking licenses or compact privileges: The bill does not itself require a new background check or change licensing eligibility rules. It addresses FBI information for checks that a compact requires.
  • State licensing authorities: If covered, they would have to use the information only for the licensing check and keep the records from the listed recipients. They could still report completion and a satisfactory/not-satisfactory result to the compact commission.
  • Compact commissions and other state entities: They could receive a check’s completion status and binary result, but not the criminal-history records under this bill.
  • Other members of the public: The bill does not create a public right to access these records or change other kinds of licenses.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated cost.

  • The bill requires the FBI to provide information in the covered cases, but the text gives no funding amount, staffing level, or implementation cost.
  • The supplied materials do not estimate costs to state agencies or licensing authorities.

What is unclear#

  • The parent Act is not supplied, so I could not verify how this bill’s changes compare with current law.
  • The bill does not set timelines or procedures for providing records, handling errors, or resolving disagreements.
  • It does not define what makes a background check “satisfactory.”
  • It does not specify how licensing authorities should apply criminal-history information when deciding whether to grant a license or privilege.
  • It does not explain how the required agreements would work in practice.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make FBI criminal-history information available when an interstate compact requires it for occupational licensing checks.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that allowing licensing authorities to receive the records directly, while limiting their use and sharing, could support compact-required checks and restrict wider disclosure.
  • The bill permits compact commissions to receive a check’s completion status and result without receiving the underlying records.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill requires the FBI to provide records but does not set timelines or explain how delays or mistakes would be addressed.
  • The limits on sharing could make it harder for a compact commission or another state authority to understand the basis for a licensing decision. The bill does not describe another way for them to obtain that information.
  • It is unclear what “satisfactory” means or how consistent decisions would be supported across states.