Strategy to Combat Scams

Summary#

This bill requires the FBI to lead a working group of many federal agencies to write a National Strategy for Combating Scams. The working group must produce the strategy within two years and publish it publicly. The strategy must include a recommended common definition of “scam,” and three federal agencies must adopt that definition within a year after publication.

• Main change: creates an interagency working group and directs it to develop a government-wide strategy to prevent and respond to scams.
• Who must act: the FBI leads the group; the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are required to adopt the strategy’s recommended definition; many other agencies must participate.
• Timeline: working group must form within 90 days; strategy due within 2 years; updates at least every 5 years; agencies must adopt the definition within 1 year after publication or after updates.
• Scope of the plan: requires stakeholder input, a common definition of “scam,” risk and prevention analysis, roles for agencies, data and reporting plans, private-sector and international coordination, and recommendations on needed legal or administrative changes.
• What it does not do: the bill sets planning and coordination requirements. It does not itself create new crimes, change enforcement powers, or explicitly provide funding.

What it means for you#

• General public / people at risk of scams

  • The bill aims to make government warnings and prevention efforts more coordinated and consistent. This could mean clearer public guidance, faster warnings about scams, and one public national strategy people can read.
  • The bill asks for plans to improve complaint reporting and make reporting accessible for people with disabilities.

• Older adults and people with disabilities

  • The working group must get input from older adults and disability groups and consider targeted prevention and recovery measures. This could lead to more resources aimed at groups that are often targeted by scams.

• Victims and survivors of scams

  • The strategy must include ideas for victim recovery and accessible resources for assistance and redress. It could result in clearer information on how to get help.

• Banks, telecoms, technology and other businesses

  • The strategy calls for increased coordination with the private sector, including rapid data-sharing to help investigations and steps to authenticate or block scam-related communications. The bill does not itself require companies to share data, but it asks the working group to propose ways to do that.

• Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement

  • Agencies will get a plan that defines roles and coordination steps. The bill also asks for analysis on partnering across jurisdictions and forming local elder-justice task forces where feasible.

• Federal agencies

  • Agencies named in the bill must participate in the working group and follow timelines for adopting a common definition of “scam.” They will be asked to collect, harmonize, and share data and to identify duplicated efforts.

• Legislators and policymakers

  • The working group must analyze what legislative, regulatory, or administrative changes are needed to implement the strategy, producing proposals lawmakers could act on.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill itself does not include an appropriation or a fiscal note in the provided text.
• Likely costs (inferred from the work required): staff time for participating federal agencies, costs to build or upgrade data systems for harmonized reporting, expenses for public outreach and stakeholder engagement, and possible costs to private companies if formal data-sharing arrangements are established.
• If the strategy recommends new programs or task forces, those would likely need separate funding or legislation.
• State, local, and Tribal governments might face costs if they adopt recommended task forces or reporting systems; the bill asks the working group to analyze such resource needs.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to address rising losses from scams and new tactics (for example, AI deepfakes) by coordinating the federal response.
• A possible argument for the bill is that a single national strategy can reduce duplicated efforts across at least 13 agencies and improve coordination, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office.
• The bill appears intended to improve public reporting, data collection, and measurement of scam incidents and dollar losses, which could lead to better-targeted prevention.
• The bill appears intended to strengthen partnerships with the private sector and foreign governments to disrupt large-scale and cross-border scams.
• The bill appears intended to make help for victims more consistent and accessible, especially for older adults and people with disabilities.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill does not provide funding. It requires planning and analysis but does not authorize money to carry out promised data systems, outreach, or victim services.
• One concern is the lack of detail on data sharing. The bill asks for rapid private–public data sharing and law enforcement interoperability but does not specify privacy safeguards, legal limits, or whether data sharing would be voluntary or required.
• The bill does not define “scam” itself; it requires the working group to propose a definition. One concern is that the eventual definition could be vague or have unintended effects on legitimate speech or transactions.
• The bill’s timelines are long (strategy due in two years; updates every five years), so some advocates might see this as slow given fast-moving scam tactics like AI-generated content.
• One concern is implementation complexity: coordinating many agencies with overlapping roles is difficult, and the bill does not set clear metrics for success or enforcement mechanisms to ensure agencies follow through.
• It is unclear what costs state, local, Tribal governments and private companies would incur if the strategy recommends new systems or mandatory cooperation.