Listen to this post

In the Beginning: 2019 and a “Long, Long Journey Ahead”

The SAFE Banking Act first hit our radar in 2019 (although permutations had existed for years before), introduced by then-Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO). When we covered it back then, we flagged that the bill had — to quote our younger, more innocent selves — “a long, long journey ahead.” Friend, we had no idea.

The House went on to pass some version of the bill seven times between 2019 and 2022 — a genuinely remarkable run of bipartisan support for cannabis legislation. Every single time, it died in the Senate. Sen. Mitch McConnell sat on it. Then Sen. Chuck Schumer sat on it, preferring to hold out for comprehensive reform rather than pass the “incremental” banking fix.

Side B: 2022, When Hope (and the HOPE Act) Sprang Eternal

By the summer of 2022, momentum looked real again. In Cannabis Banking: Will the SAFE Banking Act Finally Pass? (June 2022), we walked through how SAFE would carve a path through the Bank Secrecy Act and federal anti-money-laundering rules — and floated (albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism) the idea of bolting it to the HOPE Act’s expungement provisions to give it the social-equity ballast Senate Democrats wanted.

Then the midterms came, and the optimism curdled. In 2022 Midterms and the Future of the SAFE Banking Act (December 2022), we surveyed the wreckage of the lame-duck session — the failed NDAA attachment, the omnibus that left SAFE on the cutting-room floor — and concluded that SAFE, on its own, was “likely dead in the water.” Not our most uplifting closing line, but accuracy over comfort.

The Remix: SAFER and a Watched Pot Never Boils

2023 brought a new arrangement. The Senate Banking Committee retooled the bill into the SAFER Banking Act and actually advanced it out of committee that September — further than any prior Senate version had gone. And yet, in A Watched Pot Never Boils: SAFE Banking on the Backburner Again (August 2023), we noted the proposal was, once again, simmering in committee right on schedule for a congressional recess. Charlie Brown, meet football. Football, Charlie Brown.

The Rescheduling Curveball

Fast-forward to this spring. In Will the Marijuana Industry’s Access to Banking and Capital Markets Expand with Rescheduling? (April 2026) — part of our Baker’s Dozen series — we dug into what the move of state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III actually changes. Short version: less than the headlines suggested. Rescheduling reduces risk; it doesn’t hand banks a safe harbor. We wrote then that SAFE Banking still hadn’t passed and that compliance officers would keep waiting for either the legislation or updated FinCEN guidance before opening the vault. That assessment, unfortunately, has aged well.

I think it’s worth noting that the rescheduling reporting around this is a little muddy depending on the source, so treat the precise timeline as “consult the order, don’t take my word for it.” What’s not muddy is the upshot — recreational operators remain in the same Schedule I banking desert they’ve always occupied, and the medical/recreational split makes the banking picture more complicated, not less. Which is exactly the gap SAFE is meant to fill.

This Week: 2026 Edition

So, what’s actually in the new bill? Its sponsors say it would bar federal regulators from punishing or discouraging banks for serving state-legal cannabis businesses, protect those institutions’ deposit insurance, create a safe harbor from prosecution and asset forfeiture, and — notably — extend coverage to ancillary businesses like the landlords, accountants, and vendors that serve the industry. Banks would still file suspicious activity reports; nobody’s getting a free pass on BSA compliance.

Rep. Dave Joyce, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, framed the cash-only status quo as a public-safety problem. The American Bankers Association applauded the reintroduction and urged Congress to advance it. Familiar notes, all.

Will This Time Be Different?

Terribly predictable lawyer answer: We don’t know, and anyone telling you they do know is selling something. The bipartisan support is real and durable. The Senate has historically been where this song goes to die. The rescheduling backdrop and a friendlier executive posture toward cannabis banking are arguably new verses, but we’ve been burned by “this time feels different” before, and our readers deserve better than wishful forecasting.

What we can say with confidence is this: The SAFE Banking Act is once again on the turntable, the House lineup is bipartisan, and the road ahead runs straight through the same Senate that has stalled it for the better part of a decade. We’ll be watching.

Thanks for stopping by.