[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6463729,"mediaKeyId","5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d","parentId",5785117,"title","Lawmakers and witnesses debate whether cyberattacks can qualify as ‘terrorism’ under TRIA, cite attribution and intent challenges","audioSeconds",358,"startMs",6976000,"endMs",7334000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d&start=6976&end=7334","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d/thumbnail_6976000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6463729/Lawmakers-and-witnesses-debate-whether-cyberattacks-can-qualify-as-terrorism-under-TRIA-cite-attribution-and-intent-challenges","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463729-855b044e3e1bacbec7f41dbe9a102bde/orig.mp4?Expires=1770846679&Signature=bzbb~z3lu1iehbuxEUKvM-NsDWJc4RHfmV-3OmBybmO5tnqpn-ZgsFsic7LBjTrkUxXzlXJZutNObv-ebn7hg5VDNH1t6zv9w4I2uEgT~rHs2S722uTqBG~aGh-IWVvGGET7qYYIVYQU0D1Keg2-7x0cHmUg~6f4yoQAPLyZrjkZnFfl~IkN3Fd9EFMQ-2fFvQF3fHYaSSGLo~1YFRFryH1EBEzO3Wq3F2KRgWfpfhSC9O9NYZdNVwxoTuQXvEgVy2NWfwTpVhj-BEeevbQIZEUnk9gvFTfr1xMbYCSwdbNWrb~z9-RwAUuu5nkI1a2NlnyZkFXUOdtGEFvrrseM-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Financial Services","date","2025-09-18T04:24:22Z","article","Members of the House Financial Services subcommittee explored how TRIA applies to cyber incidents and whether cyberattacks should be treated similarly to kinetic terrorism events for insurance purposes.

Representative Ritchie Torres asked for clarity on the distinction between cyberattacks, cyberterrorism and cyberwar. Barrett Weibel of the Congressional Research Service answered that the statute focuses on the \"intent of the actor\" and that attribution in the cyber context is often difficult. \"The decision to certify is a political decision, not a legal decision,\" Weibel said, noting the secretary of the Treasury has sole, unreviewable discretion to certify acts for TRIA purposes.

Witnesses noted that TRIA covers insured property‑casualty losses that are contracted in private policies; if an event is certified as terrorism and the underlying policy covers the loss, TRIA would apply. Several witnesses cautioned about practical limits: nation‑state attacks can raise \"acts of war\" exclusions and attribution may be unclear, complicating whether Treasury could or would certify a cyber event as terrorism.

Members raised consequences for critical infrastructure, including water systems, energy grids and airports, and asked whether a separate federal cyber backstop might be warranted. Some witnesses warned that rolling cyber into TRIA without careful drafting could create contractual and market uncertainty; others said existing TRIA language can cover cyber terrorism where intent and attribution permit certification. The panel did not endorse a single legislative approach but recommended that Congress consider cyber attribution, the potential for war exclusions, and the need for clear rules if TRIA's scope is to cover more cyber risk.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","The Reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (EventID=118613)","oneSentenceSummary","At a House subcommittee hearing, witnesses said TRIA can cover cyberattacks that are certified as terrorism, but attribution and intent make certification difficult; members discussed the interplay of cyber, nation‑state attacks and TRIA's statutory scope.","taxTitle","Financial Services: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1981,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6463733,"Lawmakers press Treasury timing on terrorism certification after Boston Marathon example; proposal floated for six‑month response window",315,5129000,5444000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d&start=5129&end=5444","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d/thumbnail_5129000.jpg","/articles/6463733/Lawmakers-press-Treasury-timing-on-terrorism-certification-after-Boston-Marathon-example-proposal-floated-for-sixmonth-response-window","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463733-270bdc48b3ca086bf80523707cdde569/orig.mp4?Expires=1770846679&Signature=eXGnHCLKOdhAXTTr2vOhCQYmKCpQI9b4HXoBnkPRzxweNCkpA-Ug7CJTJeoDUGbeRnhsUldnrAGC95rQmiQKTjV1qLg1X1s14sQY60O3n6hZc65g67Oyab1ShHvrSf-3GAWhWnb3FeqKP~oPsTfYFc74q7Y0FSL0ej0StbpxR5lpi-3B3O2C2Kf4~zQy3ScAdMkbkss0jWJIcho66-OgzKMgDMeWp3ucJSx2y5C~Ev51NnethasquiLeBzegfLfFwHq661t565Gn-RJCubDoMWLyvufuNomyheRXq8BYsQOVOd-EhQd8U1Pa4LJxHmUu~N95tXIlJmw0uilsNr7Itg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the House subcommittee hearing on TRIA reauthorization, members raised concerns about the time Treasury can take to certify an event as an act of terrorism — a prerequisite for triggering TRIA assistance — and discussed proposals to require a timely response when governors request certification.

Representative Ayanna Pressley cited the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and recounted that businesses waited weeks and months to learn whether Treasury would classify the event as terrorism, a decision that affects whether reinsurance and other policy provisions are triggered. \"Businesses waited for weeks, months, and ultimately more than a year to learn if the treasury secretary would classify the assault on our city as a terrorist attack,\" Pressley said.

Barrett Weibel of the Congressional Research Service explained that certifying an act of terrorism can be difficult for reasons of attribution and statutory thresholds, including the $5,000,000 single‑event certification threshold and the fact that TRIA only covers insured property‑casualty losses (not life or health claims). \"I think there's obvious difficulties in terms of attribution of terrorist attack,\" Weibel said in response to questions about the Boston case.

Members discussed a proposal to require Treasury to respond to a governor's certification request within six months, with an option for the governor to resubmit if denied. \"Certainty always helps,\" Andrew Mays, Connecticut insurance commissioner, told the committee when asked whether a guaranteed response period would aid insurers and policyholders. Several members said a formal response window would reduce payout delays and uncertainty for claimants, lenders and bondholders.

Witnesses and lawmakers noted tradeoffs: faster deadlines could produce politically driven or premature certifications, while slower determinations can stall claims and impede recovery for affected communities. The committee asked Treasury for follow‑up information on current timelines and whether statutory language could be adjusted to balance speed with the need for accurate attribution.","Members cited the Boston Marathon experience and other delays to press witnesses on Treasury's certification timeline and discussed a potential requirement that Treasury respond to governors within six months to give policyholders certainty.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6463738,"Witness warns TRIA payouts disproportionately benefit large corporations through captives; committee hears calls for data transparency",865,2435000,3300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d&start=2435&end=3300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d/thumbnail_2435000.jpg","/articles/6463738/Witness-warns-TRIA-payouts-disproportionately-benefit-large-corporations-through-captives-committee-hears-calls-for-data-transparency","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463738-58fd37272503d5e7a25794562a1bf5cb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770846679&Signature=jGUQNptWJE~ayfQU2WzyQ~7W7ZMS~NQALairj4AKZ8~Hjd0VpzlH6ip3eSiqw1J8JjWVa6MkUU0aD2mCcPcYzJXLGajnaebWrscp4u-IUQSvx3bU2pRYce7U00F6TGInrPAH662rnS~3kM7uaMpCmDraTBdZn56PV8n7zPICKZuQIUqWErWUfKddc3H0xCHp90iOjGn-9tmPX8XhR5IzdbCQwlD7UpV1jIsZhIdHq33UHiHYpoCnxzsF0TZHY~BCZ7pYYq3lr5444AFEQ-aPVDKBYRFj4sByVX7vFNknLXZmfjLfuh-r63T8iSrOAgA9bKXLAj857mV86wvJow~slg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the House Financial Services subcommittee hearing on TRIA reauthorization, Jason Shoop, founder of Centers for Better Insurance LLC, testified that Treasury data show captive insurers — subsidiaries owned by large corporations — receive a large share of potential post‑event payments under TRIA while paying relatively little in statutory surcharges.

\"Up to 96¢ out of every dollar that would be paid out under the program would go to large corporations through their captive insurance subsidiaries,\" Shoop said, citing Treasury reports compiled under the law. Shoop gave public examples in the hearing record: he said the New York Times negotiated a captive terrorism policy with about $1.3 billion in coverage on a roughly $10 million premium that would leave the federal backstop exposed for up to $1 billion after a token deductible. He also cited Amazon as another large captive purchaser in Treasury's data.

Shoop and other witnesses described how statutory recoupment is structured: Treasury is required by statute to recoup roughly 140% of program payments through surcharges on property and casualty policyholders. Shoop argued Treasury data show an imbalance where captive owners receive billions in benefits but their policyholders would pay far less in recoupment; outside insurers and small‑business policyholders would face proportionally higher surcharges for the same program outlays.

Both industry and regulator witnesses acknowledged the issue of opaque captive data. Barrett Weibel of the Congressional Research Service and Elizabeth Heck (testifying on behalf of NAMIC) recommended greater data collection and transparency so Treasury can identify owners of captives and better assess program distributional impacts. \"There are solutions,\" Shoop said, and he urged Congress to consider statutory changes to limit or adjust the way captives interact with the federal backstop.

Lawmakers asked follow‑up questions about state secrecy laws and the limits of Treasury's current reporting authority. Several members signaled interest in requiring more detailed reporting from captives and non‑U.S. insurance entities to prevent perceived subsidies and to ensure the recoupment mechanism treats policyholders equitably.","An independent analyst told the House subcommittee that corporate 'captive' insurers capture the bulk of TRIA benefits while paying a small share of post‑event recoupment, and called for greater data transparency and statutory fixes.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6463742,"House subcommittee opens early push to reauthorize terrorism insurance backstop, witnesses urge long-term extension",6853,883000,7736000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d&start=883&end=7736","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5785117-1b5a98b93d527edf66ad9b14ce23f10d/thumbnail_883000.jpg","/articles/6463742/House-subcommittee-opens-early-push-to-reauthorize-terrorism-insurance-backstop-witnesses-urge-long-term-extension","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463742-642ecad593298a32550d624cd9db133e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770846679&Signature=dET-h47srMkYJDl2hsq16bSp29d007WYsgi1WRQ~CuIeZkWegj2DziZnFCTmEly7bbZEouvkV7zHMRRzYHkyJcfS59Eyzcw9VlKxaTOGF4XEhMJaIx5U~eTJWfVC-IMFhLifsnvVZEhKCKMsAbvZv6u-c3tezM-KSYRMYpoJUbPI3kcHULmsWHGhq5xLF4ca8pru7pdUq16KD-bAywpINOmVkacrL~rSkEJOV00mo-REtBdmbrfZP6AzeERhckRJjoAmw6vsrcI2PQ6FyZFm~GMnO-NeVmIKvxu1Z57c8JBhxY2HRRijw0jmNehvlbtljaog8b-jdroSUIvgXfYDXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance convened a hearing on reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), with lawmakers and industry witnesses urging early, multi‑year renewal to preserve market stability and coverage availability.

Members said the program, enacted in 2002 after the Sept. 11 attacks, remains necessary because insurers cannot reliably price or model terrorism risk. \"TRIA stabilizes not only the insurance sector, but the broader economy,\" said Andrew Mays, commissioner of the Connecticut Insurance Department, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Mays recommended a long-term reauthorization of seven to ten years to provide certainty for insurers, lenders and developers.

Witnesses described how TRIA functions as a federal backstop rather than a primary insurer. Barrett Weibel, a financial economics specialist at the Congressional Research Service, summarized the program's mechanics: a $200,000,000 annual program trigger, a 20% insurer deductible tied to prior-year earned premiums, an 80/20 federal/private cost‑share above the deductible, a $5,000,000 single‑event certification threshold, and a $100,000,000,000 cap above which no federal coverage applies. \"This system has a lot of advantages,\" Weibel said, noting that because no event has met the trigger, Treasury has not made payouts but the program's existence has preserved an operating market.

Industry witnesses from a range of firms said TRIA enables insurers of all sizes to offer terrorism coverage and keeps premiums affordable for sectors that regularly buy the protection. Elizabeth Heck, chairman, president and CEO of Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (testifying on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies), urged a 10‑year extension to avoid short‑term uncertainty. Michelle Sartain, president of Marsh U.S. and Canada, highlighted sector uptake statistics from Marsh research, including an approximate 61% uptake in health care and 47% in education, and warned that a reauthorization delay could cause insurers to withdraw or narrow coverage. \"Uncertainty alone causes markets to withdraw coverage,\" Sartain said, citing the 2015 lapse as an example of market disruption.

Lawmakers pressed witnesses about specific program design issues — the role of captives, recoupment mechanics, indexing of numeric triggers, and the program's treatment of workers' compensation and NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological) risks — but broadly signaled bipartisan support for timely renewal. Representative Maxine Waters and others said the certainty provided by a long reauthorization supports economic development, lending and large projects because insurance decisions and capital deployments are made months or years in advance.

Several witnesses recommended keeping the program's architecture largely intact while improving data collection and transparency. Weibel and others suggested that Congress assess Treasury's operational preparedness and reporting mechanisms ahead of any activation of the backstop.

With TRIA scheduled to expire at the end of 2027, members repeatedly urged the committee to act in 2026 so insurance contracts that renew annually will not be written amid uncertainty. The hearing record was left open for five legislative days for additional materials and the witnesses were asked to respond to follow-up questions by Oct. 22, 2025. The subcommittee adjourned after unanimous‑consent submissions were entered into the record.","Lawmakers and industry witnesses at the House Financial Services subcommittee hearing said the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) has stabilized the market since 2002 and urged Congress to reauthorize it well before its 2027 sunset to avoid market disruption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers and witnesses debate whether cyberattacks can qualify as ‘terrorism’ under TRIA, cite attribution and intent challenges

Lawmakers press Treasury timing on terrorism certification after Boston Marathon example; proposal floated for six‑month response window

Witness warns TRIA payouts disproportionately benefit large corporations through captives; committee hears calls for data transparency

House subcommittee opens early push to reauthorize terrorism insurance backstop, witnesses urge long-term extension