US insurance commissioners and industry trade groups are backing renewed efforts to dismantle the Federal Insurance Office, reopening a long-running fight over who controls insurance oversight.
Troy Downing, a Republican from Montana, introduced the McCarran–Ferguson Restoration Act.
The bill would eliminate the FIO and reinforce the state-centric regulatory framework established under the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act.
The FIO entered the picture much later. Congress created the office under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, placing it within the Treasury Department with a mandate described as advisory rather than regulatory. That distinction has remained contested ever since.
Scott A. White, Virginia’s insurance commissioner and president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, said state regulators strongly support the proposal.
In his view, the bill restores balance between federal and state authority.
White said insurance regulation has always rested with the states and should stay there. He argued the legislation removes a federal office that conflicted with that structure, while preserving a limited Treasury role focused on international engagement and defending the US insurance sector abroad.
“The McCarran-Ferguson Restoration Act is a critical measure to preserve the strength of our state-based system of insurance regulation–a framework that has protected consumers and ensured market stability for decades,” said Sam Whitfield, senior vice president of federal government relations and political engagement for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA).
Downing’s bill also proposes a new role. A US Insurance Representative, appointed by the Treasury Secretary, would help administer the federal terrorism insurance program, coordinate international insurance policy, and consult with state regulators on national issues.
The measure would also grant voting rights to the state insurance representative on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, where regulators currently sit without a vote.
Trade groups quickly lined up behind the bill. Sam Whitfield, senior vice president for federal government relations at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, called the legislation essential to preserving a regulatory framework that has delivered consumer protection and market stability for decades.
Criticism of the FIO has sharpened over time. Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said Congress never intended the office to act as a regulator.
He accused the FIO of pushing those boundaries through expanded data collection and reports that duplicate or interfere with state oversight, with costs passed back to consumers.
Congress created FIO with explicit language that it is not a regulatory agency, but the years since have seen repeated efforts by the office to test those limits and expand its power.
Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the NAMIC
“Through needless data calls and reports, FIO has duplicated, or worse intruded on and undermined, the work being done by the states, and at a cost ultimately borne by consumers,” Jimi Grande said.
One recent flashpoint involved an FIO report on insurance affordability and availability, which the office described as the most comprehensive homeowners insurance dataset ever assembled. The industry disagreed sharply.
David A. Sampson, chief executive of APCIA, said the report failed to explain affordability pressures adequately.
Grande described it as frustrating for anyone familiar with the basic insurance principle of pricing risk appropriately.
Downing has pressed the issue before. Last year, he introduced a separate Federal Insurance Office Elimination Act, which drew support from the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents and the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America.
This latest effort signals the fight over federal insurance oversight isn’t cooling off.
