SAFER Banking Act Stalls Again: Why Cannabis Companies Still Can't Open Bank Accounts
Advertisement
The cannabis industry generates tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue across dozens of legal states, yet most operators still can't open a basic checking account at their local bank. In 2026, this paradox remains one of the most stubborn obstacles facing legal marijuana businesses — and the most promising legislative fix, the SAFER Banking Act, has once again hit a wall in Congress.
Table of Contents
- What Is the SAFER Banking Act?
- Why the Bill Stalled in 2026
- The Real-World Cost of Cash-Only Cannabis
- Who Is Providing Banking Services?
- What Rescheduling Would and Wouldn't Fix
- State-Level Workarounds
- The Bipartisan Support That Can't Find a Vote
- What Comes Next
- The Bottom Line
What Is the SAFER Banking Act?
The Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act evolved from the earlier SAFE Banking Act [Quick Definition: Federal bill that would let banks serve cannabis businesses without fear of prosecution], which had passed the U.S. House of Representatives multiple times with bipartisan support. The legislation would create a federal "safe harbor" allowing banks, credit unions, and payment processors to serve state-legal cannabis businesses without fear of federal prosecution or regulatory penalties.
At its core, the bill addresses a fundamental absurdity in American financial regulation. Cannabis is legal for adult use in 24 states and for medical use in 38 states, yet because marijuana remains a Schedule I [Quick Definition: The most restrictive federal drug classification, currently including heroin and cannabis] controlled substance under federal law, financial institutions risk violating anti-money-laundering statutes by accepting cannabis deposits. The result: an industry processing an estimated $30 billion in annual transactions, much of it in cash.
Why the Bill Stalled in 2026
The SAFER Banking Act cleared the Senate Banking Committee in 2025 with a bipartisan 14–9 vote, generating cautious optimism that the full Senate might finally take up the measure. That optimism proved short-lived.
Under the current Republican-controlled Congress, neither chamber has reintroduced the SAFER Banking Act or similar legislation. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, a longtime opponent of cannabis banking reform, now chairs the Senate Banking Committee — the very body that would need to advance any new bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has also signaled opposition to the measure.
The political calculus shifted further when the Trump administration focused cannabis reform efforts on rescheduling rather than banking access. While rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would address tax burdens under IRS Section 280E [Quick Definition: IRS code barring cannabis businesses from deducting normal expenses like rent and payroll], it would do little to resolve banking compliance concerns. Banks need explicit statutory protection, not a scheduling change.
The Real-World Cost of Cash-Only Cannabis
Operating a multimillion-dollar business almost entirely in cash creates problems that ripple through every aspect of the cannabis supply chain.
Security Risks
Cannabis dispensaries are prime targets for robbery precisely because criminals know they hold large amounts of physical currency. The National Cannabis Industry Association has documented hundreds of armed robberies at dispensaries and cultivation facilities, many involving violence against employees. Some operators spend upward of $100,000 annually on armored car services, armed guards, and vault systems simply to manage their cash.
Tax Compliance Nightmares
Paying federal taxes in cash is exactly as cumbersome as it sounds. Cannabis companies must physically deliver massive cash payments to IRS offices, sometimes requiring armed escorts and advance coordination with federal agents. The IRS itself has acknowledged the inefficiency, yet without banking reform, there is no alternative.
Stunted Growth
Without access to traditional banking services, cannabis companies cannot obtain standard business loans, lines of credit, or commercial mortgages. This forces operators to rely on private lending at punishing interest rates — often 12% to 20% or higher — or equity dilution that surrenders ownership stakes to investors. Small and minority-owned businesses, which often lack access to wealthy private networks, are disproportionately affected.
Who Is Providing Banking Services?
Despite the federal prohibition, some financial institutions have quietly entered the cannabis banking space. Credit unions and community banks in states like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have developed compliance programs that allow them to serve cannabis clients, though at steep fees.
Needham Bank, a Massachusetts-based institution, has emerged as one of the most prominent cannabis lenders, recently backing Verano Holdings' $195 million refinancing deal at 9.5% interest. Chicago Atlantic Financial Services has also carved out a niche providing debt financing to cannabis operators.
These institutions charge premium rates and require extensive compliance documentation — often including real-time transaction monitoring, enhanced due diligence, and regular audits — that add significantly to the cost of doing business. Monthly banking fees for cannabis companies can run $2,000 to $5,000 or more, compared to $20 to $50 for a standard commercial account.
What Rescheduling Would and Wouldn't Fix
The Trump administration's push to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III has dominated cannabis policy discussions in 2026. Prediction market traders on Polymarket put the odds of rescheduling by year-end at roughly even, with 30.5% odds by June 30.
If rescheduling occurs, it would eliminate the Section 280E tax burden that prevents cannabis companies from deducting normal business expenses — a change worth billions to the industry. But rescheduling alone would not resolve banking access.
Schedule III substances, which include drugs like ketamine and anabolic steroids, still carry federal regulatory requirements. Banks would need clear guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and other regulators confirming that serving cannabis businesses does not create compliance liability. Without the SAFER Banking Act or equivalent legislation, that guidance is unlikely to come.
State-Level Workarounds
Several states have developed creative solutions to partially address the banking gap. Oregon established a state-chartered cannabis banking program. California explored creating a public bank specifically for cannabis businesses.
Colorado's credit union system has been among the most accommodating in the country.
None of these state-level approaches fully solve the problem, however, because interstate banking transactions remain subject to federal law. A cannabis company banking with a Colorado credit union still cannot wire funds to a supplier in California without potentially triggering federal anti-money-laundering scrutiny.
The Bipartisan Support That Can't Find a Vote
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the cannabis banking impasse is the breadth of support the issue commands. Thirty-two state attorneys general — from both parties — have written to Congress urging passage of the SAFER Banking Act. Polling consistently shows that more than 70% of Americans support allowing cannabis businesses to access banking services.
The American Bankers Association has endorsed the legislation.
Yet the bill cannot get a floor vote. The disconnect between public opinion and legislative action reflects the outsized influence of committee chairmanships and leadership priorities in determining which bills advance, regardless of their popularity.
What Comes Next
Industry observers see several possible paths forward in 2026 and beyond. The most likely near-term development is an executive-branch push to finalize marijuana rescheduling, which would provide partial relief even without banking reform. Some analysts believe that once rescheduling is complete, banking legislation will gain momentum as the remaining political objections weaken.
Others point to the CLIMB Act, a bipartisan bill filed in March 2026 that would allow state-legal cannabis companies to list on major stock exchanges like the NYSE and Nasdaq. While not directly a banking bill, the CLIMB Act could normalize cannabis in financial markets and create momentum for broader banking access.
For now, the cannabis industry's banking crisis persists — a daily reminder that federal policy has not caught up with the reality of a legal market serving millions of American consumers. The SAFER Banking Act remains the clearest legislative path to resolution, but in 2026, that path leads to a closed door.
The Bottom Line
The cannabis banking crisis is not just an inconvenience for business owners — it is a public safety hazard, a tax compliance nightmare, and a barrier to the equitable development of a legal industry. Until Congress passes the SAFER Banking Act or equivalent legislation, the world's largest legal cannabis market will continue operating with one hand tied behind its back.
Pull-Quote Suggestions:
"Needham Bank, a Massachusetts-based institution, has emerged as one of the most prominent cannabis lenders, recently backing Verano Holdings' $195 million refinancing deal at 9.5% interest."
"The result: an industry processing an estimated $30 billion in annual transactions, much of it in cash."
"For now, the cannabis industry's banking crisis persists — a daily reminder that federal policy has not caught up with the reality of a legal market serving millions of American consumers."
Why It Matters: The SAFER Banking Act remains stalled in 2026 under Republican leadership. Here's why cannabis companies still operate in cash and what it means for the industry.