Will the USVSST Fund Get More Money?
The Solvency Act, Explained

Back to Articles

Why a solvency bill exists at all

The Fund pays on a pro rata basis out of whatever has been collected. That means round sizes move with deposits, not with need, and the gap between the two has become hard to miss.

The sixth distribution paid out $2.825 billion. For the seventh, the Special Master announced on July 17, 2026 that the Fund anticipates at least $275 million will be available, with the final figure posted after fiscal year 2026 ends. She also stated she will authorize seventh round payments for all eligible claims by January 1, 2027.

Set those two numbers next to each other and the seventh round is on the order of a tenth the size of the sixth. Across all six rounds so far the Fund has paid almost $7 billion. As of July 17, 2026 there were 22,782 eligible claimants, 13,037 of them on the 9/11 side.

That arithmetic is what the bill is responding to.

What H.R. 9795 would actually do

The bill's full name is the Never Forget the Victims of Terrorism: Joseph D. Mistrulli and Alan Kleinberg USVSST Fund Solvency Act. Its official title as introduced is "To expand the temporary borrowing authority and mandatory distribution for the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund."

The whole bill is short. It adds one new subsection to the law that created the Fund, 34 U.S.C. 20144. Five things sit inside it.

• Treasury would lend the Fund three billion dollars a year. For each of fiscal years 2027, 2028 and 2029, the Secretary of the Treasury "shall loan to the Fund $3,000,000,000," deposited within 30 days of the start of each fiscal year.
• Every borrowed dollar would have to go out. The full amount borrowed each year must be included in that year's annual payment and distributed as part of it, and those amounts "shall not be reserved, retained, or carried forward" for anything else.
• It would not need a separate appropriation. The money would be "available without further appropriation" and would carry interest at a rate set by the Treasury against comparable maturities.
• The loan would be repaid from future enforcement money, not from families. On the Fund's termination, the borrowed amounts and interest would be repaid "solely from criminal and civil fines, penalties, and forfeitures involving a state sponsor of terrorism" directed to Treasury for that purpose.
• The authority would end September 30, 2029, though money borrowed before that date would stay available until it is spent.

Who introduced it

Representative Laura Gillen of New York's 4th district introduced the bill for herself and Representative Nicole Malliotakis of New York's 11th. Four more members have signed on since: Michael Lawler (New York's 17th), Josh Gottheimer (New Jersey's 5th), Wesley Hunt (Texas's 38th), and Daniel Goldman (New York's 10th).

Counting the sponsor, that is three Republicans and three Democrats, and four of the six represent New York districts. Bipartisan support is worth noting because it is the thing most likely to get a bill a hearing. It is not the same as a hearing.

What this does not mean

This is the part worth being careful about, because a bill with a large number attached invites people to read more into it than is there.

• Nothing has been decided. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on July 21, 2026 and there has been no action on it since. Most bills referred to committee never move again.
• It changes nothing about the seventh round as things stand. The at-least-$275 million figure and the January 1, 2027 authorization date come from the Special Master and are what the Fund is working from now.
• It does not change who qualifies. Eligibility still turns on holding a qualifying final judgment, and the bill does not touch that. Questions about your own eligibility or your judgment belong with your attorney.
• It does not change how anything is taxed. The bill contains no tax provision.
• Nobody can tell you what you would receive. Payments are pro rata and the percentage depends on the size of the pot against the claims outstanding. Anyone quoting you a number for a future round is guessing.

What this means for your money

Here is the part that actually affects a household, and it is worth separating from the legislative news entirely. Whether or not this bill moves, a distribution is money in motion, and the decisions that determine what you keep are made before the money arrives, not after.

The hardest thing about USVSST money is not the amount. It is that the amount and the timing are both outside your control. A payment can be smaller than expected, later than expected, and arrive in a year you did not plan for. That combination is what turns a distribution into a tax problem or a spending problem instead of a foundation.

The practical answer is to decide what the money is for while it is still hypothetical. Families who have already worked out the order of operations tend to keep more of it, because the decisions get made calmly rather than in the weeks after a deposit lands.

A reasonable order of operations looks like this. First, set aside the tax. How a USVSST payment is treated depends on what the payment is compensating, so the amount to reserve is a question for your tax professional before the money moves, not in April. Second, clear high-cost debt, where the return is simply the interest rate you stop paying. Third, fund a cash reserve you can actually reach. Only then does the question of investing the remainder become worth having.

One interaction catches people out, and it runs in only one direction. A USVSST payment does reduce a VCF award, because the VCF counts it as a collateral offset. The reverse is not true: a VCF award does not reduce a USVSST payment, and is not counted in the USVSST test for compensation from other sources. These are two different rules and they are not mirror images. If you have a VCF claim open, that asymmetry is worth understanding with your counsel before either payment arrives.

None of this depends on H.R. 9795 passing. It is the same work whether the seventh round is $275 million or considerably more, which is precisely why it is worth doing now, while there is time to do it properly.

What to watch

One thing: whether the bill gets a committee hearing or a markup. That is the line between a bill that exists and a bill that is moving, and it is the only signal worth reacting to.

Separately, the final amount available for the seventh distribution gets posted after fiscal year 2026 closes on September 30, 2026. That figure is coming regardless of what happens to this bill.

We track both and update this page when either changes.

Common questions

Has the USVSST Fund Solvency Act passed?

No. H.R. 9795 was introduced on July 21, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the same day. As of August 14, 2026 there has been no hearing, no markup, and no vote.

How much would H.R. 9795 add to the USVSST Fund?

The bill directs the Treasury to lend the Fund $3 billion in each of fiscal years 2027, 2028 and 2029, which is $9 billion over three years if all three loans occur. It also requires that the full borrowed amount be included in that year's payment rather than held back.

Would the loan be repaid out of what families receive?

No. The bill provides that on the Fund's termination the borrowed amounts and interest would be repaid solely from criminal and civil fines, penalties, and forfeitures involving a state sponsor of terrorism that are directed to the Treasury for that purpose.

Does this change the seventh distribution?

No. The seventh distribution is proceeding on what the Special Master announced on July 17, 2026: the Fund anticipates at least $275 million, and she will authorize payments for all eligible claims by January 1, 2027. The final amount gets posted after fiscal year 2026 ends.

Would this bill change who is eligible for the USVSST Fund?

No. Eligibility still turns on holding a qualifying final judgment against a state sponsor of terrorism, and the bill does not amend the eligibility rules. Questions about your own eligibility or your judgment belong with your attorney.