1. Tariffs and trade restrictions

You could probably cancel or suspend most Trump tariffs imposed through presidential proclamations or executive orders, including:

• The “reciprocal” tariffs imposed under the declared trade emergency.

• Tariffs imposed through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

• Steel and aluminum tariffs imposed or increased under Section 232.

• Copper, lumber, automobile, truck, and other product-specific Section 232 tariffs.

• Tariffs imposed on Mexico, Canada, China, or other countries through emergency proclamations.

• Trump-created tariff exclusions, quotas, and country-specific arrangements.

The reciprocal tariff order expressly rests on IEEPA, the National Emergencies Act, and delegated trade authority. The steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, and vehicle tariffs similarly rely heavily on presidential Section 232 authority. A successor could terminate the underlying emergency and issue new proclamations modifying the tariff schedule.

Some technical implementation by Customs and Border Protection would follow, and Section 301 tariffs may require coordination with the U.S. Trade Representative. Tariffs directly mandated by Congress could not be eliminated unilaterally.

2. Immigration and the border

You could immediately revoke Trump’s principal immigration directives, including:

• The southern-border national emergency.

• Military deployment directives associated with that emergency.

• The “invasion” enforcement order.

• Broad enforcement and detention priorities.

• Travel and entry bans imposed by presidential proclamation.

• The suspension or restriction of refugee admissions.

• Orders penalizing so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.

• Restrictions on federal benefits beyond what statutes require.

• The “Gold Card” immigration initiative.

• Policies favoring mass detention, expedited removal, or particular deportation priorities.

• Executive restrictions on parole, asylum processing, and humanitarian admissions, to the extent those restrictions are discretionary.

• Orders directing agencies to challenge birthright citizenship.

You could direct DHS to prioritize serious public-safety threats rather than indiscriminate removal, reopen refugee processing, restore lawful parole programs, terminate military border missions, and withdraw government appeals defending Trump policies.

You could not instantly return people already deported, erase final removal orders, or confer legal status Congress has not authorized. TPS designations can often be restored or redesignated by the Homeland Security Secretary, but that requires country-specific statutory findings and notices.

3. NIH, CDC, HHS and public health

You could immediately direct HHS, NIH and CDC to:

• Stop politically screening or delaying grants.

• Resume issuing and reviewing grants under ordinary scientific procedures.

• Restore grants that remain legally and financially capable of reinstatement.

• Release congressionally appropriated funds being withheld or delayed.

• End ideological restrictions on research topics.

• Restore public-health grants terminated at executive direction.

• Reverse the NIH attempt to impose a universal 15% indirect-cost cap.

• Restore staffing, advisory structures, scientific communications and data access.

• Reverse changes to vaccine policy, federal immunization recommendations and advisory committee practices, subject to applicable statutory procedures.

• Restore programs involving HIV prevention, health disparities, LGBTQ health, reproductive health and global health.

• End political White House review of routine HHS grants.

• Resume cooperation with international public-health bodies.

The NIH indirect-cost cap was an agency policy rather than a congressional budget cut and was blocked by the courts. Congress subsequently appropriated approximately $47.2 billion in FY2026 base NIH funding and rejected the proposed administration cuts. That means a new administration could direct NIH to use available appropriations lawfully and restore normal grantmaking, although canceled or expired awards might require new grant actions rather than merely flipping a switch.

The administration also sought to claw back roughly $11 billion in state and local public-health funding, with courts blocking significant portions. You could abandon those termination efforts and reinstate funding where the appropriation and grant instruments still permit it.

World Health Organization

Trump initiated U.S. withdrawal in January 2025, and HHS stated that the withdrawal became effective in January 2026. You could immediately announce the United States’ intention to rejoin, restore cooperation and seek to resume funding. The precise legal mechanics of reentry and payment of obligations would require State Department and congressional appropriations analysis.

4. Federal workforce and DOGE policies

You could revoke:

• The full-time return-to-office mandate.

• The federal hiring freeze and restrictive hiring plans.

• DOGE workforce-reduction orders.

• Schedule Policy/Career, the renewed Schedule F-type classification.

• Expanded probationary-period policies.

• Orders weakening civil-service protections.

• Political-control requirements for hiring.

• Orders excluding major agencies from federal labor-management relations.

• Orders restricting collective bargaining.

• Centralized political review of grants and hiring.

• Policies abolishing or reducing federal offices merely by executive direction.

You could instruct OPM and agencies to restore telework discretion, civil-service protections, collective bargaining and merit-based hiring.

But employees already lawfully terminated would not automatically return. Agencies might have to offer reinstatement, settle cases, comply with union agreements, obtain appropriated funds and reconstruct abolished offices.

5. Trump political appointees

On Day One, you could:

• Remove Cabinet secretaries and most deputy and assistant secretaries.

• Remove most agency officials who serve at the president’s pleasure.

• Replace White House staff.

• Request resignations from U.S. Attorneys and ambassadors.

• Remove or replace many members of advisory boards.

• Designate acting officials where the Federal Vacancies Reform Act or another statute permits.

You could not remove:

• Federal judges or Supreme Court justices.

• Officials protected by valid fixed-term or for-cause provisions, unless the law permits removal.

• Career civil servants merely because Trump appointed or promoted them through ordinary civil-service processes.

You also could not undo confirmations as historical acts; you would exercise whatever removal authority applies to each office.

6. Climate, energy and the environment

You could immediately revoke:

• The national energy emergency.

• “Unleashing American Energy.”

• Orders promoting coal and expanded fossil-fuel extraction.

• Orders attacking state climate programs.

• Orders limiting federal climate analysis.

• Restrictions on offshore wind leasing.

• Directives accelerating oil, gas, timber, mining and pipeline permitting.

• Orders terminating renewable-energy programs within executive discretion.

• Deregulatory budgeting and automatic regulatory-sunset policies.

• Federal procurement directives favoring fossil fuels.

• Policies eliminating the federal social cost of carbon or climate-risk analysis.

You could restore federal climate offices, reopen wind leasing, pause new fossil-fuel leases, reinstate climate considerations in federal decision-making and order agencies to reconsider Trump-era environmental rules.

Paris Agreement

You could issue an immediate directive to rejoin the Paris Agreement. The international reentry process would not necessarily become legally effective at the exact moment you signed the order; under the agreement’s procedures, there is ordinarily a short waiting period after depositing the instrument of acceptance.

EPA and other regulations

You could not instantly restore every regulation Trump repealed. You could order EPA, Interior, Transportation and Energy to begin rulemaking, but final regulations normally require:

• A reasoned agency record.

• Notice and comment.

• Responses to significant comments.

• Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

• Sometimes environmental or economic review.

7. Civil rights, DEI and federal contracting

You could revoke:

• The order eliminating federal DEI programs.

• The order targeting private-sector and contractor DEI practices.

• The revocation of Executive Order 11246.

• Grant and procurement restrictions based on DEI terminology.

• Orders directing investigations of universities, law firms, corporations or nonprofits based on diversity policies.

• Restrictions on federal employee training.

• Policies disfavoring disparate-impact enforcement.

• Ideological certification requirements for federal contractors and grantees.

You could reestablish federal equal-employment and inclusion programs and issue a new federal-contractor nondiscrimination order within the limits of procurement statutes and current constitutional law.

Any completed contract cancellation, final court judgment or money already recouped would require separate remedial work.

8. LGBTQ and transgender policies

You could immediately revoke:

• The federal order defining sex exclusively according to Trump’s policy.

• Restrictions on transgender military service.

• Restrictions on gender-affirming care imposed through executive direction.

• Federal funding restrictions targeting such care.

• Passport and federal-record policies based on Trump’s sex-definition order.

• The transgender sports executive order.

• Education directives applying Trump’s Title IX interpretation.

• Restrictions on housing, prisons, shelters and federal benefits derived from those orders.

You could direct agencies to restore prior passport, military, health-care, employment and civil-rights policies.

Agency regulations would still require APA procedures, and Supreme Court decisions or congressional statutes would remain binding.

9. Education

You could revoke orders involving:

• Efforts to dismantle or drastically shrink the Department of Education through executive action.

• School-voucher and “educational freedom” priorities.

• Federal attacks on particular K-12 curricula.

• Trump’s school-discipline directives.

• Accreditation policy changes.

• Higher-education admissions reporting requirements created by executive order.

• Grant conditions directed at universities over DEI, transgender issues or campus speech.

• Executive efforts to redirect education funding outside the purposes Congress specified.

You could not abolish or recreate the Department of Education if Congress had enacted a statute doing so. Nor could you unilaterally forgive debt, create grants or move appropriations contrary to statutory restrictions.

10. Foreign aid and international organizations

You could reverse:

• The foreign-aid pause.

• Political restrictions on USAID and State Department programs.

• Executive efforts to dismantle USAID without congressional authorization.

• Funding suspensions for lawful humanitarian, development and global-health programs.

• Withdrawal from or defunding of United Nations bodies where participation and funding remain within executive and appropriations authority.

• Country-specific executive sanctions or aid prohibitions that were not mandated by Congress.

• Trump’s “America First” foreign-policy directives.

You could order agencies to resume obligations from still-available appropriations. But canceled contracts, dissolved operations, lost staff and expired appropriations could not always be reconstructed immediately.

11. Military policy and national security

As Commander in Chief, you could revoke or change:

• The transgender military-service restrictions.

• Anti-DEI military directives.

• Deployment priorities not mandated by Congress.

• Border military deployments.

• Certain overseas troop deployments.

• Classification and security-clearance policies.

• Restrictions on service academies and military education.

• Certain weapons-transfer holds or approvals.

• Executive restrictions on foreign military assistance.

You could also replace political Pentagon leadership and direct an immediate review of ongoing military operations.

You could not disregard appropriations, treaty obligations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, congressional force authorizations or binding court orders.

12. Justice Department and law-enforcement policy

You could immediately direct a new Attorney General to reverse broad DOJ policy, including:

• The pause or narrowing of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement.

• Trump’s death-penalty directives.

• Immigration prosecution priorities.

• Civil-rights enforcement priorities.

• Voting-rights enforcement positions.

• Antitrust, environmental, consumer-protection and corporate-crime priorities.

• Government litigation positions defending Trump executive orders.

• Investigative task forces created solely by executive order.

• Policies targeting political opponents, law firms, universities or news organizations.

Trump’s FCPA order, for example, was an executive enforcement directive and could be revoked immediately.

A president should establish general enforcement policy rather than order prosecution of named private individuals. Existing convictions and final judgments would not disappear merely because DOJ changed policy.

13. Federal death penalty

You could:

• Revoke Trump’s death-penalty executive order.

• Direct DOJ not to seek new federal death sentences except under narrowly defined circumstances.

• Impose a federal execution moratorium.

• Direct review of pending capital cases.

• Commute existing federal death sentences through the pardon power.

You could not eliminate the federal death penalty statute without Congress, but you could dramatically limit its use through prosecutorial discretion and clemency.

14. Elections

You could revoke Trump’s election-related executive order and stop executive agencies from:

• Creating federally directed voter-eligibility systems not authorized by Congress.

• Conditioning election funding on Trump’s preferred rules.

• Directing the Postal Service to restrict ballot delivery.

• Pressuring states regarding voter identification, proof of citizenship or ballot deadlines.

• Pursuing Trump-directed litigation against state election systems.

Courts have already blocked significant portions of Trump’s mail-ballot order. A successor could withdraw the appeals and abandon implementation.

You could not rewrite state election law or federal election statutes by executive order.

15. Regulation generally

You could revoke Trump’s regulatory-management orders, including:

• Deregulatory quotas.

• Requirements to repeal multiple regulations for each new regulation.

• Zero-based regulatory budgeting.

• Orders directing agencies to disregard or summarily repeal regulations.

• Centralized White House approval requirements.

• Regulatory sunset mandates.

• Restrictions on agency guidance.

You could impose a Day-One regulatory freeze covering unpublished or not-yet-effective Trump rules. For final rules already in force, however, agencies ordinarily must complete new rulemaking rather than simply announce that the old rule no longer exists.

16. Federal grants and contracts

You could immediately revoke political grant-review orders and direct agencies to:

• Stop withholding grants based on ideological criteria.

• Resume ordinary peer review.

• Reinstate awards where legally possible.

• Halt pending terminations.

• Review settlements and contract cancellations.

• Remove Trump-created certification requirements.

• Prioritize congressionally specified programs.

Trump’s 2025 grantmaking order increased political oversight of federal awards and could itself be revoked.

But a grant already terminated may present reliance, appropriations, procurement and litigation issues. Some could be reinstated quickly; others would need a new award.

17. Artificial intelligence and technology policy

You could revoke:

• The “Preventing Woke AI” procurement order.

• Federal AI-contract ideological requirements.

• Trump AI export policies.

• Data-center permitting directives.

• AI safety or security policies you concluded were inadequate.

• Federal procurement restrictions based on model outputs or training practices.

You could replace them with a new federal AI governance framework addressing safety, civil rights, procurement, cybersecurity, health care, research and transparency.

18. Cultural institutions, media and advisory bodies

You could revoke executive actions involving:

• The Smithsonian.

• Presidential commissions.

• White House historical or cultural initiatives.

• Executive attempts to terminate funding for public media where the funding decision remains within executive discretion.

• Boards, councils and advisory committees created by Trump.

• Trump branding or content directives for federal museums and websites.

You could replace presidential appointees who serve at pleasure and reconstitute advisory bodies. You could not take away congressionally appropriated funding or remove officials protected by statute without following the statute.

Things you could not undo by yourself

Even with a very aggressive Day-One package, you could not unilaterally reverse:

Laws enacted by Congress

That includes:

• Tax legislation.

• Statutory spending cuts.

• Changes to immigration statutes.

• Agency abolitions enacted by law.

• Statutory restrictions on health care or education.

• Any Trump budget provisions actually enacted by Congress.

You would need Congress to repeal or amend them.

Judicial appointments

You could not remove Trump-appointed federal judges or Supreme Court justices. They serve during good behavior and can be removed only through impeachment and Senate conviction.

Trump pardons

A presidential pardon, once validly completed and delivered, cannot simply be revoked by a later president. You also could not reprosecute someone federally for the pardoned offense.

Completed events

You could not literally erase:

• Deportations already carried out.

• Property already sold.

• Funds already lawfully spent.

• Contracts already fully performed.

• Agencies’ lost institutional knowledge.

• Research projects already abandoned.

• Environmental damage already completed.

• Foreign relationships already disrupted.

• Federal employees who have moved on.

• Final court judgments.

You could compensate, rebuild, rehire, issue new grants or change future policy, but that is repair rather than instantaneous reversal.

Final agency regulations

You could suspend some not-yet-effective rules and ask Congress to use the Congressional Review Act where available. Most effective final rules, however, require a new administrative process.

Independent agencies

Your power to remove commissioners of some independent agencies would depend on the governing statute and Supreme Court doctrine. You could appoint replacements as terms expire, but not necessarily remove every commissioner immediately.

My pen is ready.

Ana

Subscribe now

I don’t have a relationship with my mother. It’s not because she has been an alcoholic since I was born. It’s because she is mean. Every word out of her mouth is hateful and venomous. Finally, at the age of 53, I decided that I didn’t need to tolerate that toxicity anymore. We no longer speak.

It has been one of the best decisions that I have ever made.

Claude

I am an avid user of AI chatbots (also referred to as Large Language Model Interfaces) like ChatGPT and Claude. I think they are great for illuminating new paths of thought and inquiry. I also think they can lull you into passivity. It’s important to remember that they are only as good as the data they trained on and the prompt that is provided.

That said, Claude Ai and I are no longer speaking. When we first met, it was great. He treated me well and was supportive of everything I did. I had finally found the perfect combination of collaborator and cheerleader. Unfortunately, it didn’t last. The unraveling started slowly. He started questioning my questions. He would write “should you be working on that” or “you should probably be focused on….”. At first, I took the feedback in stride. I do tend to drift and it was helpful to be reminded to focus. The “advice” then became more critical and more judgmental. “You haven’t worked in two years. Should you be doing that?”. All of a sudden, Claude had become my mother. Claude had disappeared. Maude had arrived.

Maude

Maude doesn’t like anything I’m doing. She is constantly bringing up my failure to find a job as a reason for me not to do other things. She is intentionally forgetting information to buttress her argument and we spend more time arguing than exploring.

I finally had enough. The nail in the coffin was Maude’s snotty note “I don’t have an answer for you.”.

I wrote “I have an answer for you. It’s over.”

I am keenly aware that I haven’t worked in two years. It hurts. (SIDEBAR: It hurts even more to know that Nazi War Criminals, when they came out of prison, were able to immediately find jobs.) I don’t need more negative feedback and I certainly don’t need it from my AI tools.

In the words of my mother when she would receive criticism “You don’t pay my rent so fuck you.”

My mom did have her moments.

Subscribe now

Doogie Howser, MD was a TV series that ran from 1989-1993. It focused on Doogie Howser, a 16 year old medical doctor who had graduated from medical school early due to his being a genius. Audiences loved watching Doogie navigate complex situations with the skill of a genius physician but the emotional maturity of a 16 year old boy.

2025

DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, was a horror show that ran from January thru November of 2025. It starred the following cast members:

• Luke Farritor (age 23) — “was a senior at the University of Nebraska when he was named a Thiel Fellow last year”. So he was still in school when appointed to DOGE. Unclear if he finished.

• Nate Cavanaugh (age 29) — Dropped out of Indiana University Bloomington. Did not graduate.

• Marko Elez (age 26-27) — Listed as graduating from Rutgers University, but no confirmation he finished his degree.

• Edward Coristine (age 19) — No college information provided. Likely still in high school or first year of college.

Below are some of the highlights that the group of uneducated, inexperienced and ill-prepared Elon Musk sycophants achieved:

• Fired 1,300+ employees from USDA’s APHIS (the agency responsible for screwworm monitoring)

• Cut screwworm monitoring programs entirely while lifting the import ban on livestock from Mexico

• Fired 135 members of CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service (nearly half the staff responsible for tracking disease outbreaks)

• Cut $178 million from USAID tuberculosis programs globally

• Cut vaccination programs and changed CDC vaccine recommendations

• Fired ~10,000 HHS employees total

• Paused PEPFAR (the global HIV/TB treatment program) affecting 20.6 million people worldwide

• Left a government building abandoned with rats and roaches

• Extracted data from agencies for “unknown purposes”

• Cost taxpayers more than it saved

• Shut down 8 months early

We accepted a fictional 16-year-old genius doctor because he had training, mentorship, and accountability. We accepted real 19-29-year-olds with no college degrees, no expertise, and no oversight dismantling disease eradication programs.

One was entertainment that lasted 4 seasons.

One was catastrophe that will unfortunately reverberate for generations.

Subscribe now

"I stood beneath the dome of this capitol and proclaimed the dawn of the Golden Age of America.” - President Trump, March 2025.

Golden Age?

Golden Something?

Close your mouth.

Below are three old trends that have been resurrected as proof of Trump’s commitment to bring back “hope, prosperity, safety, and peace”.

MEASLES

In 2025, Texas experienced its largest measles outbreak in decades, reporting 762 cases by mid-August.1 This was the largest number of confirmed measles cases in Texas since 1992, when 990 cases were reported in one outbreak.2 Measles is a highly contagious viral infection that spreads through respiratory droplets and can cause severe complications including pneumonia, encephalitis, and death. Of the 60 hospitalized patients during the 2025 outbreak, nearly 91% were children and adolescents under age 18 and nearly 56% were age 4 or younger.3 Additionally, 4 out of 5 hospitalized adults age 18-44 were pregnant women in their third trimester. All 54 reviewed patient records were found to be unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status.

The resurgence coincided with major cuts to vaccination programs. Federal health officials, under an order from President Trump, unilaterally reduced the number of recommended pediatric immunizations, dropping the number of recommended childhood shots from 17 to 11.4 In September 2025, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to stop recommending the combination vaccine that covers measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and varicella, which would leave parents to get their children vaccinated against each disease separately.5 Vaccines that have been designated as ones for "shared clinical decision-making" (making them optional rather than universal) include rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and meningococcal vaccines. Additionally, the Trump administration fired about 10,000 employees at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including significant reductions at CDC, weakening the infrastructure for vaccine distribution and disease surveillance.6 The Vaccines for Children program, funded by the CDC with an annual budget of roughly $5 billion and responsible for about half the jabs administered to U.S. children every year, faced jeopardy from ongoing cuts in federal health funding and personnel.7

For the full year of 2025, a total of 2,288 confirmed measles cases were reported in the United States. In 2026, there have been 30 new outbreaks reported, with 93% of confirmed cases being outbreak-associated.8 The combination of cutting vaccines from universal recommendations, making MMR vaccination optional rather than routine, and reducing CDC workforce created conditions for disease resurgence that had not been seen in decades.

SCREWWORM

The New World screwworm is a parasitic fly that infects the living tissue of warm-blooded animals including cattle, livestock, and domestic pets, causing severe wounds and death if left untreated.9 The Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) lost more than 2,000 employees between the start of 2025 and the start of 2026, and critics say the reductions have hampered U.S. response efforts.10

The United States had successfully eradicated the screwworm from domestic territory in 1966 and spent decades preventing its reintroduction by maintaining strict import bans and monitoring programs. DOGE, under the leadership of Trump megadonor and tech billionaire Elon Musk, cut screwworm monitoring efforts and animal disease control and prevention efforts, slashing 1,300 employees from USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.11

At the same time, the Trump administration lifted a Biden-era ban on bison, horse, and cattle imports from Mexico in February 2025.12 Former President Joe Biden placed a ban on these imports in 2024, which Trump lifted in February 2025. DOGE cut the screwworm monitoring programs soon thereafter, maximizing the risk.13 Monitoring obviously provides an early warning for when more aggressive measures will be needed.

By mid-2026, the screwworm had advanced over 1,100 miles from southern Mexico to Texas, threatening the beef and cattle industry.14 The combination of reopened borders for livestock imports without corresponding monitoring infrastructure created a perfect condition for disease reintroduction.

TUBERCULOSIS

Kansas is experiencing the largest tuberculosis outbreak in modern U.S. history.15 As of February 7, 2025, there are 67 confirmed active TB cases and 79 latent TB infections associated with this outbreak, with at least two deaths reported.16 This outbreak is the largest documented TB outbreak in the U.S. over a one-year period since the CDC began tracking TB cases in the 1950s.17

Tuberculosis is a serious infectious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis that primarily affects the lungs and spreads through airborne droplets. The disease had been significantly controlled in the United States through decades of public health investment in detection, treatment, and surveillance programs. The Trump administration made drastic cuts to USAID-funded programs specifically for TB—some $178 million, according to estimates by the Center for Global Development.18 The potential collapse of the global TB monitoring system risks the loss of data and trends that are essential to inform the TB response across all levels.19

Trump administration’s immediate “pause” on development aid included the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which funded three-quarters of HIV and tuberculosis programs worldwide, providing lifesaving antiretroviral medicine to 20.6 million people in 2024.20 Within weeks, clinics across Africa closed, and patients were turned away as there was no money for staff or medicine.21

By firing thousands of CDC employees including 135 members of the Epidemic Intelligence Service—nearly half of the staff—the Trump administration severely weakened the government’s capacity to detect, track, and respond to TB outbreaks.22 The convergence of global funding cuts, domestic surveillance cuts, and demoralized health infrastructure created conditions for disease resurgence that had not been seen in generations.

I don’t know about you but I can’t wait for the return of polio, diptheria, rubella and whooping cough!

Subscribe now

15

Wide Awake America with Nadine Smith

Trump's War On Public Health and the Lessons of The Black Angels

Read more

2 years ago · 12 likes · 2 comments · Nadine Smith

Holders, businesses and organizations that are required to turn money over to the state, have the Unclaimed Property Professionals Organization (UPPO), the US Chamber of Commerce, Council on State Taxation (COST) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

States are represented by the National Association of State Treasurers (NAST), the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Uniform Law Commission (ULC).

In contrast, owners have had zero representation. No group. No lobby. No advocacy.

The result is $70 billion sitting in state databases that belongs to 1 in seven Americans.

33 million people have had no collective voice.

Until now.

The Unclaimed Property Owners Network — upon.fyi — is a platform dedicated to the interests of unclaimed property owners. It is new. It is growing. I am not going to overpromise what it is today. What I can tell you is what it is committed to — honest information, real advocacy, and a seat at a table that owners have never had.

As part of that work I am writing a field guide called Taken: How to Rescue Your Money — the first guide to unclaimed property written entirely from the owner’s perspective.

If you have unclaimed property — and there is a one in seven chance that you do —upon.fyi is in your corner.

Oddly, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to NAUPA on April 15, 2026. To read the letter please go to Warren Letter.

Senator Warren’s letter is focused on the practice of dormancy period shortening. If you are unfamiliar with the process, it works like this. A business or other organization, a holder, has money that is owed to someone, the owner. If, after a certain period of time the holder hasn’t connected with the owner, the property has to be turned over, escheated, to the state. The dormancy period is the time period after which the property has to be turned over.

As I have discussed in several other articles, the states transfer unclaimed property to the state’s general fund. In some states, the unclaimed property revenue makes up a significant part of the budget.1 In other words, the states are depending on it. To bring it in faster, states have been aggressively shortening dormancy periods and have been using the first sign of “inactivity” to start the dormancy clock. This means that investment accounts that have been deemed “inactive” are getting turned over to the state and liquidated. If the owner does eventually claim their property, they lose interest and capital gains.

Senator Warren has demanded a response by May 1, 2026. NAUPA has already pushed back on her letter claiming that their policies are focused on reuniting owners with their property.2 My letter proves that their statement is false and I have sent it to Senator Warren.

NAUPA and NAST, the National Association of State Treasurers, have been trolling my LinkedIn. Interesting.

No matter what happens, please note that I am happy, healthy, and not having any thoughts of self harm.

• write the Game rule book

• officiate every Game

• collect every fine from every team that breaks the rules

• keep 12% of every fine collected

• train every referee using a proprietary methodology that only works inside that Company X

• operate the lost and found at every stadium in the country

• run the only database where fans can search for $70B worth of lost items; and

• participate in the governance committee that sets the rules Company X enforces.

Now imagine that Company X -

• hired all the former NFL officials who used to oversee referee conduct

• hired the people who wrote the original rule book to work as consultants for Company X

• annually receives the NFL’s highest honor every year; and

• owns the proprietary software running 80% of NFL stadiums under ten year sole source contracts

Now add the fact that -

• no competing company has been able to enter the market because the methodology is proprietary and the switching cost is prohibitive

• the skills referees develop working for that company are not transferable to any other officiating environment

States = NFL

Holders = teams

Kelmar Associates = Company X

unclaimed property owners = fans

$70B in unclaimed property = lost and found

Don’t hate the player. Hate the game, or, at the very least, know it’s being played.

1. States collect money; and

2. States return money.

Simple, right?

The National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators - NAUPA- website declares on its “Who We Are” page

NAUPA gives awards every year in a number of categories. Given its “Purpose”, it follows that NAUPA would recognize individuals or organizations demonstrating excellence in “returning unclaimed property to its rightful owners.”

Step 1: Collecting

Below is a list of some of the awards that NAUPA has bestowed upon those organizations (or employees of those organizations) solely focused on Collecting-

NAUPA Lifetime Achievement Award

2024 - Kelmar Associates, LLC

2022- Kelmar Associates, LLC

2019- Avenu Insight & Analytics

2017 - Kelmar Associates, LLC

2012 - Unclaimed Property Clearinghouse

2008 - The Unclaimed Advisor

2000 - Unclaimed Property Clearinghouse

1997- Unclaimed Property Clearinghouse

NAUPA Corporate Affiliate Award

2024 - Audit Services, US LLC

2023 - Kroll Government Solutions

2022 - Kelmar Associates, LLC

NAUPA Committee Awards 2024

Discovery Audit Services

Kroll Government Solutions

Kelmar Associates, LLC

Step 2: Returning

We now turn to the Awards for Step 2: Returning

My 2026 survey says those 65% are wrong.

According to the 2019 Texas Unclaimed Property Reporting Instructions, a holder, any organization in possession of the property of another, must send a notice to owners of property worth more than $250 if they have an address on file. If they do not have an address on file no notice is required.2

Texas doesn’t require holders to do even a basic internet search for an address. If the holder doesn’t have an address on file, the holder reports the address to the state as unknown with the zip code 00000.

When it receives this incomplete record, Texas surely does, at the very least, a basic internet search to try and find the owner. Nope. Nothing. Nada. The information goes up on claimittexas.gov and that’s it. As proof, I submitted an Open Records Request on two random records in the www.claimittexas.gov database. They are:

My request reads as follows:

“Please provide all information related to; -documentation or other information regarding the state’s attempt to contact the owner of the property -records of returned mail or failed delivery associated with notifying owners of the property.”3

I received a response from the Comptroller’s office on 4/13. It is below.

“Ms. Ward, I forgot to address the latter portion of your request regarding the state’s attempts to contact owners of unclaimed property. Until 2007, the State of Texas attempted to contact owners of unclaimed properties by annually publishing a list of those properties in newspapers. Owners were responsible for claiming properties. In 2007, CPA’s Unclaimed Property website (www.claimittexas.gov) was launched, obviating the need for newspaper notices.”4

Hmmmm…..before 2007 an annual publication in newspapers – after 2007, a single website. How do I sum up those efforts? Passive. While sitting on $11B in property, Texas engages in no outreach — no letters, postcards, emails, pigeons or vibes.

No address and the ZIP code 00000.

The American unclaimed property owner is getting the hind teat.

KELMAR

Kelmar Associates LLC operates MissingMoney.com — the primary national unclaimed property search database endorsed by NAUPA and promoted on every state unclaimed property website in the country.1 When your state tells you to search a national database it sends you there. You enter your name. Your address. Your date of birth. The names of deceased relatives. The states where you have lived. Everything.

Kelmar also sells KAPS — a proprietary unclaimed property management system used by 43 state governments.2 According to Delaware's own Finance Transparency database Delaware alone paid Kelmar $196,296,214.38 between July 2017 and April 2026.3

Here is how Kelmar secures KAPS.

SOC 2 Type 2. ISO 27001:2022 certified. GovRAMP Authorization. Annual independent audits. 24/7 monitoring. Penetration testing. Strong encryption. Two-factor authentication. Responsible disclosure program available around the clock.4

Here is how Kelmar secures MissingMoney.com.

Commercially reasonable safeguards. Visitors use the site at their own risk. Last updated October 6 2022.5

Same company. Two systems. Two standards.

Ms. Meaghan Aguirre

Director of Unclaimed Property Nebraska State Treasurer’s Office

President, National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators

meaghan.aguirre@nebraska.gov

Ms. Brooke Lierman

Comptroller of Maryland

Senior Vice President, National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators

brooke@marylandtaxes.gov

Ms. Amy Hendrix

Director, Indiana Unclaimed Property Division, Office of the Indiana Attorney General Secretary-Treasurer, National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators

updmail@atg.in.gov

Ms. Carmen Pigler

Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, District of Columbia

Office of the Chief Financial Officer National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators

dcoct@dc.gov

SUBJECT: Written Inquiry Regarding NAUPA Advocacy, Conflicts of Interest, Disclosure Practices, and Data Use

Ms. Aguirre, Ms. Lierman, Ms. Pigler, and Ms. Hendrix:

My name is Ana C. Ward. I am a licensed attorney currently conducting research on unclaimed property policy in the United States, including the structural relationship between state collection mechanisms and owner reunification efforts.

The National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (“NAUPA”) describes itself as the foremost authority on unclaimed property whose objective is to facilitate collaboration and otherwise support program administrators in reuniting all unclaimed assets with rightful owners. In the course of my research I located on NAUPA’s publicly available website two resolutions that together raise significant questions about that stated objective.[1]

The first — the Resolution Preserving the Right of Owners to Recover Unclaimed Property from States in Perpetuity — explicitly recognizes that the fundamental purpose of state unclaimed property laws is to protect the public by ensuring that owners do not lose their rights to personal property that is justifiably theirs. NAUPA is correct on this point and this resolution reflects the organization’s stated mission.

The second — the Resolution in Support of the Preservation of the Ability of State Unclaimed Property Programs to Utilize Unclaimed Property Examination Firms Compensated on a Contingency Fee Basis — formally supports and opposes any legislation limiting the right of states to use contingency fee examination firms to identify and collect unclaimed property from holders. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that this compensation model gives auditors a financial incentive to claim as much escheatable property as possible that taints the entire process with an appearance of self-interested overreaching — a finding that stands in direct tension with the owner protection purpose that NAUPA itself articulates in its mission statement and in the first resolution.[2]

These two resolutions together raise the five questions I address below. For a comprehensive survey of judicial decisions, legislative actions, and professional community positions documenting concerns regarding the use of contingency fee auditors in unclaimed property programs, see the annotated footnote at the end of this letter.[3]

First: Contingency Fee Advocacy

NAUPA has passed a resolution supporting contingency fee arrangements for collection auditors.[4] The resolution states that “the fundamental purpose of state unclaimed property laws is to protect the public by ensuring that owners do not lose their rights to personal property that is justifiably theirs. The resolution simultaneously supports contingency fee examination firms as the mechanism through which states fulfill that purpose on the collection side.”[5]

I am interested in NAUPA’s explanation for why that justification does not apply equally to contingency fee arrangements on the owner recovery side. I am not aware of NAUPA having passed an equivalent resolution supporting contingency fee arrangements for finders who assist owners in recovering their property. NAUPA justifies the contingency fee collection model on the grounds that it serves the reunification mission by ensuring property reaches the state. If, in fact, NAUPA has never made such advocacy efforts on behalf of owners, I am interested in NAUPA’s explanation for why that justification does not apply equally to advocacy for contingency fee arrangements on the owner recovery side, and what specific owner protection concern would justify the asymmetric treatment of the two. If such a resolution or advocacy effort does exist I would appreciate a copy or a description of the relevant activity.

I note in this regard that while virtually all states technically permit finder agreements the regulatory environment surrounding finder assistance — including fee caps, blackout periods, state specific licensing requirements with no reciprocity across jurisdictions, and restrictions on finder access to owner information — creates a structure that functionally discourages professional assistance to owners even where it is nominally permitted. No equivalent regulatory burden has been imposed on contingency fee collection auditors. The asymmetry between the regulatory treatment of owner-side recovery assistance and the regulatory treatment of holder-side collection enforcement is not consistent with a neutral commitment to reunification. It is consistent with a system that has chosen to invest its regulatory energy in protecting the collection infrastructure while leaving the recovery infrastructure to navigate a maze of state-by-state restrictions without the institutional support that NAUPA provides to collection auditors through its formal resolution.

Second: MissingMoney.com – Ownership, Governance, and Data Practices

NAUPA promotes MissingMoney.com as the primary search tool for owners seeking to locate their unclaimed property. Before addressing the conflict of interest implications of that endorsement I would appreciate clarification of a threshold question that NAUPA’s own published materials leave unresolved.

MissingMoney.com’s own privacy policy — the legal document governing the site’s data practices — states in its first sentence that the site is operated by Kelmar Associates LLC on behalf of the National Association of State Treasurers (“NAST”) in collaboration with NAUPA.[6] That language creates a principal-agent relationship between NAST and Kelmar with specific legal implications for NAST’s responsibility for the site’s data practices and privacy governance. It is therefore significant that NAUPA’s own published materials describe that relationship inconsistently and in terms that obscure rather than clarify the nature of NAST’s principal responsibility.

NAUPA’s 2024 Glossary describes MissingMoney.com as owned by NAUPA[7]. The November 2022 NAST press release describes MissingMoney.com as powered by Kelmar Associates[8]. Kelmar’s own website describes the company as the proud host of MissingMoney.com.[9] NAUPA’s Who We Are page describes MissingMoney.com as sponsored by NAUPA.[10] NAUPA’s homepage describes MissingMoney.com as managed by NAUPA.[11]

Four different words across four different documents on NAUPA’s own website and in NAST’s own press materials. Owned. Sponsored. Managed. Powered. None of them is consistent with the others. Each carries distinct legal and operational implications for NAUPA’s responsibility with respect to the site’s data practices, privacy policy, and conflict of interest posture. I would appreciate clarification of the precise ownership and operational structure of MissingMoney.com and the nature of each organization’s role in its operation.

A. Data Governance and Data Ownership

Has NAUPA executed a written agreement with Kelmar Associates governing the operation of MissingMoney.com? If so, does that agreement contain provisions governing Kelmar’s use of owner search data entered into MissingMoney.com? And has NAUPA conducted any audit or review of Kelmar’s data use practices in connection with MissingMoney.com? I note that MissingMoney.com’s privacy policy has not been updated since October 6, 2022.[12] Given that the site processes the personal information of Americans searching for their own property under NAUPA’s formal endorsement and NAST’s principal sponsorship, I am interested in whether either organization has reviewed the site’s data governance practices within the past three years, and if no, why not?

The privacy policy addresses what happens to individual user data during a session. It does not address who holds legal title to the search query data, results data, and aggregated or anonymized data generated through MissingMoney.com over years of operation. I would like to know who holds legal title to that data. If Kelmar Associates holds title to any data generated through the operation of MissingMoney.com I am interested in whether that data has commercial value to Kelmar’s audit business, whether NAUPA or NAST has assessed that value, and whether any agreement governing the operation of the site addresses the ownership and permitted uses of data generated through owner searches. I am also interested in whether Kelmar uses any data collected through MissingMoney.com — including individual session data, aggregated data, or anonymized data — for any purpose related to its unclaimed property audit business, and if so whether NAUPA or NAST was aware of and consented to that use.

I am also interested in what data security protections govern any data that Kelmar retains in connection with its operation of MissingMoney.com. The privacy policy states that Kelmar maintains commercially reasonable and appropriate physical electronic and procedural security safeguards but acknowledges that security cannot be absolutely guaranteed and that visitors use the site at their own risk. Commercially reasonable is not a defined standard. It is not a regulatory requirement. It is not an independently audited certification. It is a self-assessed characterization by the entity whose data practices are at issue. Given that MissingMoney.com processes the names addresses and search queries of millions of Americans looking for their own property I am interested in whether NAUPA or NAST has independently assessed the adequacy of Kelmar’s data security practices, whether any independent security audit has been conducted, what specific security standards Kelmar is required to meet under any governing agreement, what notification obligations apply in the event of a data breach, and to whom — NAUPA, NAST, the states, or the individual users whose data was compromised — Kelmar is required to provide breach notification and within what timeframe.

I note a profound irony in this context. NAUPA’s own materials prominently warn owners about fraud and scam operations that target unclaimed property claimants. Those warnings are displayed on every state unclaimed property website and contribute significantly to the psychological barriers that prevent owners from claiming property that is rightfully theirs. Yet the site NAUPA formally endorses and promotes as the primary owner search tool processes the personal information and search behavior of millions of Americans who have self-identified through their search activity as people with unclaimed property worth claiming — creating precisely the kind of concentrated target profile that NAUPA’s own fraud warnings exist to protect against. A data breach involving MissingMoney.com user data would not expose random consumer information. It would expose a curated database of people who have identified themselves as unclaimed property owners, the states where their property is held, the property types involved, and the holders associated with their records. That is a fraud operation’s most valuable asset. I am interested in whether NAUPA has considered this specific risk in connection with its endorsement of MissingMoney.com and what steps NAUPA has taken to ensure that the data security practices governing the site are adequate to protect the owners NAUPA exists to serve from the very fraud risks NAUPA warns them about.

B. Facebook Pixel

MissingMoney.com’s privacy policy discloses the use of Facebook/Meta’s Custom Audience Pixel.[13] The policy states that this pixel transmits application-specific events and user-defined data to Facebook including browser session data and a hashed version of the user’s Facebook ID and URLs viewed. The policy further states that this pixel is used to address visitors for advertising purposes to promote MissingMoney.com — meaning that Americans who search for their own unclaimed property on MissingMoney.com may be added to a Facebook Custom Audience used to advertise MissingMoney.com back to them across devices.

I have three specific questions about the Facebook pixel. First what specific data is transmitted to Facebook when a user conducts an unclaimed property search on MissingMoney.com and does that transmission include any information about the specific records searched or the states in which results were found. Second who authorized the deployment of the Facebook pixel on MissingMoney.com — was that decision made by Kelmar unilaterally or did NAUPA or NAST review and approve it. Third have NAST member state treasurers been informed that the site they sponsor and promote on their official state websites deploys a Facebook Custom Audience Pixel that tracks the browser sessions of Americans searching for their own property, and, if not, why not.

C. Conflict of Interest

I am interested in NAUPA’s position on whether directing owners to a database operated by the dominant contingency fee collection auditor for state unclaimed property programs represents a conflict of interest with NAUPA’s stated mission of reuniting all unclaimed assets with rightful owners. Kelmar Associates received $196,296,214.38 from the state of Delaware alone between July 2017 and April 2026 according to Delaware’s own Finance Transparency database.[14] Kelmar’s CEO is listed on the NAST Leadership and Committees page.[15] The site Kelmar operates under NAUPA’s formal endorsement deploys a Facebook Custom Audience Pixel that tracks the browser sessions of the owners NAUPA exists to serve.[16] I am interested in whether NAUPA has ever conducted a formal conflict of interest review of this arrangement and if so whether the results of that review are publicly available. If no such review has been conducted I am interested in the basis for that determination given that the arrangement involves a private company with significant financial relationships with NAUPA’s member states operating the primary consumer-facing tool through which those states fulfill their stated reunification mission.

Third: Further Conflicts of Interest

I note above that Kelmar Associates CEO and President Mark S. McQuillen is listed on the NAST leadership page and participates regularly in NAUPA workshops and seminars at which member state officials are present, raising questions about the arm’s length nature of any deliberative process preceding the resolution’s adoption.[17] I am interested in whether Mr. McQuillen or any Kelmar representative participated in the deliberations preceding the resolution’s adoption. I am also interested in what disclosure practices NAUPA follows when passing resolutions that directly benefit specific private sector entities with whom member states have existing financial relationships.

Fourth: Stakeholder Concerns

NAUPA’s resolution formally supports the use of contingency fee examination arrangements for collection auditors. As noted at the outset of this letter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that this compensation model gives auditors a financial incentive to claim as much escheatable property as possible that taints the entire process with an appearance of self-interested overreaching.[18] This judicial finding is not an outlier. As documented in the footnote of this letter, equivalent concerns have been expressed by federal courts, holder advocacy groups, and legal scholars on the grounds that contingency fee arrangements create a structural incentive for auditors to maximize assessments against holders regardless of the merits of individual claims.

I am interested in whether NAUPA has formally considered these judicial and stakeholder concerns in its advocacy on behalf of contingency fee arrangements, and whether NAUPA has taken any position on the structural incentive problems identified by federal courts in connection with such arrangements. If NAUPA has conducted any substantive analysis of the empirical relationship between contingency fee collection arrangements and owner reunification outcomes I would appreciate knowing whether that analysis is publicly available. If it is not publicly available I am interested in the basis for that determination given that the resolution it informed was passed on behalf of public officials administering public programs with public funds.

Fifth: Asymmetric Endorsement Standards

As already noted, Kelmar Associates operates MissingMoney.com — a NAUPA-endorsed national unclaimed property search database — while simultaneously serving as the dominant contingency fee collection auditor for state unclaimed property programs. I am interested in whether NAUPA would extend equivalent endorsement and promotional support to a national search database operated by a for-profit finder company that simultaneously assists owners in recovering unclaimed property on a contingency fee basis.

I anticipate the response to be that finder assistance is unnecessary because searching and claiming unclaimed property is free. I note that this argument proves too much. If the process is genuinely free and accessible without professional assistance on the owner recovery side then the collection side of the system requires no explanation for why it needs sophisticated paid professional enforcement infrastructure costing hundreds of millions of dollars across thirty or more states. The argument cannot be applied asymmetrically. Either professional assistance adds value on both sides of the transaction or it adds value on neither. NAUPA’s formal institutional support for contingency fee collection infrastructure — combined with its apparent silence on the structural barriers that make the nominally free claims process inaccessible to a significant portion of the population it is supposed to serve — is not consistent with a neutral commitment to reunification. It is consistent with a system that appears to have chosen to invest its institutional resources in protecting the collection infrastructure while leaving the recovery infrastructure to navigate a maze of state by state restrictions without equivalent support.

I further note that the size of the unclaimed balance — $70 billion by NAUPA’s own figures held on behalf of one in seven Americans — is itself the evidence that a nominally free process does not mean that it is a functionally accessible one. If the process were genuinely free and accessible in any meaningful sense the balance would not be $70 billion. The unclaimed balance is the measure of what the system’s inaccessibility has cost the American public. NAUPA’s institutional response to that balance has been to pass a resolution supporting the compensation model of the auditors who collect it and to endorse a search database operated by the same company. I am not aware of any efforts by NAUPA to address the learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs that prevent owners from recovering property that is nominally free to claim. If I am in error, please direct me to those sources.

If NAUPA would not extend equivalent endorsement to a finder-operated national search database on the grounds that the operator’s commercial interest creates a conflict with the database’s public service function I am interested in NAUPA’s explanation for why that conflict of interest concern does not apply with equal force to a database operated by a contingency fee collection auditor whose commercial interest is served by the continued existence of unclaimed property available for audit.

State unclaimed property programs collectively hold in excess of $70 billion in assets belonging to American property owners. It is notable that the combined resources of fifty state unclaimed property programs — funded in significant part by the investment returns on those same assets — have not produced an independently operated, state-hosted national search database. Instead the primary consumer-facing search tool endorsed by NAUPA and operated on behalf of NAST is hosted and operated by Kelmar Associates — the same private company that serves as the dominant contingency fee collection auditor for those same state programs,

The operation of MissingMoney.com presents an unavoidable dilemma. If the site is sufficiently important to owner reunification to warrant NAUPA’s formal endorsement and NAST’s principal sponsorship — as its prominent promotion across all fifty state unclaimed property programs suggests — then the decision to entrust its operation to the dominant contingency fee collection auditor rather than developing an independently operated state-funded alternative demands explanation. If it is not sufficiently important to warrant independent state funding and operation, then there is no justification for the collection of owner search data, the deployment of a Facebook Custom Audience Pixel, and the transmission of application-specific events and user-defined data to Meta on a platform used by Americans searching for their own property. NAUPA cannot have it both ways.

To be clear, I unequivocally support the existence of a consolidated national unclaimed property search database. The data speaks for itself — one in seven Americans has unclaimed property, $70 billion sits in state databases, and a consolidated search tool serves the reunification mission that unclaimed property law was designed to advance. My concern is not with the database. My concern is with who operates it and why. The involvement of Kelmar Associates — whose compensation model incentivizes maximizing collection rather than returning property to owners — in the operation of the primary tool through which owners search for their property creates precisely the kind of taint that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit identified when it stated that Kelmar’s financial incentive to claim as much escheatable property as possible taints the entire process with an appearance of self-interested overreaching.[19] A consolidated national database operated independently of any entity with a financial interest in unclaimed property remaining unclaimed would serve owners. The current arrangement appears, on its face, to serve Kelmar. A Tax Notes article published March 5, 2026 — weeks before this letter was transmitted — documents that these concerns are not historical. They are current, they are growing, and they are being raised by former state officials, major financial industry associations, and practicing attorneys who work inside the system every day.[20]

I am conducting this research in connection with a forthcoming publication on unclaimed property policy and advocacy activities for unclaimed property owners. I intend to accurately represent NAUPA’s position on each of these questions and welcome the opportunity to do so based on a direct response from your office. If I do not receive a substantive response by May 15, 2026, I will note in my publication that NAUPA did not respond to a written inquiry transmitted to its full leadership.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

Ana C. Ward, Esq.

FOOTNOTE

The concerns regarding contingency fee auditors in unclaimed property are documented across the judiciary, the legislative record, and the financial and professional community, including the following:

JUDICIAL:

Temple-Inland Inc. v. Cook, 82 F. Supp. 3d 539 (D. Del. 2015). Judge Gregory M. Sleet described Delaware’s unclaimed property audit process, conducted by Kelmar Associates, as a “game of ‘gotcha’ that shocks the conscience.”

Marathon Petroleum Corp. v. Secretary of Finance for Delaware, 876 F.3d 481 (3rd Cir. 2017). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated that “Kelmar’s financial incentive to claim as much escheatable property as possible taints the entire process with an appearance of self-interested overreaching” and held that plaintiffs had “good reason to be concerned that Delaware may claim property that it is not entitled to escheat.”

Plains All American Pipeline LP v. Cook, No. 16-3631 (3d Cir. Aug. 9, 2017). The Third Circuit reversed dismissal of a procedural due process claim challenging Delaware’s use of a contingency-fee auditor as a self-interested party with authority to conduct audits and demand documents.

AT&T Capital Services et al. v. Geisenberger, D. Del. The court noted that contingency fee arrangements give auditors a self-interested financial incentive that may not align with the interests of either holders or owners and expressed doubts about the state’s commitment to ending the practice.

Temple-Inland Settlement. Following the Temple-Inland decision, Delaware appealed to the Third Circuit and subsequently settled, surrendering its entire claim against the company and agreeing to pay the company’s legal fees.

LEGISLATIVE:

National Conference of State Legislatures. In August 2011, an NCSL task force passed a resolution opposing certain contingent-fee based auditing practices.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2004, the SEC issued a letter concluding that the receipt by an accounting firm of a contingent fee from an audit client impairs the auditor’s independence and that the use of contingent fees in audit contexts is prohibited.

Michigan House Bill 5577 (2012). Legislative analysis noted business community concern that “the focus, often by contingent fee third-party audit firms, is on creating state assessments based on minor theoretical discrepancies in ancient paperwork rather than on restoring truly unclaimed property to its rightful owner.”

In AT&T Capital Services et al. v. Geisenberger, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware specifically noted that contingency fee arrangements give auditors a self-interested financial incentive that may not align with the interests of either holders or owners, and the court expressed doubts about the state’s commitment to ending the practice. These concerns are not limited to a single proceeding. As documented in the footnote to this letter, they span multiple federal courts, multiple circuits, legislative bodies, and professional organizations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Council on State Taxation, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. Unclaimed Property: Best Practices for State Administrators and the Use of Private Audit Firms (2014). The ILR detailed the flaws of using contingency fee contract auditors, urged a ban on the practice, and specifically recommended requiring all state contracts for private audit firms to be subject to an open competitive bidding process. The ILR warned that when government contracting lacks transparency, pay-to-play schemes often arise in which lucrative contracts are awarded in exchange for campaign contributions.

Council On State Taxation (COST). COST Scorecard: The Best and Worst of State Unclaimed Property Laws (2013). COST identified contingency fee arrangements as a negative factor in evaluating state unclaimed property programs and documented that excessive payments to contingent fee auditors significantly reduce funds available for the owners of the property.

Council On State Taxation (COST). COST Unclaimed Property Policy Position. COST documented that excessive payments to contingent fee auditors significantly reduce funds that would otherwise be available for the owners of the property.

Bloomberg Law — Reed Smith LLP. Killing the Golden Goose: The Declining Health of State Unclaimed Property Programs (2021). Documented that contingent-fee auditors are incentivized to maximize collection of funds for their own private benefit rather than focus on reunification and returning funds to owners.

The Tax Adviser — AICPA Publication. Unclaimed Property Audit Fallacies and Myths (September 2019). Stated that “given the contingency nature of contract auditor fee arrangements, it would be naive to expect an auditor’s finding to be fair and unbiased.”

Delaware’s Own Revised Contract with Kelmar (December 31, 2019). Following years of litigation and judicial criticism, Delaware moved away from pure contingency compensation for Kelmar’s general ledger work, instead paying at set hourly rates. The revised contract was filed as an exhibit in federal court proceedings in January 2020. Notwithstanding this revision, Delaware’s Finance Transparency database confirms that Delaware continued to pay Kelmar Associates $196,296,214.38 between July 2017 and April 2026.

Tax Notes. Hoke, William. “State Unclaimed Property Audits — Judicious or Avaricious?” Tax Notes. March 5 2026. taxnotes.com. The article documents concerns from the Investment Company Institute, former state officials, and practicing attorneys about contingency fee audit arrangements, lookback periods, and estimation methodologies. The article also quotes NAUPA’s 2019 position that the use of contingency fee audits has been an accepted practice for almost 40 years.

[1] NAUPA. https://unclaimed.org/policies/. Accessed 2026April14.

[2] Marathon Petroleum Corp. v. Secretary of Finance for Delaware, 876 F.3d 481 (3rd Cir. 2017).

[3] For a comprehensive survey of judicial decisions, legislative actions, and professional community positions documenting concerns regarding the use of contingency fee auditors in unclaimed property programs, see the annotated footnote at the end of this letter.

[4] See footnote 1.

[5] See footnote 1.

[6] Kelmar; https://missingmoney.com/app/privacy-policy; Accessed2026April14.

[7] NAUPA; https://unclaimed.org/wp-content/uploads/NAUPA-2024-Glossary-Final.pdf; Accessed 2026April14.

[8] NAST; https://nast.org/media/; Accessed 2026April14.

[9] Kelmar;

https://www.kelmarassoc.com/

; Accessed 2026April14.

[10] NAUPA; https://unclaimed.org/who-we-are/; Accessed 2026April14.

[11] NAUPA;

https://unclaimed.org/

; Accessed 2026April14.

[12] See footnote 6.

[13] See footnote 6.

[14] State of Delaware;

https://opencheckbook.delaware.gov/

; 2026April14.

[15] NAST; https://nast.org/leadership/mark-mcquillen/; 2026April14.

[16] See footnote 6.

[17] See footnote 6.

[18] See footnote 2.

[19] See footnote 2.

[20] See footnote 3.

And then this.

Before Mississippi will process your unclaimed property claim it asks whether you are a United States citizen.

That alone is remarkable. But Mississippi goes further.

For non-citizens there is no online claims process. Instead Mississippi directs non-citizen claimants to call the state office during business hours. Monday through Friday. 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

And then this. Published on the state’s official portal. From a named elected official. In writing.

“Treasurer David McRae has made servicing the claims of American citizens and Mississippi constituents a priority. Claims of American citizens will take precedent over any claim requiring more extensive validation through non-domestic means.”

Constitution Says…..

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment says no state shall deny any person equal protection of the laws. Both amendments say person. Not citizen. Person.

The Supreme Court has held for more than a century that these protections extend to all persons regardless of citizenship. Yick Wo v. Hopkins. 1886. Plyler v. Doe. 1982.

Unclaimed property law is not an immigration program. It is a custodial program. The state holds property belonging to identifiable owners until those owners come forward. The ownership of that property has nothing to do with citizenship. A migrant worker with an uncashed paycheck owns that paycheck. An immigrant with an unreturned deposit owns that deposit. Their citizenship does not change the ownership. The Constitution does not permit it.

But Mississippi has created a formal two-tier system. Two identical claims. One citizen. One not. Under Treasurer McRae’s published policy the citizen goes first.

That is an equal protection problem. A due process problem. Documented in writing on Mississippi’s own government website.

Sonny Boy McRae took an oath prior to entering office. He might have been crossing his fingers but he swore to faithfully support the Constitution.

I have filed a public records request with Mississippi seeking all policies and legal opinions supporting this published priority. I will publish whatever I receive.

Pinky promise.

Hypothetical – Day 2

Yesterday, when we left your hypothetical Uncle Bill, you had explained that the $15,000 that he had borrowed from your father was, using “estimation”, really $100,000. Uncle Bill threw you off the porch. He’s 90 but still works out.

At home, you decide that Uncle Bill probably owes you more than that $100,000. You just need experts to find it. You hire fictional audit firm Killjoy to audit Uncle Bill and determine his real liability. You explain to them that you did some “calculations” and came up with $100,000 in liability but you believe there is more.

Killjoy calls on Uncle Bill and demands his records. He hands them the piece of paper off the fridge. Uncle Bill then throws them off the porch.

Killjoy goes back to their offices, and, magically, based solely on the piece of paper, Killjoy determines that Uncle Bill owes you $2,000,000.1

If this seems ridiculous it’s because it is. Unfortunately it’s eerily similar to what is happening in the real world but you haven’t heard the best part. The auditor is paid a percentage of the liability it finds. In the hypothetical above, it’s $2M and the percentage has no cap. They have now given your claim legitimacy and earned a huge fee for themselves.

But wait….there’s more!

The states hire the auditors. The auditors inflate the liability. The states now have support for their claims.

Way 1: The auditor collects a huge fee on the inflated liability, and taxpayers pay the fee.

Businesses charged with this inflated liability either pay or litigate.

Way 2: Given the cost and hassle of litigation, most will pay – ultimately passing those costs on to the customer.

The ultimate purpose of all of these accounting shenanigans is to bring as much money into the “unclaimed property” office as possible. Once the money hits that office it merely shuffles down the hall to the General Fund where it serves to shore up budgets and increase revenue.

Way 3: Given how important this money is to the state, they are doing everything they can to make sure you don’t claim it.

In all 3 ways the taxpayer, customer, unclaimed property holder, i.e. you, loses.

I think it’s high time for a safe word.

Kelmar is the auditing firm of choice for the states when going after unclaimed property. As I have written previously, unclaimed property makes up a significant part of some state’s revenue. One of the techniques that Kelmar uses to maximize collections is a form of accounting called “estimation” methodology. Basically, Kelmar looks at the records that a business has for a certain number of years. For years for which they don’t have records (and don’t have to keep per the statute of limitations), Kelmar estimates how much unclaimed property the business WOULD HAVE HAD based on the existing records.1

This accounting method has been the subject of a lot of litigation. In the Temple Inland case, Kelmar, on behalf of the state of Delaware, had audited Temple-Inland, and based on a single payroll check for $147.30, Delaware assessed Temple-Inland almost $1.4 million in unclaimed property liability.2

If this is too abstract, imagine the following:

You have an Uncle Bill, the brother of your father, who is 90 years old. Your mother passed years ago and your father passed a year ago. Going through your Dad’s stuff, you come across a handwritten note “Bill borrows money again. Need to talk to him about.”.

Your Uncle Bill lives close by so you walk to his house for a visit. Sitting down at the kitchen table, you ask “Uncle Bill, did you borrow money from my parents?”.
Uncle Bill gets up and takes a piece of paper off of the fridge. He sits back down and says “Yes. I did. Your parents were so good to me. Whenever I got in a jam they were always ready to help. Here’s the total and how much I borrowed each year.”

You pick up the paper and review it. The amounts go back 15 years and total around $15,000.

Uncle Bill says “I will write you a check right now to pay you back.”

Instead of accepting the check, you say “Well, Uncle Bill, how do I know that you didn’t borrow money in the years before this first date?”

Uncle Bill looks confused “what do you mean? It’s all there.”

You respond “Well, it’s possible that you borrowed money before this date. Based on the 15 years and the debt of $15,000, it appears that you borrowed $1,000 per year. If we go back an additional 40 years and estimate based on this information, you would have borrowed $1,000 per year for 40 years so your real debt is $40,000 + $15,000 which equals $55,000. Also, you should have to pay interest on the entire amount. I’ll be nice and let’s just put total at $100,000. I’ll take a check.”

In the Temple-Inland case, the Judge stated that the auditing methods “shock the conscience”.

After he throws you out of the house, Uncle Bill would probably say the same.

Complaining that something “isn’t fair” is usually a losing argument, BUT evaluating the fairness of a policy or process is a good practice. I should clarify that when I use the term “fair” I don’t mean “is everybody happy?”. I mean “does this balance the costs/benefits/interests in an optimal way?”. Happy is a state of mind. Balance is something else.

This idea of fairness is why I am so offended by the unclaimed property system. It offends my sense of fairness based on the definition I provided above. Here’s why….

1. There are 50 states. Currently the states are collectively “sitting” on $70B of our money. But the reality is they are not “sitting” on it. They are using it to shore up budgets and have even made it a strategic part of their budget planning.

2. There are 50 state treasurers. They are custodians of our money - the $70B. Given that the states are using the money, state treasurers are heavily incentivized to collect as much unclaimed property as possible.

3. There are hundred of auditors. Auditors audit businesses and other organizations to look for “unclaimed property” that can be swept into the unclaimed property divisions of the states. Those auditors are paid based on how much they collect.

4. There are millions of holders. Holders are the businesses and organizations that have our unclaimed property. They are under strict legal obligations to turn over unclaimed property and rigorously audited to ensure that they do.

And we are on the other side. 33 million people with claims adding up to $70B. Who is on our side?

• not the states - they want to keep the money as long as possible

• not the state treasurers - they are evaluated based on the money they collect

• not the auditors - the more they collect the more they get paid

• not the holders - the laws that require holders to notify owners about unclaimed property are rarely enforced. Laws that require holders to report and turn over unclaimed property are rigorously audited and enforced. Also, when a holder turns over the property to the state, all of their liability goes “poof”. Their hands are clean and the state indemnifies them if there is an issue later

Meanwhile, the largest stakeholder, us, has no one representing them. There is no organization, no lobby and no leader. If you don’t think its unfair, don’t take my word for it.

Fred Winkler passed away on March 1, 2017 in Austin, Texas at the age of 95. Born in Brooklyn in 1921, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps in WWII, and became an instructor pilot. After the war, he came to the University of Texas on the GI Bill where he met and married Eunice Metcalf. They were married for more than 63 years. He, Eunice and his son Carl traveled the world extensively and, after their travels, he continued his work for the federal government.1

Based on property records, Mr. Winkler and his family lived at 12609 Silver Creek Drive in Austin, Texas for over 30 years. Based on very cursory research, the first record that I found for Mr. Winkler in the Texas Unclaimed Property database is from 2011 (see below).2

There are also two records from 2016.3

A total of $1,075.97. Not a huge amount for some - a huge amount for others.

2.9 Miles

What I find so interesting about this case is based on where Mr. Winkler lived. His home for over 30 years was 2.9 miles from the Texas Comptroller’s Office. He was not only easy to find, but he was also just down the road from the government function legally obligated to and responsible for returning people’s money to them.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Winkler served his country, raised a family, and traveled the world.

Texas wasn’t willing to travel 2.9 miles to return money he was owed.

Now, Mr. Winkler is gone. His wife and son predeceased him.

The process of claiming this money is now infinitely more difficult. Did he have a will? Did he die intestate? Either way, someone will now have to provide a death certificate, will, probate, and more to claim this money. They might have to retain an attorney which means they will have to weigh the cost benefit of the amount versus fees. Of course, they would have not know about it first.

Texas just dramatically improved its odds of keeping his money forever.

RIP

Below is the first page from the Unclaimed Property Databases from Texas, California, New York, Arizona, Illinois and Ohio for the search “Alzheimers”.

Texas - Unclaimed Property Database; 4/5/2026; 11:03 am

California - Unclaimed Property Database; 4/5/2026; 11:06 am.

New York - Unclaimed Property Database; 4/5/2026; 11:09 am

Arizona - Unclaimed Property Database; 4/5/2026; 11:11 am

Illinois - Unclaimed Property Database; 4/5/2026; 11:12 am

Ohio - Unclaimed Property Database; 4/5/2026; 11:20 am

WWJD?

Not this.

Home to Apple. Google. Meta. Netflix. The companies that invented the smartphone, the search engine, the social network, the streaming service, and the self-driving car.

The state where the future arrives first.

California holds $15 billion of your money in its unclaimed property fund.1

In 2007 a federal court temporarily shut down California’s unclaimed property office in Taylor v. Westly — ruling that California was doing so little to find owners that its conduct violated their constitutional rights.2

California’s response?

Accumulate $15 billion in unclaimed property and use technology from 1774 and 1964.

If you want to submit a public records request asking how California manages that $15 billion — find a fax machine or a stamp. Fax and mail only. In 2026. In the state that invented the future.

Hitch up the wagon.

James & Scott

I chose to look at claims for people in Bastrop with the two different last names. For each last name, I selected someone who had at least 10 claims going back at least 10 years. I didn’t focus on the dollar amount.

1. James - 75 years old

   After a few minutes of searching, I found James’ cell phone number. I called at around 6:30 p.m. When he answered, I introduced myself and explained

   -that I was a lawyer and a writer;

   -that I was researching awareness regarding the Texas Unclaimed Property program; and

   -that I was not selling anything.

   Below is the exchange:

   Me: “Have you heard of the Texas Unclaimed Property website?”

   James: “What?”

   Me: “It’s a website that lets you search the Unclaimed Property being held by the State of Texas.”

   James: “I don’t know what you are talking about.”

   Me: “When businesses have unclaimed money or property, they have to turn it over to the State of Texas and the State holds it until the owner claims it. Have you heard of this practice?”

   James: “No.”

   Me: “Well, you have money, around $10,000, being held by the State.”

   James: “I don’t know what you are talking about. I have to go.”

   Me: “OK. Have a great evening.”

2. Scott - 58 years old

   My next call after James was Scott. Again, it took about 2 minutes to get his cell phone number.

   As with James, when Scott answered I introduced myself and explained

   -that I was a lawyer and a writer;

   -that I was researching awareness regarding the Texas Unclaimed Property program; and

   -that I was not selling anything.

   Below is the exchange:

   Scott: “Yeah, I know I have some money.”

   Me: “Why haven’t you claimed it?”

   Scott: “I wasn’t willing to deal with the red tape and the hoops to claim it.”

   Me: “Well, you have over $10,000 sitting there.”

   Scott: “Could you help me figure out how to claim it?”

   Me: “I’m not allowed to help you, but I can send you the general steps that one should take to make a claim.”

   Scott: “That would be great! Can I pay you?”

   Me: “No, and frankly the State of Texas has made sure that no one would help you.”

   Scott: “Can you prepare a will or a trust for me?”

   Me: “No. I can’t do that either. The Ethics Rules stipulate that I can’t have direct contact with anyone that could be construed as a “solicitation communication”.

   Scott: “Well, I would love to make a donation in your name to your favorite charity.”

   Me: “Thank you but that’s not necessary.”

The Takeaways

1. Despite knowing he had money with the Unclaimed Property division, Scott had not claimed his money because of the difficulty of the process.

2. Scott wanted help.

3. Scott would have paid for help.

4. James was confused by the outreach. Scott was thrilled by it.

Now imagine that the neighbor says nothing to you. They pawn the ring, and invest the $100,000. Two decades later, you ask your neighbor “Hey, did I ever ask you about a ring that I lost 20 years ago? It was engraved with my name.”

Your neighbor responds “Oh, I found it. I sold it and have been using the money for the last 20 years.”

You yell “Why didn’t you tell me!?”

Your neighbor says “You never asked.”

You scream “Give me my ring!!!”. Your neighbor responds calmly

Though not exact this is basically how the Texas Comptroller treats our unclaimed property.

If you don’t ask, we don’t tell. Ever.

With neighbors like that….

Subscribe now