On March 18, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL) released a direct final rule implementing the voiding (known as "vacatur") of its 2024 regulatory package that included the “Retirement Security Rule: Definition of an Investment Advice Fiduciary” and associated amendments to several prohibited transaction class exemptions. Two federal district courts in Texas separately vacated the 2024 regulatory initiative following a joint motion by insurance industry trade groups challenging the rule.

The direct final rule removes the text of the 2024 rule from the Code of Federal Regulations and restores the original 1975 regulation. In addition, the direct final rule removes the 2024 amendments to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 (PTE 2020-02), reprinting the original 2020 version in its place. Both of these actions were consistent with the vacatur orders.

On its own motion, DOL took the additional step of rescinding the entire guidance originally contained in the Preamble to PTE 2020-02 that reinterpreted how to apply the original 1975 fiduciary regulation. Part of this guidance had been vacated by other federal courts in Florida and Texas in separate litigation, and, to avoid confusion, DOL formally rescinded the guidance in its entirety. As a result, most rollover or transfer recommendations related to retirement plans and IRAs will not be considered fiduciary investment advice for ERISA or Tax Code purposes.

While the DOL’s direct final rule did not specifically address the other class exemption amendments vacated by court order—including PTE 84-24, which applies to the sale of annuities and other insurance contracts—the final rule restores these to their prior versions. It is not yet known whether the DOL will take any additional technical actions to restate the text of these exemptions. Likewise, while the DOL indicated that it did not anticipate issuing new notice and comment rulemaking on this topic, that statement technically leaves open the door for additional direct final rules (which are not open for comment) or sub-regulatory guidance interpreting the 1975 rule.

In other federal news, on March 17, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing titled “Updating America’s Financial Privacy Framework for the 21st Century” to discuss a draft of “a bill to make improvements to title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), and for other purposes.” The bill is intended to give consumers greater control over their personal financial data and greater access to information about how their personal financial data is used, creating a federal preemption of privacy protections for financial institutions and data covered by the GLBA.

The NAIC filed comments in opposition to the draft bill in advance of the hearing. While the NAIC appreciates the committee’s attention to consumer financial privacy and the bill’s recognition that state insurance authorities must retain enforcement action, it strongly opposes the bill’s broad preemption of state privacy and security laws as applied to the insurance sector. The NAIC argues that states have already adopted sufficient data privacy and data security regulations via the NAIC’s Privacy of Consumer Financial and Health Information Regulation (Model #672) and Insurance Data Security Model Law (Model #668). The letter states that federal standards can provide a floor but should preserve state insurance regulators’ authority to maintain and improve protections tailored to the insurance sector.

During the hearing, representatives from Morrison Foerster, the Bank Policy Institute, the Financial Data and Technology Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified in support of modernizing the GLBA. They stated that revisions to the GLBA should (1) remain technology neutral, (2) have strong preemption against state laws to avoid a state law patchwork and additional burdens on smaller companies, (3) avoid a private right of action, and (4) not infringe on other data retention and business requirements such as cybersecurity and fraud detection. The Bank Policy Institute and the U.S. Chamber also promoted data minimization requirements for additional consumer protections. UnidosUS (representing consumers) opposed the revisions, stating that by adopting an opt-out approach to data collection, including a consent exception, and failing to include a private right of action, they fail to protect consumers.

Susan Ochs (NJ) presided over her first meeting as Chair of the Financial Stability Task Force, which held a joint call on March 16, 2026, with the Macroprudential Working Group (MWG) in lieu of meeting at the NAIC’s Spring National Meeting. Ochs kicked off the meeting by highlighting her experience working on financial stability issues at the Treasury Department in the wake of the global financial crisis. Key takeaways from the rest of the meeting include:

Funding Agreement/FABN Referrals: The MWG sent a referral to the Receivership and Insolvency Task Force (RITF) on the treatment of funding agreements and funding agreement–backed notes (FABNs) (and other similar structures) in an insolvency. Bob Kasinow (NY) introduced the referral, claiming that FABNs rank pari passu—on equal footing and sharing proportionally—with an insurer’s other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations in an insolvency. He suggested that there are a few states where policyholders, including holders of funding agreements, may not have priority over general creditors in an insurer insolvency. Kasinow also noted that the MWG is unsure of how foreign bondholders of Foreign Currency Denominated FABNs would be treated in an insolvency.

The referral specifically requests a report outlining the results of the RITF’s review, recommendations, and conclusions. Additionally, the working group previously sent referrals to the Statutory Accounting Principles and Blanks Working Groups to implement enhanced disclosures for FABNs and similar structures (see SAPWG Item 2026-01 and Blanks Item 2026-04BWG). NAIC staff also briefly walked through examples of different funding agreement–backed structures, including funding agreement–backed loans and municipal pre-pay/energy bonds. The NAIC intends to host an educational series to provide regulators with a better understanding of these structures given their complexity.

Other MWG Updates:

• LST Framework: The 2025 Liquidity Stress Test (LST) framework and lead state guidance was posted to the Financial Stability Task Force website on March 12. An initiative to review insurer liability assumptions will begin in the third quarter.
  
• Macroprudential Risk Dashboard: The MWG updated key risk indicators for the Macroprudential Risk Dashboard for year-end 2024; regulators will update the risk assessment levels to reflect the underlying data in mid-April. In addition, staff will begin updating the dashboard for 2025 year-end data with approval targeted for June. The working group plans to issue a public macroprudential summary report around the same time.
  
• 13 Regulatory Considerations: The working group continues to monitor cross-border reinsurance as part of its 13 Considerations work. Once 2025 year-end data is available, the MWG will analyze exposures by reinsurance type, jurisdiction, product types ceded, and affiliated transactions.

Updates on AG 53 & AG 55: Fred Andersen (MN) provided an update on the Valuation Analysis Working Group’s (VAWG) ongoing work regarding Actuarial Guidelines (AGs) 53 and 55.

• Andersen reported that AG 53 reviews have helped identify cases where insurers are overly reliant on optimistic assumptions from complex assets, touting success in ratcheting down some company assumptions and improved dialogue and coordination between VAWG and investment experts. VAWG will coordinate with the newly formed Investment Analysis Working Group moving forward to identify and assess trends and emerging risks. VAWG is now analyzing unmodeled risks and other drivers of potential asset underperformance, with results to be shared at future meetings.
  
• The first AG 55 reports are due April 1, and VAWG will prioritize analyzing the submissions in the second quarter. Initial findings will be presented at the Summer National Meeting.

International Activity: An update on activity at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) included the launch of the 2026 Global Monitoring Exercise (GME) this month. The Macroprudential Monitoring Working Group will discuss the findings in May. The Macroprudential Supervision Working Group is drafting its 2026–2027 work plan, which includes follow-up work to the Issues Paper on structural shifts in the life insurance sector, including enhanced monitoring and data collection, in-depth systemic risk analysis, and development of supervisory guidance.

In other NAIC news:

Annuity Buyer’s Guide Working Group: The Annuity Buyer’s Guide Working Group exposed a draft revised Buyer’s Guide to Deferred Annuities for comment until April 16. The working group is seeking comments on the guide’s clarity, tone, organization, and handling of key consumer risks and decisions. The working group also circulated a checklist of annuity questions from Florida’s annuity guide and the sample Appendix A from the Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation as examples of interactive materials that could be incorporated into the Buyer’s Guide. The working group has requested feedback on whether additional, similar tools could improve consumer understanding and usability. The first call of the working group is scheduled for April 20 to discuss the draft and comments received.

Annuity Suitability Working Group: The Annuity Suitability Working Group extended the comment deadline on its draft outline on best practices for suitability compliance from April 13 to May 11.

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) recently launched a stakeholder survey on insurers’ use of third parties as part of its work on operational resilience. Survey responses will inform a member-only report on third-party risk that considers the use of third parties in the insurance sector and emerging trends. Responses are requested by April 10.

Oklahoma is set to become the first state to enact a comprehensive privacy law in 2026 and the 21st state overall. After nearly a decade of legislative work, the Oklahoma legislature has passed SB 546, a broad consumer privacy bill, which is now pending Governor Stitt’s signature. The final version of the bill includes exemptions for (1) financial institutions and data covered by Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), and (2) covered entities and business associates subject to HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification requirements.