Enhanced Alerts for Missing Loved Ones with Disabilities Act of 2026
HB9118, titled the Enhanced Alerts for Missing Loved Ones with Disabilities Act of 2026, would amend Kristen’s Act to expand the information included in Ashanti Alert communications when an adult goes missing. Specifically, it requires alerts to note whether the missing person has a developmental disability, Alzheimer’s disease, or dementia, and it broadens the existing description of qualifying conditions from a general mental or physical disability to include these diagnoses explicitly.
The bill also directs federal alert programs to support training and educational materials for responding to missing persons with developmental disabilities. For adults, it adds training related to effectively responding to a reported missing adult with a developmental disability under Kristen’s Act. For children, it amends the PROTECT Act to require training and educational programs for states, territories, and tribal governments on responding to missing children with developmental disabilities.
If enacted, the bill would amend two federal missing-person alert statutes: Kristen’s Act, which governs the Ashanti Alert communications network for missing adults, and the PROTECT Act, which addresses missing children. The practical effect would be to require more specific disability-related information in alerts and to expand federal training guidance for law enforcement and alerting authorities. The bill would affect federal agencies, state and local responders, tribal governments, and alert coordinators involved in missing-person cases, especially where developmental disabilities, Alzheimer’s disease, or dementia are involved.
The available context suggests a generally supportive and noncontroversial bill focused on public safety and improving response to vulnerable missing persons. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition, and the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The framing of the measure emphasizes assistance for families and better search-and-response practices rather than regulatory burden, which typically draws bipartisan interest.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, if any arise, would likely concern how much medical or disability information should be included in alerts, privacy considerations for missing individuals, and the administrative burden of new training requirements on states, territories, tribal governments, and alerting authorities. However, the record provided does not show any expressed opposition or amendment disputes.