<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Congress on Referently.com</title>
    <link>https://referently.com/tags/congress/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Congress on Referently.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://referently.com/tags/congress/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Expanding Spousal Consent for 401(k)s: The Policy Trade-offs Congress Is Weighing</title>
      <link>https://referently.com/expanding-spousal-consent-for-401ks-the-policy-trade-offs-congress-is-weighing/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://referently.com/expanding-spousal-consent-for-401ks-the-policy-trade-offs-congress-is-weighing/</guid>
      <description>Extending spousal consent requirements to all defined contribution plans sounds straightforward on paper. If a spouse can veto a beneficiary change in most 401(k) plans, why can&amp;rsquo;t they veto a $50,000 withdrawal? The answer, according to a March 2026 GAO report, is a web of administrative, legal, and philosophical trade-offs that make the issue considerably more complex than it first appears.
The Case for Expanding Requirements The current system is, as the GAO frames it, a historical accident.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
