Since its creation in 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has come to symbolize much that is wrong in Washington. The Bureau is one of the most undemocratic institutions in our government. It was designed to evade public scrutiny and congressional oversight while imposing red tape and job-killing regulations without regard for the costs to those it claims to protect.
Thankfully, the CFPB's days of no accountability to the taxpayers appear to be on their last legs.
President Donald Trump is going after the agency hard, and his staff has already ordered the Bureau to stop much of its work. Now, the Senate is following suit by dismantling the agency brick by brick.
This week, the US Senate voted to repeal the most recent set of regulations that the CFPB attempted to enact during the final days of the Biden administration. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson is expected to follow suit swiftly.
The controversy centers on a boring topic — overdraft services — that the Biden administration attempted to make sexy for its big-government purposes.
Nearly 30 million Americans are "credit invisible." Overdraft services enable people to manage unforeseen expenses for a minimal fee. Not surprisingly, consumers love having the option and protection.
However, the Biden Nanny State did not like this. On the way out the door, its CFPB enacted a rule capping late fees to $5, a move that many see as a parting shot at the financial industry.
This move represents government overreach at its finest — a classic example of bureaucratic paternalism overriding consumer choice. It's crucial that we, as consumers, have the power to make our own financial decisions.
That is why the Senate, led by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), voted 52-48 to disapprove the CFPB's regulation under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Sen. Scott noted, "The Biden Administration's CFPB routinely targeted legitimate payment incentives and practices in pursuit of political headlines over sound policies," this case was no exception.
Sen. Scott also said that limiting overdraft fees "will push Americans to riskier financial products," and he is correct. Financial institutions have repeatedly warned that enacting the rule would force them to scale back or even eliminate overdraft programs. The well-to-do won't be impacted, but the poor and working class will be. Without access to credit, they will be forced to turn to payday lenders or unregulated alternatives, which are much more costly. This is a situation that we, as a society, cannot afford to ignore.
The ball is now in the House's court. Under the CRA (continuing resolution authority), the House has minimal time to act.
Thankfully, House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AK) is on the case. He also drafted a resolution of disapproval that should quickly reach the House Floor.
If the House follows through, it will mark a decisive step toward reining in an agency that has long operated without meaningful checks, potentially leading to increased financial options and reduced costs for consumers.
This CFPB rule doesn't resemble anything close to consumer protection. It only limits choice, reduces credit access, and drives lower-income consumers to riskier forms of credit. That's not progress—that's paternalism masquerading as policy.
Protecting consumers doesn't mean denying them the financial options they need to survive—it means ensuring those options remain accessible, transparent, and fair.
Kudos to congressional Republicans for helping to move this critical Trump agenda item forward. They fight to restore practical financial freedom to millions, proving that a motivated and competent government can prioritize people over bureaucracy. The potential loss of this financial freedom should concern us all.
