Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recent action by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. It declares that Congress disapproves the agency rule that withdrew the prior Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices, and says that the withdrawal shall have no force or effect. If both chambers pass the joint resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the agency action is nullified and the agency is generally barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation.
The rule withdrawing the 'Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices' published at 90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval is handled by a joint resolution and the Senate has expedited procedures that prevent filibusters so passage there requires a simple majority. If both houses approve the joint resolution and the President signs it (or a veto is overridden), the disapproved agency action has no effect.
This joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act would disapprove the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule that withdrew the Bureau’s 2023 "Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices." If enacted, the disapproval would nullify the CFPB’s 2025 withdrawal (90 Fed.
Reg. 20084), leaving the 2023 Statement of Policy (88 Fed.
Reg. 21883) in effect.
Narrow administrative aim increases chance in one chamber, but regulatory controversy and Senate procedure substantially reduce overall prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, formal Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the targeted agency rule and invokes the statutory mechanism to nullify it. Its brevity is consistent with the genre of CRA joint resolutions but leaves out explanatory, fiscal, and oversight details.
Left emphasizes consumer protection benefits; right emphasizes regulatory overreach
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes consumer protection benefits; right emphasizes regulatory overreach
Likely strongly supportive because it preserves an agency statement clarifying enforcement against abusive practices.
Supporters would view this as protecting vulnerable consumers and enabling stronger CFPB oversight.
They see the Statement of Policy as an important tool to deter predatory conduct.
Cautious support: the resolution restores a consumer-protection statement but raises questions about legal clarity and regulatory predictability.
A centrist would want assurances that the Statement will be applied transparently and not used as an open-ended enforcement weapon.
Likely opposed: views the resolution as forcing retention of an agency policy that expands CFPB enforcement discretion.
Concerns focus on regulatory overreach, vague standards, and burdens on banks and lenders.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow administrative aim increases chance in one chamber, but regulatory controversy and Senate procedure substantially reduce overall prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes consumer protection benefits; right emphasizes regulatory overreach
Narrow administrative aim increases chance in one chamber, but regulatory controversy and Senate procedure substantially reduce overall pro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, formal Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the targeted agency rule and invokes the statutory mechanism to nullify it. Its brev…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.