H.J. Res. 180 (119th)Bill Overview

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule…

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
May 11, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

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.

Passage35/100

Narrow administrative aim increases chance in one chamber, but regulatory controversy and Senate procedure substantially reduce overall prospects.

CredibilityAligned

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.

Contention70/100

Left emphasizes consumer protection benefits; right emphasizes regulatory overreach

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Consumers · Federal agenciesConsumers · Federal agencies
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersPreserves CFPB guidance that clarifies what constitutes 'abusive' acts or practices for regulated entities.
  • ConsumersSupports stronger consumer protections and deterrence against predatory financial conduct.
  • Federal agenciesMaintains a federal enforcement tool potentially reducing consumer financial losses and remediation costs.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersCreates or preserves additional compliance costs for banks, fintechs, and other financial firms.
  • ConsumersCould constrain some legitimate financial product features, potentially reducing consumer credit availability.
  • Federal agenciesLimits agency flexibility by preventing CFPB from withdrawing guidance through normal administrative processes.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Left emphasizes consumer protection benefits; right emphasizes regulatory overreach
Progressive95%

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.

Leans supportive
Centrist60%

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.

Split reaction
Conservative20%

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.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Narrow administrative aim increases chance in one chamber, but regulatory controversy and Senate procedure substantially reduce overall prospects.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Level of majority support in each chamber
  • Intensity and direction of industry and consumer group lobbying
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

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…

Unlocked analysis

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.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis