Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 104.
The TAILOR Act requires federal financial regulators (OCC, Fed, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB) to consider institutions' risk profiles and business models and to tailor new and reviewed regulations to limit burdens on lower-risk institutions. Agencies must document such tailoring in every proposed and final rule, report annually to Congress, review final regulations tied to statutes from the prior 15-year window, and revise those regulations within three years.
Whether tailoring improves efficiency or weakens consumer protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused administrative/operational statute that prescribes changes to regulatory procedure, transparency, and review obligations across federal banking regulators, and includes reporting requirements that are characteristic of a secondary study/reporting element.
The TAILOR Act requires federal financial regulators (OCC, Fed, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB) to consider institutions' risk profiles and business models and to tailor new and reviewed regulations to limit burdens on lower-risk institutions.
Agencies must document such tailoring in every proposed and final rule, report annually to Congress, review final regulations tied to statutes from the prior 15-year window, and revise those regulations within three years.
The bill also mandates short-form call reports for banks eligible for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio and an 18-month report to Congress on modernization of bank supervision.
Administratively focused and not costly, so plausible in the House; Senate filibuster dynamics and oversight objections make enactment uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused administrative/operational statute that prescribes changes to regulatory procedure, transparency, and review obligations across federal banking regulators, and includes reporting requirements that are characteristic of a secondary study/reporting element.
Whether tailoring improves efficiency or weakens consumer protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether tailoring improves efficiency or weakens consumer protections
This persona would be skeptical, viewing the bill as primarily regulatory rollback favoring smaller banks and likely weakening consumer protections and financial stability safeguards.
They may accept risk-based tailoring in principle but worry documentation and reporting requirements won't prevent substantive weakening of important rules.
A centrist would view the bill as a pragmatic attempt to make regulation more risk-sensitive and reduce unnecessary burdens, but would be cautious about unintended consequences.
They would favor clearer criteria, evidence-based impact analysis, and protections to prevent erosion of systemic safeguards.
A mainstream conservative would likely support the bill as a needed correction to one-size-fits-all regulation, arguing it protects community banks and reduces unnecessary burdens.
They would welcome the mandated reviews of recent regulations and reduced reporting for eligible banks.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administratively focused and not costly, so plausible in the House; Senate filibuster dynamics and oversight objections make enactment uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether tailoring improves efficiency or weakens consumer protections
Administratively focused and not costly, so plausible in the House; Senate filibuster dynamics and oversight objections make enactment unce…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused administrative/operational statute that prescribes changes to regulatory procedure, transparency, and review obligations across federal banking r…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.