Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The bill caps the total aggregate assets of all Federal Reserve Banks at no more than 10% of U.S. GDP, effective ten years after enactment. It requires annual reports on interest paid to foreign‑owned banks, modifies certain reserve‑requirement language, eliminates the Overnight Reserve Repurchase Facility within one year and bans similar facilities, and mandates annual Fed reports describing plans and timelines to comply.
Progressives emphasize risks to crisis liquidity and macro stability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill enacts clear, high-level substantive limits and reporting duties (a 10% of GDP asset cap with a 10-year phase-in; elimination of a named facility within 1 year; annual reporting obligations), but is unevenly constructed: it contains specific numeric and temporal directives yet omits key implementation mechanics, fiscal acknowledgement, definitions, exception rules, and enforcement provisions that would be reasonably expected for a statute effecting major changes to the central bank's legal authorities and operations.
The bill caps the total aggregate assets of all Federal Reserve Banks at no more than 10% of U.S. GDP, effective ten years after enactment.
It requires annual reports on interest paid to foreign‑owned banks, modifies certain reserve‑requirement language, eliminates the Overnight Reserve Repurchase Facility within one year and bans similar facilities, and mandates annual Fed reports describing plans and timelines to comply.
Substantial constraints on central bank operations, high controversy, and complex market/legal implications make enactment unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill enacts clear, high-level substantive limits and reporting duties (a 10% of GDP asset cap with a 10-year phase-in; elimination of a named facility within 1 year; annual reporting obligations), but is unevenly constructed: it contains specific numeric and temporal directives yet omits key implementation mechanics, fiscal acknowledgement, definitions, exception rules, and enforcement provisions that would be reasonably expected for a statute effecting major changes to the central bank's legal authorities and operations.
Progressives emphasize risks to crisis liquidity and macro stability.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize risks to crisis liquidity and macro stability.
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The persona would view a hard cap and banning of a key facility as risks to crisis response, employment, and inflation control.
Transparency on foreign payments is welcomed, but operational constraints worry them.
Mixed/conditional.
The persona appreciates greater oversight and transparency but worries a fixed 10% cap and facility ban are blunt instruments.
They would seek detailed implementation plans and flexibility for extraordinary events.
Generally supportive.
The persona would view the bill as a necessary reining in of Federal Reserve size and interventions, enhancing oversight and preventing future large‑scale Fed expansions or foreign subsidies.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantial constraints on central bank operations, high controversy, and complex market/legal implications make enactment unlikely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize risks to crisis liquidity and macro stability.
Substantial constraints on central bank operations, high controversy, and complex market/legal implications make enactment unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill enacts clear, high-level substantive limits and reporting duties (a 10% of GDP asset cap with a 10-year phase-in; elimination of a named facility within 1 year; annua…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.