Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
This bill amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to set the amount the CFPB Director may request to fund the Bureau at $0. It strikes two related paragraphs and reorders others in 12 U.S.C. 5497(a).
Progressives stress consumer protection losses and enforcement gaps
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly drafted substantive amendment that precisely changes statutory language to limit the CFPB Director’s funding request to $0.
This bill amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to set the amount the CFPB Director may request to fund the Bureau at $0.
It strikes two related paragraphs and reorders others in 12 U.S.C. 5497(a).
In practice, the bill would remove the Bureau’s existing statutory authority to request funding under that provision.
Short text but highly disruptive; partisan aim and lack of compromise make enactment unlikely under typical legislative patterns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly drafted substantive amendment that precisely changes statutory language to limit the CFPB Director’s funding request to $0. The text is legally specific about which statutory provisions are altered but omits explanatory findings, fiscal acknowledgment, transitional mechanics, exception handling, and any oversight or accountability provisions.
Progressives stress consumer protection losses and enforcement gaps
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress consumer protection losses and enforcement gaps
This persona would view the bill as a direct attempt to disable the CFPB and remove federal consumer financial protections.
They would see it as harmful to borrowers, low-income consumers, and oversight of financial firms.
They would expect legal challenges and urgent calls to restore enforcement and funding.
A centrist would be cautious and worried about abrupt loss of capacity at a regulatory agency.
They may acknowledge concerns about the CFPB’s funding structure and accountability, but oppose a sudden defunding without a transition plan.
They would prefer negotiated reforms, oversight changes, and an orderly funding replacement via appropriations.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as a means to rein in an agency they consider unaccountable and beyond appropriations.
They would see limiting CFPB funding to $0 as restoring congressional control and reducing regulatory burden.
Many would support this as leverage for broader CFPB reform or elimination.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Short text but highly disruptive; partisan aim and lack of compromise make enactment unlikely under typical legislative patterns.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress consumer protection losses and enforcement gaps
Short text but highly disruptive; partisan aim and lack of compromise make enactment unlikely under typical legislative patterns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly drafted substantive amendment that precisely changes statutory language to limit the CFPB Director’s funding request to $0. The text is legally specific…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.