- CommunitiesReduces compliance and operational costs for lower‑risk and community banks by tailoring requirements.
- CommunitiesDecreases reporting burden for Community Bank Leverage Ratio‑eligible banks via short‑form call reports.
- Potential benefitEnables regulators to target resources and supervisory attention toward higher‑risk institutions and activities.
TAILOR Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The bill directs federal banking, credit union, and consumer financial regulators to consider institutions' risk profiles and business models when creating regulations and to tailor rules to limit undue burdens. Agencies must document that tailoring in each proposed and final rule, report annually to Congress, and review regulations issued in the prior seven years to apply these requirements and revise rules within three years.
Left fears consumer and stability rollbacks; right sees deregulatory relief.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a procedural/operational statute that establishes clear new duties and reporting obligations for financial regulatory agencies and requires a set of reviews and disclosures to tailor rules by institution type.
The bill directs federal banking, credit union, and consumer financial regulators to consider institutions' risk profiles and business models when creating regulations and to tailor rules to limit undue burdens.
Agencies must document that tailoring in each proposed and final rule, report annually to Congress, and review regulations issued in the prior seven years to apply these requirements and revise rules within three years.
The bill also requires short-form call reports for banks eligible for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio for two quarterly filings and tasks banking agencies with an 18-month report to Congress on modernizing supervision.
Technocratic, modestly deregulatory bill with limited fiscal impact increases chances, but interagency resistance and contested policy tradeoffs reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a procedural/operational statute that establishes clear new duties and reporting obligations for financial regulatory agencies and requires a set of reviews and disclosures to tailor rules by institution type. It specifies responsible entities and several timelines but leaves central implementation concepts and resource implications under-specified.
Left fears consumer and stability rollbacks; right sees deregulatory relief.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- ConsumersCould weaken consumer or safety protections if tailoring reduces substantive regulatory requirements.
- Potential burdenMay produce inconsistent regulatory standards across institution types, complicating compliance and oversight.
- Potential burdenCreates potential for regulatory arbitrage if firms alter business models to qualify for lighter regulation.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Left fears consumer and stability rollbacks; right sees deregulatory relief.
Skeptical overall: supports proportional regulation but concerned this could be used to weaken consumer protections and safety rules.
Will scrutinize agency discretion and the look-back process for possible rule rollbacks.
Wants strong transparency, clear criteria, and safeguards to protect financial stability and consumers.
Cautiously favorable: welcomes proportionality, administrative relief, and modernization, but concerned about implementation and tradeoffs.
Wants clear standards, consistent interagency application, and metrics to ensure safety and consumer protection remain intact.
Views annual reports as useful oversight if substantive.
Broadly supportive: views the bill as pro-growth deregulation that reduces burdens on community banks and small institutions.
Appreciates mandated tailoring, reduced reporting, and regulatory review of recent rules.
Sees documentation and timelines as reasonable checks on agency power.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, modestly deregulatory bill with limited fiscal impact increases chances, but interagency resistance and contested policy tradeoffs reduce odds.
- Whether agencies will resist added procedural constraints
- Level of industry lobbying support or opposition
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Left fears consumer and stability rollbacks; right sees deregulatory relief.
Technocratic, modestly deregulatory bill with limited fiscal impact increases chances, but interagency resistance and contested policy trad…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a procedural/operational statute that establishes clear new duties and reporting obligations for financial regulatory agencies and requires a set of reviews and di…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.