As federal agencies pull back on consumer protection regulations under the Trump administration, California is stepping up to fill the void. This shift was forecasted in January, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections” (discussed here), which provided a roadmap for states looking to bolster their consumer protection laws after the anticipated rollback with the new administration.
On March 28, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (together, the federal banking agencies) announced their intent to rescind the 2023 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) final rule and reinstate the previous CRA framework. This decision comes in light of pending litigation in the Fifth Circuit by various banking trade associations contesting the rules by alleging regulatory overreach. The agencies stated they will continue to work together to promote a consistent regulatory approach to implementation of the CRA.
On March 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reinstate its employees and resume its operations. This decision comes after the CFPB allegedly attempted to shut down its activities, leading to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filing a lawsuit questioning the legality of the shutdown. The court held that the CFPB’s actions to halt its operations and terminate its employees were not consistent with its statutory obligations under Title X of Dodd-Frank. As a result, the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the CFPB to reverse its shutdown efforts, reinstate its workforce, and continue performing its statutory duties. On March 29, the Bureau filed its notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction.
In a surprising turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. (Townstone) have jointly moved to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender alleging redlining practices. This motion, filed on March 26, 2025, comes after significant allegations by the CFPB regarding the Bureau’s own handling of the case, which began in 2020 under the first Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration.
In a significant policy shift under the Trump administration, the new Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte issued an order on March 25, 2025 terminating special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) supported by the government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together, the GSEs). This directive, effective immediately, will significantly impact banks with mortgage-based SPCPs.
This article was republished in insideARM on February 20, 2025.
As discussed here, on February 9, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which includes members employed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenges the actions of Acting Director Russell Vought, arguing that his efforts to “shut down” the CFPB are unconstitutional and violate the Congressional mandate outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act. Since then, President Trump has nominated Jonathan McKernan to be the new Director of the CFPB (discussed here). If confirmed by the Senate, McKernan will replace Acting Director Vought, who also serves as the head of the Office of Management and Budget.
On February 11, President Donald Trump nominated Jonathan McKernan to be the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). If confirmed by the Senate, McKernan will replace Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought, who also serves as the head of the Office of Management and Budget. McKernan was reportedly on the Trump administration’s short list of potential candidates to lead the CFPB and is considered an ally of the financial services industry.
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the tolling of compliance deadlines for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) Small Business Lending Data Collection final rule under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the 1071 Rule). As we previously reported here, the CFPB had asked the appeals court for a pause last Monday to allow the new administration time to consider its position on the 1071 Rule. The CFPB also conveyed that it did not object to the plaintiff trade associations’ earlier motion to toll compliance deadlines, a change-of-position that led to Friday’s order.
In a dramatic series of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has undergone leadership changes, signaling a significant shift in its regulatory approach. These changes began with the firing of Director Rohit Chopra by President Donald Trump and have continued with the resignation of General Counsel Seth Frotman and the appointment of Russell Vought as Acting Director.
In this third episode of the Year in Review series of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Lori Sommerfield, a partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group, to discuss significant fair lending and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) developments during 2024 and what to expect in 2025. They delve into aggressive redlining enforcement actions by federal regulators under the “Combatting Redlining Initiative” during the Biden administration, federal and state regulators’ increasing scrutiny of the use of artificial intelligence in consumer lending and potential discrimination claims, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s war on “junk fees,” and the current status of the Section 1071 final rule. They also offer predictions concerning anticipated changes in the federal agencies’ approach to fair lending and UDAAP enforcement under the Trump administration. Tune in for a comprehensive overview and expert insights into these pivotal areas of law, which pose significant regulatory, legal, and reputational risk.