HR-1603-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Byron Donalds (R-FL)
What it does
The bill would repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 in full, which would eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). It would also restore or revive the earlier laws that the 2010 Act amended or repealed, as if the Act had never been enacted. The bill text does not say which agencies would take over the bureau's functions, what happens to its existing rules, or how its staff and funds would be handled, and other limits may apply.
Who benefits
Banks, credit card issuers, payday and installment lenders, debt collectors, and nonbank fintech firms that currently face CFPB supervision, rules, and enforcement, and that could see lower compliance costs. Smaller institutions that say CFPB rules add paperwork burdens may also gain. People who favor oversight by prudential regulators and state authorities, rather than a single federal consumer bureau, would see their preferred structure restored.
Who is hurt
Consumers who use mortgages, credit cards, student loans, auto loans, payday loans, and debt collection services, and who could lose a federal agency that handles complaints and enforces consumer financial rules. Service members, older adults, and lower-income borrowers, whom the bureau has targeted for protection, could face less federal oversight. Employees of the bureau would lose their positions. Firms that value uniform national rules could face a patchwork if states fill the gap differently. Regulators whose old powers are revived could face uncertainty during the transition.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the CFPB is an unaccountable agency, funded outside the annual appropriations process through the Federal Reserve and led by a single director, which weakens congressional control. They contend its rules raise compliance costs, especially for small lenders and community banks, and that existing prudential regulators, the FTC, and state attorneys general can protect consumers without a separate bureau.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crisis because earlier regulators split consumer protection among many agencies and often put it behind bank safety goals. They contend the bureau has returned billions of dollars to consumers through enforcement and that repeal would revive that fragmented system, leaving consumers with weaker federal oversight and no single complaint channel.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad power under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8) and the Necessary and Proper Clause to create or abolish federal agencies, and repeal raises few constitutional questions on its face. The CFPB's funding and single-director structure were tested in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), which struck the director's for-cause removal protection, and CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (2024), which upheld its Federal Reserve funding. Revival of old statutes could raise ordinary questions about which agencies hold the restored powers.
Checks and balances
Congress would exercise its power to abolish an agency it created, reducing executive-branch regulatory and enforcement authority. Checks include the ordinary legislative process, including Senate filibuster rules and presidential veto, and Congress could later recreate similar authority.