New Bill Puts 120-Day Congressional Hold on Major $10 Billion Banking Rules Based on Global Standards

The “Ensuring US Authority over US Banking Regulations Act” is essentially a new set of handcuffs for federal financial regulators—think the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the OCC. Its main purpose is to slow down and complicate the process whenever these agencies try to implement big new financial rules that happen to align with recommendations from non-governmental international groups, like the Basel Committee.

The $10 Billion Speed Bump for Regulators

Section 2 of the bill creates a major procedural hurdle. If a financial regulatory agency wants to propose a “major covered rule”—meaning a rule projected to hit the U.S. economy for $10 billion or more over ten years—and that rule is intended to match or align with an international recommendation, they can’t just move forward. They first have to give Congress a 120-day notice and a massive amount of homework. This includes detailed economic analyses projecting the rule’s impact on everything from credit availability and GDP to employment levels. Essentially, this gives Congress four months to scrutinize, pressure, or effectively stall any major financial protection rule that follows global best practices. For regular folks, this matters because delays in implementing common-sense safeguards—like rules ensuring banks have enough capital—can increase systemic risk. If a regulator sees a global standard that would make the U.S. financial system safer, this bill makes it a much longer, rockier road to put it in place.

Climate Risk Talks Require a Pre-Game Report

Section 3 tackles climate-related financial risk, and it’s a big shift in how U.S. regulators can interact globally. The bill specifically targets federal banking regulators (like the Fed and FDIC) and their ability to talk about climate risk with key international bodies, such as the Financial Stability Board or the Network for Greening the Financial System. Under this bill, regulators are prohibited from meeting or talking about climate risk with these groups in a given year unless they first submit a detailed report to Congress covering the previous year’s interactions. This report must also include a detailed breakdown of where that international organization gets its funding, both governmental and non-governmental. This is a significant restriction. Imagine your company needs to coordinate with international partners on a new global supply chain risk, but you’re barred from even having a preliminary chat until you’ve filed a detailed, backward-looking report on last year’s meetings and your partner’s balance sheet. This provision effectively isolates U.S. regulators from real-time global discussions about a growing systemic risk, potentially leaving the U.S. financial system less prepared for climate-related economic shocks.

Who Benefits, Who Pays?

In short, this bill adds friction to the regulatory process. The immediate beneficiaries are likely the financial institutions that might want to delay or block new regulations that align with international standards. By forcing a 120-day congressional review period and requiring massive economic forecasts for any major rule linked to international recommendations, the bill creates multiple choke points. For consumers and the broader economy, the risk is that necessary financial safeguards—rules designed to prevent the next crisis—get bogged down in political processes or are simply delayed until they are no longer effective. The restrictions on climate risk discussions also mean that U.S. regulators are less able to proactively manage emerging global risks, which could eventually translate into higher costs or instability for everyone from small business lenders to mortgage holders.