PolicyBrief
H.R. 4478
119th CongressMay 12th 2026
Tailored Regulatory Updates for Supervisory Testing Act of 2025
HOUSE PASSED

This bill raises the asset threshold for well-managed financial institutions to qualify for extended supervisory examination cycles from \$3 billion to \$6 billion.

Tim Moore
R

Tim Moore

Representative

NC-14

LEGISLATION

TRUST Act of 2025: Bank Examination Thresholds Doubled to $6 Billion for 'Well-Managed' Institutions

Alright, let's talk about the 'Tailored Regulatory Updates for Supervisory Testing Act of 2025'—or the TRUST Act, for short. This bill is all about how often banks get checked out by the feds. Basically, it's raising the bar for what counts as a 'well-managed' institution when it comes to regulatory scrutiny. If a bank meets certain criteria and has assets up to $6 billion, it can now qualify for an extended examination cycle, meaning less frequent check-ups. Before this, that sweet spot for less oversight cut off at $3 billion.

Less Red Tape for Bigger Banks

So, what's the big deal? Currently, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, banks deemed 'well-managed' get a bit of a break, only needing examinations every 18 months instead of more often. The TRUST Act (SEC. 2) is doubling the asset threshold for this perk, moving it from $3 billion to $6 billion. This means a whole new crop of banks, those sitting between the old $3 billion cap and the new $6 billion mark, will now qualify for these longer examination cycles and adjusted reporting requirements.

Who Benefits from This Shift?

Think about a regional bank that's been growing steadily, maybe hitting that $4 or $5 billion mark in total assets. Under the old rules, they'd be facing more frequent examinations, which takes time, money, and staff away from their day-to-day operations. With this change, if they're considered 'well-managed,' they now get the same regulatory breathing room as their slightly smaller counterparts. The idea is to reduce the regulatory burden on these larger, but still responsibly run, institutions. It's like saying, 'Hey, you've proven you can handle your business, so we'll check in a little less often.' This frees up resources not just for the banks, but potentially for regulators to focus their efforts on institutions that might pose a higher risk or need closer supervision.