PolicyBrief
H.R. 814
119th CongressJan 28th 2025
Defund the CFPB Act
IN COMMITTEE

The "Defund the CFPB Act" amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to limit the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's funding to $0.

Keith Self
R

Keith Self

Representative

TX-3

LEGISLATION

New "Defund the CFPB Act" Proposes to Zero Out Consumer Watchdog's Budget

The "Defund the CFPB Act" is about as blunt as it gets: it aims to completely eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Introduced as a direct amendment to the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, this bill sets the CFPB's funding cap at $0, effectively shutting down the agency responsible for protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. (SEC. 2)

Cash Flow Cut-Off

This bill's main move is to amend Section 1017(a) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, changing the funding rules so the CFPB can't request any money. Ever. This means the agency that handles everything from credit card complaints to mortgage issues would be financially strangled, unable to operate.(SEC. 2)

Real-World Rollback

If this bill passes, the CFPB's current operations would grind to a halt. Think about it: no budget means no staff to investigate fraud, no enforcement of existing consumer protection laws, and no updates to regulations that keep financial companies in check. For example, if a bank starts slapping you with hidden fees or a lender uses predatory tactics, the CFPB—currently your go-to for recourse—would be powerless. This could impact everyone from small business owners dealing with merchant services to individuals managing student loans or mortgages.

The Oversight Void

Beyond the immediate shutdown, the "Defund the CFPB Act" raises serious questions about the future of consumer protection. The CFPB was created in response to the 2008 financial crisis to prevent the kind of abuses that led to widespread economic hardship. Eliminating its funding doesn’t just stop the agency; it potentially opens the door for those same practices to return. While proponents might argue this reduces regulatory burdens on financial institutions, the practical effect could be a significant weakening of safeguards for everyday consumers.