Financial regulation in the US is so yesterday’s news. Based on recent actions and/or comments from the Trump administration and the regulatory agencies assigned to measure and monitor a multitude of factors that surround and secure the
country’s financial system, oversight of banks, savings institutions and credit unions (FIs) – and even emerging sectors and those previously deemed ‘risky’ - isn’t a top federal priority anymore.
The Trump administration’s postings and pronouncements in the first half-year of its tenure don’t only involve reducing ‘red tape’ for existing financial providers and products under the purview of these agencies and others. They’re also aimed at opening
up the industry to new or potential products, services and entrants like crypto firms, buy now pay later (BNPL) companies, money service businesses, and other banking and fintech upstarts.
New regulations cancelled, pending ones pulled, some fingers pointing to potential reasons why
The marketplace in financial services is in constant flux, which is one of the reasons - along with the fact that the industry deals every second with payments, deposits, and transfers of hard-earned cash and earnings which consumers and businesses trust
to be safely managed - that it has been closely regulated by the federal government for at least 100 years. As agency oversight of all kinds continues to be deemphasised by the Trump regime, keep watching as other fringe financial products and services emerge
over the coming months, and advocacy for consumer protection either wanes or increases as result.
Then there are the vexing ‘separation of powers’ and ethical issues involved. Some industry enthusiasts and others have pointed out that the Trump family’s
ownership and development of various cryptocurrency and other assets raises concerns about
potential conflicts of interest related to personal profit and the president’s influence on industry regulations. The Supreme Court may end up confronting some of these issues, though it’s anyone’s guess exactly when or how this would occur.
Old and new financial services rules dropped, loosened under new Trump agency heads
According to the Brookings Institution’s Center on Regulation and Markets
tracker, some of the substantial changes that have been made by Trump administration agencies to overturn previously Biden-passed or sponsored initiatives directly or tangentially involving financial services include 'nullifying' the previous cabinet’s
rules or executive orders limiting overdrafts for large financial institutions, protecting Americans from harmful data broker practices, governing the introduction and use of digital assets, setting the future of cryptocurrency regulation, and ensuring the
development of secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence tools.
Dropping enforcement actions, already on the books from the previous administration, is just a start. Some would argue there are other decisions not mentioned above but listed on the Brookings tracker - like Trump’s executive order withdrawing the US from
the Paris climate change agreement – that have major impacts on financial services as well. This is because financial institutions in general and especially some of the world’s largest firms headquartered in this country have been identified as linchpins –
due to their influence on the policies of multinational to smaller companies using their lending and other banking services - to achieving net zero carbon emissions or other environmentally related goals in the US, but across the globe.
Bank and fintechs wrestling with upheaval of ‘catch-and-release' 'America First' tariff edicts
The current administration’s “America First” trade policy and increased or newly instituted tariffs on products made by countries from A to Z clearly have a substantial impact on financial institutions and fintechs as well. They have quickly changed the
nature and likely the total number of international transactions handled by banking firms.
The constant revisions and restatements of tariff policies and rules and frequent delays or suspensions of regulatory implementation for such import taxes against supply chain partners or suppliers in various nations around the globe have led to significant
uncertainty. This lack of clarity impacts not just commercial enterprises and the businesses and consumers who are their customers, but established and emerging banking providers for all of them as well.
Open banking regulation – as defined under Biden CFPB, is dead – yet data sharing continues
One of several examples of the new administration’s direction on financial regulation emerged late in May when
open banking reform - via a much-discussed and debated amendment to original post-2008-10 financial crisis
Dodd-Frank legislation - was officially deemed ‘dead’ – at least for now. The partisan Dodd-Frank Act was passed by Congress in 2010 under the Obama administration to help fix some of the damage wrought by what
Investopedia termed “perhaps the worst economic catastrophe to befall the country (and the world) since the Wall Street crash in 1929,” and widespread losses largely caused, they said, “by greed-driven behavior and lax oversight of financial institutions.”
Later, bipartisan legislation was signed in 2018 to reduce the law’s
regulatory burdens on smaller financial institutions.
The ‘1033 rule,’
finalised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in October 2024 after being formally proposed a year prior, was designed to further update Dodd-Frank to modernise industry interoperability and data sharing through use of
standard interfaces (APIs.) This would eliminate the 25-year-old practice of ‘screen-scraping’ (often at the request of customers) of one financial services company’s online data records to fill another’s held
in that same client’s name. Rule 1033 provided clear guidelines for greater consumer rights in data control and protection, data handling, and third-party sharing requirements for Fis and fintechs around financial services and inclusion.
Though many financial institutions supported 1033’s aims in principle, some had strong
concerns about the specific technical challenges and potential liability issues that it raised. These were primarily associated with its requirements for managing customer data ownership and responsibilities for data-sharing and permissions among multiple
providers. The rule (and with it, most plans to formally progress open banking initiatives) has now been
sent back to the drawing board, with its declaration as ‘unlawful’ by federal regulators as of the end of May.
About face on many regulatory fronts thrills some, concerns others in financial services arena
In a business world that usually champions laissez faire governmental policies, financial services deregulation or rule repeals as described have been hailed by some as a ‘good thing’ for business. Some operators, especially those outside of the mainstream
FI world, might go even further to say ‘no’ regulation at all is best. But the Trump team’s recent moves to kill or reduce many landmark regulations and cut thousands of agency staff responsible for policy development and ongoing monitoring of financial services
providers and rules has been more than a wake-up call for the industry. Advocate groups are worried about reduced protection and oversight for consumer and business accounts and community lending, as well as how federal regulatory retreat might derail efforts
to promote financial inclusion of the unbanked and underbanked across society.
Indeed, the rapid changes made to financial services regulations and policies have left some
in-country and outside
observers and even leaders of some individual entities involved concerned. That’s because regulations can stabilise and standardise industry rules and expectations (help “level the playing field”) while their detractors might claim they impose undue, unfair
limitations on the marketplace. Yet, given recent administration proposals to relax bank capital requirements and privatise government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage arena, more disruption surely looms in the near future
for the industry in the coming year.
Trump agencies steamroll regulations from A to Z, even as court challenges continue
That discord and uncertainty should no longer surprise anyone. Over the past (nearly) six months, the Trump administration and the president’s new agency head appointees at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC), Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), and of course the much-maligned Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – which as it’s been under a ‘stop work’ order for weeks pending lawsuits now in process, may or may not still exist when you read this
- have taken an increasingly hands-off approach to the industry they oversee.
Additionally, the Biden era rule that would have added new weight to the nearly 50-year-old
Community Reinvestment Act as it “evaluated bank performance on a nationwide basis” and “took into account deposit-taking services,” according to a report from the Goodwin Law firm,
will now be withdrawn by order of the new management of federal agencies that had previously supported it. Apparently, in this case at least, Goodwin opines, most financial institutions would be in favor, as “reversion back to the old rules would likely be
seen by the industry as a lowering of the regulatory burden.”
A bigger and potentially more controversial change under Trump, according to the firm’s Bill Stern, comes from new guidance and the proposed removal by the FDIC and OCC of ‘reputational risk’ as a factor during bank and savings association examinations.
This would be a significant departure from policies known well to current financial institutions and compliance departments. In Stern’s view, this shift in policy is “likely to provide some additional flexibility for banks to provide services to companies
that present heightened risk – in particular anti-money laundering risk” associated with money services and crypto firms, previously off-limits as customers to most traditional banks (and their regulators.)
Mergers and acquisitions get green light despite financial inclusion and consumer cost concerns
Finally, regarding government regulators’ and Congress’s intentions to oppose or contest ‘creative’ new mergers or acquisitions in the financial services arena, they appear dead in the water as well. The
acquisition of Discover by Capital One to create a huge new player (eighth largest bank by assets) and processing power in the cards and payments arena had been challenged by the Biden administration’s policymakers for increasing industry concentration
among payments providers. The Trump administration
dropped its opposition in early April and the deal was approved around ten days later by the Federal Reserve and OCC. Now, as announced by Capital One in May, it is
complete.
This may be the start of further industry consolidation amid other similar financial services merger approvals. Based on two major
rescissions of FDIC and OCC rules on mergers in late May, it looks like the federal agencies’ desires to question or contest banking combinations and acquisitions – shaped for more than three decades or more under several
prior administrations - have been largely squelched. The message being transmitted now from previously activist financial regulatory bodies to many of their covered entities has shifted, in less than six months, from “Let’s take a closer look at that, because...”
to something akin to “Never mind what we said last year, or during the prior administration - just go for it!”