Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Elizabeth Warren's Hubris Allowed Trump To Defund the CFPB
Instead of isolating the CFPB from Congress' budget-making authority, Warren and former President Barack Obama made it easier for a president to effectively shut it down.

Since at least the days of the ancient Greeks, humans have known that one way to write a compelling story is by including a bit of hamartia—a tragic flaw.
Sometimes that is a physical shortcoming—Achilles had that famously vulnerable heel—but it is often more interesting if the flaw is a more innate thing tied to a character's understanding of themselves. Hubris, or excessive pride, is the famous one. After all, it wasn't really Achilles' unprotected heel that took him down, but his false belief that his mother had made him invulnerable.
You might say the exact same thing about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). It could be headed into a sort of coma later this year because of a fatal flaw embedded by its own parents: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former President Barack Obama.
Unlike every other department and agency within the federal government, the CFPB is not funded via congressional appropriations. Instead, its funding flows directly from the Federal Reserve. Each year, the White House submits a budget to the Federal Reserve, and the central bank hands over the necessary amount—$729.4 million last year, in case you were wondering.
For a long time after the CFPB was created in 2010, there were serious questions about the constitutionality of that structure. That finally got resolved last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its powers to hand off the purse strings. So, funding the CFPB via the Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional—it's just unorthodox and foolish.
Here's where the hubris enters the story. When Warren and Obama created the CFPB, they designed that unorthodox funding structure specifically to prevent a future Republican-led Congress from trying to defund the bureau. Remember, this was in the age when Republicans were running around the country telling voters they intended to repeal Obamacare too. By isolating the CFPB from Congress' budgetary powers, Warren was trying to make it invulnerable to attack.
Instead, she simply gave it a fatal flaw.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration submitted its CFPB funding request to the Federal Reserve. It asked for…$0.
"Pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, I have notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not 'reasonably necessary' to carry out its duties," wrote Russ Vought, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wrote on X on Saturday night. "The Bureau's current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment. This spigot, long contributing to CFPB's unaccountability, is now being turned off."
That appears to be the end of the CFPB, at least until a Democrat returns to the White House. Trump will need an act of Congress if he seriously wants to abolish the Department of Education, for example, and even minor spending cuts being made across the executive branch will eventually need congressional or legal consent to be permanent. But there should be no serious questions about whether the president can unilaterally defund the CFBP. Congress has no role to play in that fight.
Like Thetis dipping her infant son in the river Styx to grant him near-invulnerability—except for the heel she was holding—Warren thought she was making the CFPB an unstoppable force. Instead, she left its fate in the hands of President Donald Trump, rather than Congress.
The analogy breaks down somewhat because the CFPB is no epic hero. It has "reduced access to credit cards for lower-income consumers and jacked up bank fees and mortgage costs," as Reason contributor Veronique de Rugy summarized last year. "CFPB bureaucrats also love price controls and excessive regulations, and they despise financial arrangements that they view as unconventional."
In its absence, governmental functions that protect consumers from financial crimes will continue at the Department of Justice (which prosecutes fraud), the U.S. Treasury (which regulates financial institutions), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (which underwrites bank accounts), and various other state and federal entities. The CFPB's demise, which is probably only temporary anyway, is hardly worth worrying about and certainly not worth mourning.
Unless, of course, you are its mother. Warren joined CFPB staff (who had been told to work from home indefinitely) in a protest at the agency this week. "This is like a bank robber trying to fire the cops and turn off the alarms just before he strolls into the lobby," she said while there. "Congress built it, and no one other than Congress—not Donald Trump, not Elon Musk, no one can fire the financial cops."
If she could do it all over again, perhaps she'd take a different course.
There's a lesson here for Republicans too. Power is fleeting and the political dynamics are always shifting. The CFPB was born in an era when Democrats falsely believed their electoral majority (in presidential elections, at least) would only become more dominant in the years after Obama. They were very wrong about that. Republicans are now in a moment where they believe something similar, despite a minuscule congressional majority and a president who got votes from less than 24 percent of Americans.
And, as always, hubris comes before the fall.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"—Warren thought she was making the CFPB an unstoppable force. Instead, she left its fate in the hands of President Donald Trump, rather than Congress."
Hubris: I never saw it coming
For a brief and joyous moment, I hoped he'd axed the Corporation For Public Broadcasting , but it was not to be.
Day ain’t over yet.
A total of $50-60 million. Not nothing, but if they get to amounts this small anytime soon it will be just out of spite, since the financial benefit would be inconsequential. The CFPB, on the other hand, does incalculable damage to the economy and to consumers, driving up costs for all borrowers and cutting credit access for lower income citizens. NPR and PBS just piss people off. Honestly, if I were them, I'd just walk away from the money. It's a small part of their income, and they could get that much from Soros's car ashtrays and won't have to defend themselves anymore. They aren't answerable to the public anyway, are they?
Small amounts add up and the principle is important.
And since we're talking about deficit spending, so is the principal.
I am so, so enjoying the schadenfreude.
You'd hope the swamp creatures will learn a lesson: when you pass a law, assume the worst possible person you can imagine (*cough*Harris*cough*Trump*cough*) is responsible for carrying it out. It's just like defensive driving or defensive coding.
Well, she's a moron and the agency is an abomination, so good.
It shouldn’t exist in the first place. Fuck it, burn the damn thing to the ground.
Agreed. But that will require Congress to act.
They’re under growing public pressure to enact Trump’s agenda. Trump hit the ground running and his actions thus far have been popular overall. Despite bitching from the democrat media, democrat ‘activists’ and democrat government officials.
He is in his honeymoon phase and boy is he consummating the marriage!!
"It shouldn’t exist in the first place. Fuck it, burn the damn thing to the ground."
Along with quite a few other needless, expensive and wasteful bureaucracies.
The termination of over 30 bureaucracies is long overdue.
It might really happen this time. And if Trump rids us of even half of them, it will be unprecedented.
And if Trump rids us of even ONE of them, it will be unprecedented.
>Instead of isolating the CFPB from Congress' budget-making authority, Warren and former President Barack Obama made it easier for a president to effectively shut it down.
Are . . . are we serious here?
Is it supposed to be a good thing that agencies can be insulated from the President (through judges ruling that the executive branch has no authority over executive branch agencies) *and* Congress's (though alternative funding) authority?
There should be no way to legally insulate an agency from either, let alone both.
Yes, the Supreme Court as usual let government define itself to the detriment of the public. There's nothing that gets the government's men's backs up so much as anyone daring to question or limit government defining its own limits.
SCOTUS better figure its shit out. So far they’ve been more afraid of beltway democrats than the citizenry. That is a mistake, and it needs to change.
Barrett and Kavanaugh both were on the wrong side of this one.
It is amazing that Warren/Obama's scheme to insulate the CFPB from legislative control is described as merely "unorthodox", rather than political corruption.
^ and this
^this
This is what makes the Congressional Democrats' protestations of being "pro-democracy" so utterly and obviously hypocritical.
The CFPB, as originally established in legislation, had three major features to insulate it from any future elected officials:
1) The statute established that the director of the CFPB could only be fired by the President for specific, defined reasons.
2) The statute provided that the director of the CFPB could unilaterally appoint his/her own deputy director, and that in the case of the office of the director becoming vacant, the deputy would automatically become acting director.
3) The statute provided that the funding would be provided by the director simply informing the Federal Reserve how much the director wanted to spend.
When push came to shove, SCOTUS ruled #1 unconstitutional. And as far as #2, the Trump45-era Office of Legal Counsel interpreted that to mean that the deputy director would be the acting director if the President did not otherwise name an acting director in accordance with the usual procedures established in Federal law; a Federal court then upheld the President's power to name an acting director when Trump named an acting director different from the deputy named by the Obama-appointed director.
So, yeah, the same people standing around today behind signs that say "Nobody elected Elon" tried to create an agency with both leadership and funding independent of the control of elected officials.
Man, those two have really deteriorated physically since that picture was taken. I know they're both in their 60s and 70s, respectively, but Obama looks like the Crypt Keeper these days and Warren is borderline anorexic.
Hatred will do that to a person.
I mean, just look at Palpatine.
>and a president who got votes from less than 24 percent of Americans.
24% of Americans? How many voted for Harris?
Sarc uses that DNC talking point too. They never use it when a Democrat wins. Principles.
Every last government program is precious to JeffSarc, and it will fight like a cornered rabid animal to defend them all.
see my misplaced reply below
Wining the PoPuLaR vOtE and electoral college wasn’t good enough!
Boehm being Boehm. He gets his 24% number from the total population of the US. He forgets about those who can't vote because of age and other issues. He can't face the fact that Trump had the majority of those who could and did vote.
Trump "fixed the glitch." So it will just take care of itself.
My bank opened accounts I did not authorize. I filed two separate complaints with CFPB. Wells Fargo dutifully submitted nonresponsive form letters and CFPB closed the complaints.
Thanks, Obama!
I sure hope Congress kills it for good, and soon; there's no guarantee the GOP will still control the House after 2026. Unfortunately, I don't doubt there are a few Republicans who will demur, saying it might be good to keep around some day ... for later.
Your mistake was to open an account with Wells Fargo.
They are notorious when it comes to banking as their scandals have proven time and again.
Boehm is playing some games with the numbers. The only way you can get "less than 24%" is by dividing Trump's popular vote count (77M) by the total number of people in the US (333M) without regard for the fact that many of them are not even eligible to vote (mostly because they're underage).
Here's how Trump v Harris shakes out with different denominators:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Trump . . Harris
total population (333M) . . . 23.2% . . . 22.5%
eligible to vote (245M) . . . 31.5% . . . 30.6%
registered to vote (186M) . 41.4% . . . 40.2%
actually voted (156M) . . . . 49.4% . . . 48.0%
Note: While the vote counts are pretty solid, the population counts are the best available estimates I could find for the respective metrics. There's considerable uncertainty in some of them, though, so I'd take the last digit of each of the above with a grain of salt.
Apologies, this thread was intended as a reply to Incunabulum.
Fair, but it doesn't change the percentage by much. Trump won 49.8% of the votes tallied. Voter participation was only about 65%. Therefore, only about 32.3~ish% of registered voters voted for Trump. Looking at it another way, about 2/3 of registered voters did not vote for Trump.
That -- a minority of voters decided the election (and this is nothing new) -- is the mathematicalproof that America is not a democracy.
Democracy is and always has been "government by those who show up". The fact that people choose not to show up does not invalidate the idea of democracy.
Second, your numbers are wrong. The 32-ish% is of those eligible to vote, not those registered to vote. Approximately 1/4 of those eligible to vote in the US couldn't even be bothered to register. Given how easy we've made registration (and it is very easy compared to other countries), that lack of registration may be evidence of some problem or another but it can not be reasonably taken as evidence of dissatisfaction with particular candidates.
The most you can say using the data above is that about 59% of those who did or might have voted did not vote for Trump. Of course, that same data says that about 60% of the same group did not vote for Harris.
I wrote a very similar comment back in 2016...when Democrats were once again going on about "the popular vote" (there is no such thing) vs the Electoral College.
------------------
Your use of the word "majority" baffles me.
The population of the US is about 324M people.
Sec. Clinton received about 60.9M votes (the final numbers are still being tallied). 60.9M is not a majority of 324M (i.e., 162M).
Given citizenship and age rules, there are about 215M people who are eligible voters. 60.9M is not a majority of eligible voters (i.e., 107.5M).
A large number of eligible voters chose to not vote. About 127.6M votes were actually cast (again, still tallying). 60.9M is not a majority of the total number of votes cast (i.e., 63.8M).
Sec. Clinton does appear to have received a plurality of the votes cast, given her 60.9M compared to Mr. Trump's 60.3M votes. Of all votes cast, her edge is less than one-half of one percent (0.47%).
But with 4.1M+ voting for the Libertarian Gary Johnson, 1.2M+ voting for Green Jill Stein, and about 0.8M for other candidates, a statement such as "the majority of Americans voted AGAINST Trump" is just as true as "the majority of Americans voted AGAINST Clinton" if we assume you actually meant "among the people who voted".
That is, between Trump, Johnson, Stein, and others a majority of voters (66.4M) cast their ballot for someone other than Clinton. Likewise, between Clinton, Johnson, Stein, and others a majority of voters (67M) cast their ballot for someone other than Trump.
And again, so what? EC votes are all that count, in the rules of the game. Which she knew going in. She lost 5 states that Obama carried twice.
If this were a football game, an analogous case might be: Clinton had 610 yards of total offense while Trump had 604 yards, but Clinton lost by 4 touchdowns after having 5 turnovers. She simply failed to do the things necessary to score.
The rookie Trump strategically and tactically outplayed the veteran--her, the master politician and "most qualified person to ever run for the office"?!
And he is perhaps the most vilified person (and not without cause) ever to run for the office and before the election Mr. Obama had campaigned more for Democrat Hillary Clinton than any modern sitting president had for his party’s nominee.
And she still couldn't muster the win?
Do you *really* want to console yourself by crying about the fact that she had 6 more yards of total offense?
"That -- a minority of voters decided the election (and this is nothing new) -- is the mathematicalproof that America is not a democracy."
This claim is logical proof that See.More:
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Headline:
"Elizabeth Warren's Hubris Allowed Trump To Defund the CFPB"
Typical Eric, typical Reason.
The CFPB, according to Eric himself, is funded at $711.6 million this year.
Point well taken. Which gives rise to the question: what the hell has it been up to all these years if it has been running such a surplus? Has the money it requested from the federal reserve in the past borne any relationship to the work that it is doing?
You might say the exact same thing about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). It could be headed into a sort of coma later this year because of a fatal flaw embedded by its own parents: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former President Barack Obama.
New York Times headline reads: "TRUMP MURDERING NATIVE AMERICAN CHILDREN!"
Hubris, or excessive pride, is the famous one.
Nope. This definition arises as a result of a mistranslation due to contextual guesswork. In Ancient Greece, hubris was the public humiliation of a social inferior for pleasure. It was considered a grievous sin and would bring down the wrath of the gods. As there is no equivalent concept in the modern West, translators guessed the meaning from context and came up with the translation we all (think we) know. Source: Oxford Companion to Classical Civilisations.
(A similar contextual error is made with the sin of Onan. Onan was punished for not consummating a levirate marriage. But as levirate marriage is not a concept in Christianity, Christian scholars, seeing Onan punished, concluded that his sin was the spilling of his seed, i.e., masturbation.)
Achilles was also given the choice between long life and obscurity or an early death and everlasting fame. Fame had a cultural value to the ancient Greeks and the Achilles legend is a morality play that touches on that.
hubris is Greek. what's the Cherokee word?
"hubris is Greek. what's the Cherokee word?"
Warren.
"...despite a minuscule congressional majority and a president who got votes from less than 24 percent of Americans."
What a stupid point to try and make - why include people who can't vote (under age, for example), people who registered but didn't bother to vote and those that couldn't even be bothered to register, let alone vote.
Trump had an Electoral Blowout (312 vs 226) and won the vote of just over 2 million more ACTUAL voters than Harris, but sure, let's lump in every non-voter and just pretend they would have voted against Trump...
As Hillary had to re-learn in 2016, we elect our Presidents based on the Electoral college, not the popular vote, but you know that... and still you felt the need to put that stupid statement out there - you left out the part where Harris only got what, 22 or 23% of the POPULATION.
Census's Voting Age Citizens was 238,741,215 in 2023. Trump got 77,301,997 or 32.3% of the votes from voting age citizens.
As of late October 2024, approximately 168 million Americans are actually registered to vote, so about 50M voting age citizens have abstained from the process entirely (or have been removed from the process by law, i.e., felons). "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Trump garnered about 46% of the registered voters.
Trump got 49.8% of the ballots actually cast.
Boehm disingenuously of course tosses in children and illegals to drive the percentage down.
Sorry for essentially duplicating Rossami's posting.
I said "disingenuously".
A more accurate term is probably "dishonestly".
For a long time after the CFPB was created in 2010, there were serious questions about the constitutionality of that structure. That finally got resolved last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its powers to hand off the purse strings.
The issue HAS NOT been resolved. Supreme Court rulings can be reversed.
Also note: NO branch of government has the Constitutional power to cede ANY of its power to another branch of government.
Barrett and Kavanaugh to blame. Trump's mistakes. And Barrett was loudly and widely praised on these very pages for several years. Both are proving to be disappointments.
I mean, I don't think many people here have ever claimed infallibility.
I will absolutely own up to having been pro-Barrett and having been wrong. My primary position towards Kavanaugh was "(Someone else go and hate) Fuck Pelosi."