The 5 Worst Things About the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The agency—an unelected regulator with a blank check—has spent much of its short life making things harder for the consumers it set out to protect.
This past week the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stopped operations and halted funding to the agency. Born out of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the CFPB is the government's youngest agency. In its short life, it has been reckless with taxpayer dollars while enjoying gratuitous positive P.R. When consumers were reeling from the impact of the financial crisis, Congress buried the foundations for this Main Street regulator in the depths of a massive bill, swearing it would protect consumers from the alleged excesses and exploitations of Wall Street. Yet this agency, hailed as the "cop on the beat" fighting for consumers, has spent much of its short life up to no good. Here are but a few reasons this young agency's days should be numbered.
1. Unelected Regulator With a Blank Check
The CFPB's unusual governance structure—made up of a single director (who can initially only be fired for cause) and funding outside the normal congressional appropriations process—has been a lightning rod for controversy. The Democrats who wanted this agency thought it would be a great idea for the CFPB to get its funding from the Federal Reserve's earnings (up to a cap) instead of annual appropriations from Congress, all while its director couldn't be fired by the president. The irony is rich. Many of the same legislators who are complaining loudly right now about the lack of congressional oversight over the Department of Government Efficiency designed the CFPB to be insulated from congressional oversight and democratic accountability. And indeed, its aggressive agenda is evidence that the unaccountable structure enables the CFPB to pursue far-reaching policies that can burden businesses and the economy at large.
Additionally, with the Federal Reserve now running losses instead of profits (over $220 billion in losses as of February 2025)—and thus no net earnings to remit—there are technically no "earnings" for the CFPB to draw on. In other words, the CFPB is effectively drawing funds that ultimately add to the Fed's losses (and future taxpayer burden) while Congress remains sidelined.
2. A Duplicative Mission
It's not as if financial fraud was legal before the CFPB swooped in to save the day. There were already plenty of agencies "policing" financial misconduct. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, has long been responsible for protecting investors, big and small, from fraud. The Federal Reserve has a security function. Then there is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which supervises financial institutions to prevent reckless banking practices. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversees the futures, options, and swaps markets; it's supposed to make sure that trading in commodities like oil, wheat, gold, and financial derivatives isn't rigged by bad actors or overly destabilized by excessive speculation. The Federal Housing Administration enforces fair lending practices in the mortgage market, while agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have historically handled deceptive financial practices. And so many more are also on the beat, including common-law actions against fraud.
Yet the CFPB was created under the premise that these agencies and the law were somehow asleep at the wheel as evidenced by the financial crisis, and only a new, unaccountable bureaucracy could finally rescue consumers from their own financial decisions. The reality is that no new protection was created for consumers by the CFPB. Creating the CFPB was merely replication, duplication, centralization, and the employment of hundreds of people.* What we got was simply more officious harassment of financial actors, all of which raised costs to consumers.
3. Payday Lending Rule and Access to Small-Dollar Credit
One of the CFPB's most controversial regulations is its 2017 payday lending rule. It targets payday loans, vehicle title loans, and similar sources of high-risk, high-cost credit. This rule requires lenders to verify a borrower's ability to repay and imposes restrictions to prevent cycles of reborrowing. It also limits repeated debit attempts after failed payments to reduce "excessive" bank fees—like the ones outlined above. While consumer advocates call it a safeguard against "debt traps," it is paternalistic government overreach: The rule restricts access to credit for those who need it most. The CFPB itself estimates that up to 85 percent of payday loans would disappear under full implementation of this rule —without concern for where borrowers would turn instead.
Absent this CFPB rule, millions of Americans voluntarily use small-dollar loans to bridge financial gaps. Eliminating legitimate lenders does not erase the demand for credit; it only pushes borrowers toward shady and riskier alternatives like loan sharks or costly overdrafts. The CFPB's labeling of these loans as "predatory" reflects a subjective value judgment—for those with poor credit, limiting their only borrowing option leaves them worse off.
The rule was supposed to take effect on March 30, 2025. Since the CFPB has been put on pause by the current administration, we may have dodged a bullet.
4. The War on 'Junk Fees'
Under former Director Rohit Chopra, the CFPB targeted "junk fees"—charges by banks and financial companies that bureaucrats deem excessive or unfair. These include overdraft fees, bounced check or nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees, credit card late fees, and maintenance fees. For instance, the CFPB has proposed capping credit card late fees at $8 per incident, a significant reduction from the previous average of $32. A December 2024 final rule proposed capping overdraft fees at $5 per occurrence or, alternatively, treating the overdraft as credit for large banks and credit unions.
To the paternalists out there, this might sound like a good idea. But these rules always backfire on consumers by leading to higher base costs, fewer services, or reduced access to credit. Fees exist for a reason—namely to cover costs and mitigate risk. Eliminating them doesn't remove these costs or reduce these risks; it shifts it elsewhere. If banks can't charge overdraft fees, they may raise minimum balance fees or hike interest rates.
If credit card late fees are capped, issuers could raise annual fees or tighten credit limits, making it harder for subprime borrowers to access credit. The Cato Institute labeled the CFPB's push a "war on prices," cautioning that price controls create shortages—meaning that banks may restrict accounts for high-risk customers or cut overdraft services entirely. House Republicans also pointed out the fact that after some banks dropped overdraft fees, they eliminated free checking accounts, leaving customers with monthly fees instead of per-use charges.
Banks stand to lose billions in fee revenue—over $8 billion annually from overdraft and NSF fees alone. While large banks might absorb these losses, smaller banks and credit unions will struggle, potentially leading to industry consolidation. Some fintech lenders and payment apps also face scrutiny, raising concerns that formerly free financial services could start coming with fees. While some consumers will benefit from direct savings, there will also be many unintended consequences: higher base fees, fewer reward programs, and stricter credit requirements. In a worst-case scenario, low-income and high-risk borrowers would lose access to banking services altogether. Meanwhile, low-risk borrowers will lose lots of perks they love.
5. Auto Lending Discrimination Crackdown
The CFPB targeted auto lending early on, arguing that dealer markups on car loans could be a source of unlawful discrimination. Since the Dodd-Frank Act exempted auto dealers from CFPB oversight, the Bureau instead pressured indirect auto lenders—banks and finance companies that purchase car loans—to curb or eliminate dealer markups in the name of preventing disparate impact or unintentional discrimination whatever its measure. This resulted in enforcement actions, including an $80 million settlement with Ally Financial.
This was a clear case of the CFPB overstepping its authority, bypassing Congress' intent by indirectly regulating auto dealers. The methods used to identify discrimination—relying on last names and ZIP codes to infer race—were widely criticized as unreliable, and a 2015 House investigation found that even the CFPB acknowledged its approach likely overestimated the number of affected minority borrowers.
It wasn't good for consumers either. The elimination of discretionary pricing raises consumer costs by forcing auto dealers to increase flat fees on loans and only extend loans to well-qualified buyers, reducing credit availability for those with weaker credit.
The backlash culminated in Congress overturning the CFPB's guidance in 2018 using the Congressional Review Act. This effectively barred the CFPB from issuing a similar rule in the future, shifting the agency toward case-by-case enforcement of clear discrimination instead.
These are only a few of the many problems with the CFPB. I am sure the bureaucrats at the agency have good intentions, but their paternalism overlooks the consequences of their regulations on the consumers they set out to protect.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated the number of employees the CFPB employed at its inception.
