California and 20 other states, along with the District of Columbia, have filed a lawsuit challenging the potential defunding and closure of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by the Trump administration.
Legal Challenge to CFPB Funding
The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, alleges that Acting Director Russell Vought is attempting to illegally withhold funds by reinterpreting the statute governing the agency’s funding. The CFPB itself and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors are also named as defendants in the case.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “For California, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner, working hand in hand with our office to protect pocketbooks and stop unfair business practices. But once again, the Trump administration is trying to weaken and ultimately dismantle the CFPB.”
The lawsuit argues that the CFPB is essential for states to effectively protect consumers and that its closure would eliminate access to a crucial database tracking millions of consumer complaints, as well as other important data.
Funding Dispute at the Core
The CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve, a structure designed to shield it from direct political influence. The Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the agency’s director request funding from the “combined earnings” of the Federal Reserve System. Previously, this was understood to mean gross revenue.
However, a recent Department of Justice opinion asserts that “combined earnings” should be interpreted as profits. Since the Federal Reserve has operated at a loss since 2022, this interpretation would effectively eliminate the CFPB’s funding. The lawsuit contends this reinterpretation is invalid.
According to the complaint, the CFPB faces potential insolvency as early as next month if the new funding policy remains in effect. Attorney General Bonta indicated that a decision regarding a restraining order or temporary injunction has not yet been made.
A History of Enforcement and Recent Shifts
Prior to the second Trump administration, the CFPB reported returning nearly $21 billion to consumers through enforcement actions. These included cases against Wells Fargo regarding the unauthorized creation of customer accounts, student loan servicer Navient for mishandling payments, and Toyota Motor Credit for discriminatory interest rates.
However, the agency has recently dropped several significant cases, including a consent order with Citibank concerning alleged discrimination against customers with Armenian surnames and a lawsuit against Zelle over fraud-related losses.
Acting Director Vought, described as a “chief architect of Project 2025” – a plan to reduce the federal bureaucracy – ordered the agency to halt most operations in February and has actively sought to downsize it.
This lawsuit joins a previous legal challenge filed in February by the National Treasury Employees Union and consumer groups, which alleges the Trump administration is attempting to unconstitutionally abolish the agency.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the CFPB’s purpose?
The CFPB was established by Congress in 2010 after the subprime mortgage abuses that gave rise to the financial crisis to protect consumers in the financial sector.
What is the central argument of the lawsuit?
The lawsuit asserts that Acting Director Russell Vought is illegally withholding funds from the CFPB by misinterpreting the statute governing its funding, potentially leading to the agency’s closure.
Has the CFPB always been controversial?
The source indicates the agency has seen shifts in enforcement priorities, with a significant amount of money returned to consumers prior to the second Trump administration, and some notable cases being dropped more recently.
Given the ongoing legal challenges and shifting priorities, what impact might these developments have on consumer protections in the financial sector?
Related reading