The Head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Asks Congress to Gut His Own Agency

He calls the bureau “the very definition of tyranny.”

Ron Sachs/Zumapress

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Before joining the Trump administration, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney made no secret of his dislike for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to better supervise Wall Street.

As a congressman, Mulvaney proposed legislation to eliminate the bureau, calling it a “sick, sad” joke. Now as the Trump-appointed interim head of the agency, Mulvaney on Monday presented his first report to Congress on the work of the bureau, recommending four major changes to the CFPB’s structure, funding, and oversight, that would vastly weaken the consumer watchdog.

The report offers yet more evidence that Mulvaney is capitalizing on his temporary position atop the CFPB to bring years of proposals to undermine the agency to life.

“The bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” Mulvaney writes in a blistering introduction. Mulvaney then cites the Federalist Papers, quoting James Madison on how overly powerful bureaucracies meet “the very definition of tyranny.”

While there are in fact many checks on the CFPB’s activity across all three branches of government,  Mulvaney calls the CFPB’s current structure “a warning sign that a lapse in democratic structure and republican principles has occurred.”

Mulvaney makes a number of major policy recommendations in the report. While the CFPB is currently funded through a special appropriation from the Federal Reserve, Mulvaney suggests it instead be funded through the regular congressional budget process. The move would give Congress, and accordingly, whichever political party is in the majority, far more control over the bureau. He also asks Congress to pass a law requiring legislative approval of any CFPB rules. Since its inception in 2011, the CFPB has passed a number of rules aimed at curbing abusive practices by financial institutions, including new limits on payday lenders that are popular with consumers, and rules that helped the CFPB undertake enforcement efforts that have recovered millions of dollars on behalf of hundreds of thousands of consumers.

In a move that is likely related to the controversy surrounding Mulvaney’s own appointment this fall, the report also suggests Congress enact a law clarifying that the CFPB’s director must answer directly to the president. When the Obama-appointed CFPB director Richard Cordray stepped down from his post in November, Cordray, citing the 2010 law that established the bureau, appointed an interim director to succeed him. The Trump administration argued that, under a different federal law, Trump had the right to install his own interim director. A district court initially ruled in Trump’s favor, installing Mulvaney, but the battle is still winding through the courts. 

Mulvaney also advises that Congress create an independent inspector general dedicated to overseeing the CFPB. Debbie Goldstein of the Center for Responsible Lending, a financial services watchdog group, calls the suggestion “a red herring” given that the CFPB is already overseen by an inspector general that also monitors the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. 

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established as an independent agency in order to buttress it from the enormous political pressures of the banking lobby,” said Goldstein in an emailed statement. “Mulvaney’s proposed changes would make consumer protection dependent on Congress and the White House standing up to the financial industry.”

The rest of Mulvaney’s CFPB report details the bureau’s work towards its enforcement and supervision missions. Most of the actions described took place from April through September 2017—when Cordray was still in charge.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate