CFPB, FDIC, and OCC Updates: Firings, Appointments, and Potential Consolidation

We previously reported on changes to leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the halt of all activities at the CFPB, and the impacts to the financial services industry. The environment continues to evolve, intensifying uncertainty for regulation and the industry, as the federal agencies responsible for regulating the financial services industry, including the CFPB, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, “the Agencies”), are impacted by the new administration’s overhaul of regulatory agencies.

CFPB

As discussed in our previous articles, temporary leadership at the CFPB included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, named as acting director of the CFPB by President Trump on January 31, 2025, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Russell Vought, named as acting director of the CFPB on February 7, 2025. Under Bessent and Vought, all CFPB activities were halted, the CFPB’s headquarters were closed beginning the week of Feb. 10, and the next CFPB funding draw from the Federal Reserve was canceled.

On February 11, 2025, President Trump appointed Jonathan McKernan to be the permanent Director of the CFPB, pending Senate confirmation. McKernan, most recently a member of the Board of Directors at the FDIC, will lead the CFPB following his confirmation hearing, leaving Vought head of the CFPB until then. Additionally, Mark Calabria, who headed up the Fair Housing Finance Administration (the current Receiver for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) during the first Trump administration, is reportedly working with the OMB as a liaison to the CFPB and working on centralizing the Agencies under OMB, pursuant to a February 18 executive order (EO).

Amidst the halt to activities, it’s been reported that more than 70 CFPB employees have been fired and more than $100 million in vendor contracts have been canceled. The appointment of a permanent CFPB Director with extensive regulatory agency experience may be a sign that the CFPB will remain, albeit significantly reformed under the new administration. However, with President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) Elon Musk calling for a complete dismantling of the CFPB, the future of the CFPB still remains to be seen.

FDIC & OCC

The FDIC staff has been significantly reduced in recent weeks, with approximately 500 employees accepting the Trump administration’s deferred resignation buyouts and 170 probationary employees terminated as well as the rescission of more than 200 job offers. The OCC similarly has begun layoffs, with around 76 employees reportedly terminated as of February 21, 2025.

Travis Hill was named Acting Chairman of the FDIC Board of Directors on January 20, 2025, and has since promised to conduct a wholesale review of bank regulations, guidance, and manuals. Hill most recently served as Vice Chairman of the FDIC and previously served as senior counsel at the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. At the OCC, Acting Comptroller Rodney Hood replaced then-Acting Comptroller Michael J. Hsu on February 7, 2025. Hood was most recently on the National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUA).

Potential Agency Consolidation or Centralization?

In addition to the above mentioned centralization of Agencies under the OMB, speculation in the industry was further fueled by reports that the OCC was planning to accept the transfer of employees from both the FDIC and CFPB. The OCC quickly denied these assertions.

The reports came a day after an EO, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” which requires previously independent agencies to submit any new regulations to the White House, regularly coordinate policies and priorities with the White House, and establish White House Liaison offices. The EO applies to the FDIC, OCC, and FTC, among others, but specifically excludes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Notably, and perhaps most controversially, the EO states that the president and attorney general have the sole authority to interpret laws for the executive branch and that no agency employee may provide interpretations that contravene that of the president and attorney general, including through “issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation.”

Potential Impacts

While the implications of the EO and potential centralization are still unfolding, many in the industry have been eager to see either the elimination or reform of the CFPB. On the other hand, many are weary of the regulatory burden presented by an inconsistent state-by-state regulatory scheme in lieu of federal regulatory frameworks and the uncertainty stemming from these executive actions. However, the appointment of Agency heads and OMB officials with years of both industry and regulatory experience under their belts may be a sign that the Agencies aren’t going anywhere any time soon.

Legal challenges have already been levied against several of the above discussed actions, ensuring uncertainty regarding their near- and long-term effects. For example, the National Treasury Employees Union sought a temporary injunction to block further firings at the CFPB. Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued an order approving the pause on CFPB firings as well as prohibiting the deletion of CFPB data.

As discussed in our prior article, financial institutions should continue to comply with applicable laws and regulations, despite the current upheaval. While uncertainty over the enforcement and rulemaking authority at the Agencies continues, until a complete shuttering of certain agencies and/or recission of federal regulations, financial institutions should plan to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

Additionally, we continue to expect increased state activity both in legislation and enforcement, which echo initiatives taken by the Agencies. For example, New York has already introduced proposed regulations to limit overdraft fees, similar to the CFPB’s finalized — but not yet effective — Overdraft Lending Rule. A particularly efficient legislative development is Virginia’s House Bill 2515 (HB 2515), which was introduced January 8, 2025, and approved by Virginia’s legislature in a little over a month on February 18, 2025. HB 2515 amends the Virginia Consumer Protection Act by adding prohibited practices, including limitations on mandatory fees and mandating credit card surcharge disclosures.

Need Assistance?

We anticipate continued legal challenges in this space as well as increased state regulatory activity. We continue to monitor the situation at the Agencies and will provide updates as appropriate. If you have any questions relating to any of the issues discussed above, Foley’s Financial Services Regulatory Group is well versed in federal and state laws and regulations impacting the financial services industry. Foley actively counsels clients on compliance issues as well as providing enforcement and litigation support. For more information, please contact any of the authors of this article or your Foley & Lardner attorney.

A version of this article was published in Law360 on May 2, 2025.

Clause de non-responsabilité

Ce blog est mis à disposition par Foley & Lardner LLP ("Foley" ou "le cabinet") à des fins d'information uniquement. Il n'a pas pour but d'exprimer la position juridique du cabinet au nom d'un client, ni de fournir des conseils juridiques spécifiques. Les opinions exprimées dans cet article ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de Foley & Lardner LLP, de ses partenaires ou de ses clients. En conséquence, n'agissez pas sur la base de ces informations sans demander l'avis d'un avocat agréé. Ce blog n'est pas destiné à créer, et sa réception ne constitue pas, une relation avocat-client. Communiquer avec Foley par le biais de ce site web, que ce soit par e-mail, par un billet de blog ou par tout autre moyen, ne crée pas une relation avocat-client pour une quelconque question juridique. Par conséquent, toute communication ou matériel que vous transmettez à Foley par le biais de ce blog, que ce soit par e-mail, par billet de blog ou de toute autre manière, ne sera pas traité comme confidentiel ou propriétaire. Les informations contenues dans ce blog sont publiées "EN L'ÉTAT" et ne sont pas garanties comme étant complètes, exactes ou à jour. Foley ne donne aucune garantie, expresse ou implicite, quant au fonctionnement ou au contenu du site. Foley rejette expressément toute autre garantie, condition ou déclaration de quelque nature que ce soit, expresse ou implicite, découlant d'un statut, d'une loi, d'un usage commercial ou autre, y compris les garanties implicites de qualité marchande, d'adéquation à un usage particulier, de titre et d'absence de contrefaçon. En aucun cas Foley ou l'un de ses partenaires, dirigeants, employés, agents ou affiliés ne pourra être tenu responsable, directement ou indirectement, en vertu de toute théorie de droit (contrat, délit, négligence ou autre), envers vous ou toute autre personne, pour toute réclamation, perte ou dommage, direct, indirect, spécial, accessoire, punitif ou consécutif, résultant de ou occasionné par la création, l'utilisation ou la confiance en ce site (y compris les informations et autres contenus) ou tout autre site tiers ou les informations, ressources ou matériels accessibles à travers de tels sites web. Dans certaines juridictions, le contenu de ce blog peut être considéré comme de la publicité pour les avocats. Le cas échéant, veuillez noter que des résultats antérieurs ne garantissent pas un résultat similaire. Les photographies ne sont utilisées qu'à des fins de représentation et peuvent inclure des modèles. Les portraits n'impliquent pas nécessairement le statut de client, de partenaire ou d'employé actuel.