Employees at the nation's consumer financial watchdog say it's become toothless under Trump
The bureau is supposed to be helping oversee the nation's banks and financial services companies and taking enforcement action in case of wrongdoing. During its 15-year existence, the CFPB has returned roughly $21 billion to consumers who were cheated by financial services companies.
Instead, its main function now seems to be undoing the rulemaking and law enforcement work that was done under previous administrations, including in President Donald Trump's first term.
One current employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the directive forbids staffers from speaking publicly about their jobs, said outsiders would be amazed at how little work is being done. Employees are reluctant even to talk to one another, out of fear that a conversation between two employees would be considered a violation of the directive.
Another employee described the drastic shift in mission, from trying to protect consumers to doing nothing, as 'quite demoralizing.'
To gain an understanding of what is happening inside the CFPB, The Associated Press spoke with 10 current and former employees, as well as bankers and policymakers who used to interact with the bureau nearly every day but now say their emails and voicemails go into a black hole. The agency's press office doesn't respond to emails.
The CFPB took a lighter approach to its mission in Trump's first term but continued to pursue enforcement actions. Under President Joe Biden, the agency took an expansive view of its authority, targeting profitable practices by banks such as overdraft and credit card late fees, as well as investigating companies over credit reporting and medical debt.
The bureau also turned a spotlight on Big Tech companies that have made inroads into financial services. For example, the CFPB ordered Apple to pay $89 million in fines and penalties for problems related to the Apple Card.
Banks and the financial services industry felt the Biden CFPB acted too aggressively, particularly with a proposal to cut overdraft fees to $5 from the industry average of $27 to $35. The bureau estimated the move would save consumers roughly $5 billion a year. The proposal was overturned by Congress in April with Trump's backing.
Once Trump 2.0 began, the bureau became a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency, then run by Elon Musk, who posted on X that the CFPB should 'RIP' shortly after DOGE employees became embedded at the agency. Through the bureau's acting chief, Russell Vought, the White House issued a directive that CFPB employees should ' not perform any work tasks. '
The administration then tried to lay off roughly 90% of the bureau's staff, or roughly 1,500 employees. Courts have blocked those layoffs, but there is a feeling inside the bureau that the court rulings are only a temporary reprieve.
Companies that committed wrongdoing, or had open investigations, have lobbied the bureau and the White House for their punishments to be rescinded. Last month, the CFPB rescinded an agreement under which Navy Federal Credit Union agreed to pay $80 million to settle claims that it illegally charged overdraft fees to its members, who include Navy servicemen and women, and veterans.
In mid-May, the agency scrapped an order for the auto financing arm of Toyota to pay customers a total of $48 million for illegally bundling products onto car buyers' auto loans.
'Companies are lining up to get out of repaying harmed customers,' said Eric Halperin, former enforcement director at the bureau, who resigned earlier this year.
The Associated Press sent a list of questions to the White House regarding President Trump's vision for the CFPB. The White House did not respond.
While the lack of new initiatives and the scuttling of old ones frustrate employees the most, they also note that even everyday tasks have largely fallen to the wayside.
A report from the office of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the senior Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, found that the bureau is uploading roughly 2,200 complaints a day to its complaint database, compared to the roughly 10,500 complaints it was doing in the months before Trump took office again. Warren came up with the idea for the bureau when she was a law professor at Harvard University.
The bureau did take an enforcement action on Friday. The pawn shop chain FirstCash Inc. agreed to pay $9 million to settle claims that it charged excessive interest rates on loans to armed service members, in violation of the Military Lending Act. FirstCash operates more than 1,000 stores.
The bureau is going to be even further diminished in the coming months. The new budget law signed by Trump earlier this month cuts the CFPB's funding by roughly half, meaning the bureau will be forced into mass layoffs. Senate Democrats are looking for ways to restore that funding.
In the meantime, employees go about their mundane routine: They continue to check their email once or twice a day to see if any of their previous work has been slated for being undone. They wait to be laid off. The only constants are the silence from bureau political appointees or the 'mini funerals' that happen every Friday, when another batch of employees who have decided to leave the bureau voluntarily have their last day.
'I don't think I'll ever work in public service again,' said one current employee, who has been looking for a new job for the past three months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
19 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?
Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years. The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979. The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents. The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety. Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation. This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise. In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order. The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade. By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce. As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979. The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents. Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s. The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project. And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries. The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable. Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Large-Cap Value Funds to Buy on Growing Uncertainty Over Rate Cuts
The uncertainty over the timing of the next interest rate cut is making investors jittery. The Federal Reserve has suggested that it is in no rush to cut rates, as it has adopted a cautious approach. Policymakers are particularly concerned about rising inflation, which could be intensified by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. According to the minutes from the Fed's latest meeting, released last week, most officials are not inclined toward an immediate rate cut. This could keep markets volatile for a longer period. In such an unpredictable environment, investors may want to consider investing in large-cap value funds for safety. Three such funds are: Shelton Equity Income Investor EQTIX, Putnam Large Cap Value A PEYAX and Northern Income Equity NOIEX. The minutes of the Federal Reserve's latest meeting suggest that only a few officials believe that a rate cut might be appropriate as early as this month. Most officials are adopting a wait-and-watch stance, wary of potential inflation stemming from tariffs that are set to begin on Aug. 1. While the minutes acknowledge the inflation risk as 'considerable uncertainty,' most participants expect any impact to be minor or short-lived and don't see an urgent need for action. Meanwhile, Trump has been pressuring the Federal Reserve for immediate rate cuts and has even called for Chairman Jerome Powell's resignation, claiming that the delay in rate cuts is costing the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Though some investors remain hopeful for a 25-basis-point cut in July due to signs of slowing inflation and a weakening job market, it appears unlikely the Fed will move forward with a cut at the upcoming FOMC meeting, raising the possibility of renewed market volatility. Also, stocks retreated on Friday after Trump announced a 35% tariff on Canada, one of the biggest trading partners of the United States, and threatened higher duties across the board. This reignited fears of a trade war after indexes hit new all-time highs earlier in the week. We've identified three large-cap value mutual funds that have given impressive annualized returns over 3-year and 5-year periods. These funds also hold a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of #1 (Strong Buy), require an initial investment of no more than $5,000 and have a low expense ratio. The question here is: why should investors consider mutual funds? Reduced transaction costs and diversification of portfolio without several commission charges that are associated with stock purchases are primarily why one should be parking money in mutual funds (read more: Mutual Funds: Advantages, Disadvantages, and How They Make Investors Money). Shelton Equity Income Investor fund seeks to achieve a high level of income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in income-producing U.S. equity securities. EQTIX invests primarily in securities that generate a relatively high level of dividend income and have the potential for capital appreciation. Shelton Equity Income Investor fund also invests at least 80% of its total assets in stocks. EQTIX's 3-year and 5-year annualized returns are 14.5% and 12.9%, respectively. Shelton Equity Income Investor fund has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 and an annual expense ratio of 0.65%. To see how this fund performed compared to its category, and other 1 and 2 Ranked Mutual Funds, please click here. Putnam Large Cap Value A fund seeks current income. Capital growth is a secondary objective when consistent with seeking current income. PEYAX invests mainly in common stocks of U.S. companies, with a focus on value stocks that offer the potential for current income and capital growth. PEYAX's 3-year and 5-year annualized returns are 16.5% and 16.8%, respectively. Putnam Large Cap Value A fund has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 and an annual expense ratio of 0.88%. To see how this fund performed compared to its category, and other 1 and 2 Ranked Mutual Funds, please click here. Northern Income Equity fund seeks to provide a high level of current income with long-term capital appreciation as a secondary objective. NOIEX's approach is to identify the securities of companies that generate high current yields and offer prospects for growth and possible capital appreciation. NOIEX's 3-year and 5-year annualized returns are 17.7% and 16.1%, respectively. Northern Income Equity fund has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 and an annual expense ratio of 0.49%. To see how this fund performed compared to its category, and other 1 and 2 Ranked Mutual Funds, please click here. Zacks' free Fund Newsletter will brief you on top news and analysis, as well as top-performing mutual funds, each week. Get it free >> Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Get Your Free (EQTIX): Fund Analysis Report Get Your Free (PEYAX): Fund Analysis Report Get Your Free (NOIEX): Fund Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's Why Ducommun (DCO) is a Great Momentum Stock to Buy
Momentum investing is all about the idea of following a stock's recent trend, which can be in either direction. In the "long context," investors will essentially be "buying high, but hoping to sell even higher." And for investors following this methodology, taking advantage of trends in a stock's price is key; once a stock establishes a course, it is more than likely to continue moving in that direction. The goal is that once a stock heads down a fixed path, it will lead to timely and profitable trades. Even though momentum is a popular stock characteristic, it can be tough to define. Debate surrounding which are the best and worst metrics to focus on is lengthy, but the Zacks Momentum Style Score, part of the Zacks Style Scores, helps address this issue for us. Below, we take a look at Ducommun (DCO), a company that currently holds a Momentum Style Score of A. We also talk about price change and earnings estimate revisions, two of the main aspects of the Momentum Style Score. It's also important to note that Style Scores work as a complement to the Zacks Rank, our stock rating system that has an impressive track record of outperformance. Ducommun currently has a Zacks Rank of #1 (Strong Buy). Our research shows that stocks rated Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and #2 (Buy) and Style Scores of "A or B" outperform the market over the following one-month period. You can see the current list of Zacks #1 Rank Stocks here >>> In order to see if DCO is a promising momentum pick, let's examine some Momentum Style elements to see if this aerospace industry supplier holds up. Looking at a stock's short-term price activity is a great way to gauge if it has momentum, since this can reflect both the current interest in a stock and if buyers or sellers have the upper hand at the moment. It is also useful to compare a security to its industry, as this can help investors pinpoint the top companies in a particular area. For DCO, shares are up 0.94% over the past week while the Zacks Aerospace - Defense Equipment industry is up 0.15% over the same time period. Shares are looking quite well from a longer time frame too, as the monthly price change of 13.92% compares favorably with the industry's 7.41% performance as well. Considering longer term price metrics, like performance over the last three months or year, can be advantageous as well. Shares of Ducommun have increased 60.02% over the past quarter, and have gained 46.68% in the last year. On the other hand, the S&P 500 has only moved 16.27% and 12.91%, respectively. Investors should also pay attention to DCO's average 20-day trading volume. Volume is a useful item in many ways, and the 20-day average establishes a good price-to-volume baseline; a rising stock with above average volume is generally a bullish sign, whereas a declining stock on above average volume is typically bearish. DCO is currently averaging 153,468 shares for the last 20 days. The Zacks Momentum Style Score encompasses many things, including estimate revisions and a stock's price movement. Investors should note that earnings estimates are also significant to the Zacks Rank, and a nice path here can be promising. We have recently been noticing this with DCO. Over the past two months, 1 earnings estimate moved higher compared to none lower for the full year. This revision helped boost DCO's consensus estimate, increasing from $3.65 to $3.68 in the past 60 days. Looking at the next fiscal year, 1 estimate has moved upwards while there have been no downward revisions in the same time period. Given these factors, it shouldn't be surprising that DCO is a #1 (Strong Buy) stock and boasts a Momentum Score of A. If you're looking for a fresh pick that's set to soar in the near-term, make sure to keep Ducommun on your short list. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Ducommun Incorporated (DCO) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
