Latest news with #deregulation
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Zeldin announced on 'Ruthless' plan to rescind Obama-era climate endangerment finding
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin will rescind the Obama administration's endangerment finding declaration in the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' he announced Tuesday on the 'Ruthless' podcast.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
CFPB rollbacks are poised to create a riskier, more expensive borrowing environment for consumers
Key takeaways Ongoing rollbacks at the CFPB may lead to some deregulation in consumer lending, but it's unlikely to reach pre-2010 conditions. Consumers could see the return of inflated interest rates, forced arbitration clauses and more expensive fees moving forward. Facing fewer consequences, some lenders may revert to aggressive tactics such as yo-yo financing, hidden fees and undisclosed add-ons to inflate loan costs. Consumers will have less recourse against dishonest or deceptive lenders. Careful borrowers should request documentation and review their terms carefully before signing any loan agreements. Since 2010, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) has regulated major banking institutions in the United States. President Trump has been clear that he wants to curtail the bureau, which he began doing in February 2025 by suspending operations and reducing staff. The outcome of his ongoing changes to the CFPB will likely reduce regulations and consumer protections. What is the CFPB? The CFPB oversees financial institutions and their interactions with consumers. It was created to hold institutions accountable at a federal level and ensure fair, transparent and responsible practices in banking and lending. Since its inception, the CFPB has issued a number of enforcement actions, resulting in billions of dollars being returned to consumers. It has written and enforced rules around disclosures, hidden fees and discriminatory lending. The CFPB's database of consumer complaints has served as a way for Americans to raise issues and pressure institutions to resolve their concerns. It also publishes research and educational resources to help consumers make more informed choices about financial products. The Trump administration plans to shrink the CFPB Under the Trump administration, the CFPB is undergoing significant changes that reduce its role in consumer protection. The new administration has cut the bureau's budget by approximately 46 percent and its staff by nearly 90 percent. As a result of these changes, the agency has dropped several enforcement actions, including cases against several major banks concerning fraud protection failures. Some areas of oversight have been deprioritized, including student loans, medical debt and non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs). In recent years, the CFPB has been expanding its authority over non-traditional financial institutions like student loan servicers, mortgage companies, payday lenders, payment processors and emerging fintech services like buy now, pay later (BNPL) loans. The Trump administration sees this expansion as the CFPB overstepping its mandate and claims the bureau has imposed unnecessary regulations on financial institutions, but experts disagree on the potential consequences of a CFPB shutdown. Major banking institutions are unlikely to make dramatic changes President Trump's aggressive restructuring of the CFPB has some Americans fearing the worst for consumer rights. But how likely is it that we'll see a return to pre-2010 behaviors? Robert Brosh, Director of Compliance at Ncontracts, thinks it's unlikely. Larger, traditional financial institutions have already taken steps to implement changes since the CFPB's inception. Staff are trained with consumer rights in mind, and policies and controls are in place to protect consumers. '[Changing] that takes money, a lot of it, especially depending on the size of the institution,' he explains. Change also means added risk. The U.S. political situation could change as soon as 2027's midterm elections. 'What happens if a progressive takes office next time with executive authority having been put on steroids?' asks Mark Hamrick, Senior Director at Bankrate's parent company, Red Ventures. 'A wild, whipsaw effect isn't conducive to serving the common good. It also makes it more difficult for businesses and consumers to plan.' The CFPB is also not the only agency overseeing financial institutions. It supervises around 200 of the biggest banks and credit unions — those that hold the majority of banking assets in the U.S. economy. But as Brosh points out, there are more than 8,000 federally insured banks and credit unions across the country which are overseen by multiple federal offices. These include the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). While the CFPB has dramatically shaped consumer protections, it is only one of many layers of protection for consumer finance. Rollbacks may not be a huge win for financial institutions Part of the argument for reducing the CFPB is that regulations constrain businesses, but to an extent, regulations can also level the playing field between businesses in an important way. 'Traditional financial institutions like [regulations] because they create parity in the industry, making sure that competitors aren't taking advantage of the looser areas of regulation and enforcement,' Brosh says. In fact, it can help a company stand out if they have strong financials, solid risk management and a reputation for fair lending. So while big banks might welcome loosening regulations in areas like fee caps, other regulations can help them compete at a lower cost and with less risk. I think a lot of financial institutions would not support big changes. [Change] could have a short-term impact on potential savings, but a long-term impact on competition and consumers. State regulators may protect consumers instead Another layer of protection between consumers and financial institutions is state regulators. 'Given the politically polarized nature of our times, not all consumers across the nation can expect the same level of scrutiny and actions on their behalf,' Hamrick says. State attorneys general and financial regulators have the power to file lawsuits and create legislation to control how institutions operate within their jurisdictions. However, their willingness — and ability — to do this varies by state and politics. State attorneys general and financial regulators can be expected to continue to play active roles in enforcement, particularly where the politics is supportive of prioritizing the interests of consumers. It's likely that a spotty web of protections will emerge with greater consumer protections in states where consumers demand them and weaker protections in states that do not. Historically, blue states have tended to favor more regulation while red states have favored less. What CFPB changes mean for consumer lending President Trump's changes to the CFPB will likely lead to a more aggressive lending environment. With the CFPB gutted, lenders may revive less consumer-friendly tactics, such as: Auto loans with yo-yo financing. Forced arbitration. Undisclosed add-ons like GAP insurance for cars or paid credit monitoring with personal loans. Higher late payment, prepayment and origination fees. Without the weight of the CFPB, consumers may also struggle to hold lenders accountable and do so at higher personal cost. Consumers will likely find it more difficult to report, prove or even recognize violations. Those who wish to pursue their complaints will largely be forced to rely on private lawsuits, smaller agencies or state governments that can't affect financial institutions on a national level. It isn't going to be the Wild, Wild West, but there is one less cop on the beat. Will there be a tendency to push the envelope and bend the rules? The skeptic in me assumes we will certainly see that. But to what extent, we don't know, and only time will tell. Nontraditional financial institutions may pose the greatest risk 'Corners of the financial marketplace that are not subject to the same type of regulation [as banks] — fintechs, shadow banking, crypto exchanges — are where there needs to be an active watchdog,' says Greg McBride, Bankrate's Chief Financial Analyst. The riskiest area for consumers is likely to be in fintechs and NBFIs. Without the CFPB establishing new regulations or enforcing current regulations, these non-bank institutions may exploit gaps in our laws to gain a competitive advantage against larger, more established financial institutions. Low-income and subprime borrowers will be most affected With less clarity around regulations, traditional lenders may become more cautious when lending to low-income and subprime borrowers. They will have to consider new compliance risks in addition to the risk of borrowers defaulting, which may result in more denials. At the same time, payday and other predatory lenders could feel emboldened to exploit gray areas of regulation. Hamrick points out that low-income and subprime borrowers are most at risk of higher-cost, higher-risk financial products, predatory lending and abusive debt collection. 'The CFPB provided a layer of protection against these practices and collected reports of complaints as a basis upon which to act, serving as a disincentive for those who might otherwise misbehave, or worse,' he warns. Learn more: Bankrate experts have reviewed bad credit loans as an alternative to predatory options Bottom line While ongoing CFPB rollbacks are not a reason to panic, borrowers should be extra cautious about borrowing in this new environment. Seasoned borrowers should expect to see changes in familiar products and services, particularly around fees and arbitration agreements. New borrowers and those with weaker credit scores should set aside extra time for researching and evaluating personal loans or any other type of lending product, including auto loans, credit cards and mortgages. Those who are particularly concerned may prefer to stick with traditional lenders rather than selecting non-traditional lenders. All lenders should protect themselves by reviewing any loan documents carefully and keeping them until they receive confirmation of payoff from their lender. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Nvidia Gains as Trump AI Push Fuels Investor Optimism
Nvidia (NVDA, Financials) rose about 1.7% on Thursday after the Trump administration unveiled a broad artificial intelligence strategy aimed at expanding U.S. dominance in the sector with a heavy focus on deregulation and infrastructure growth. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with NVDA. The 25-page America's AI Action Plan includes 90 policy proposals to streamline data center construction, boost AI tool access for U.S. allies, and eliminate federal rules that hinder AI development; specific regulations targeted for repeal were not disclosed. David Sacks, the White House's AI czar, said the U.S. is in an AI race; the plan includes measures to counter China's influence in international governance bodies and proposes reviewing Chinese AI models for alignment with state censorship. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the strategy sets the technological gold standard globally. The initiative promotes building more U.S. data centers; it also introduces fast-track permitting and opens access to federal land. Environmental oversight will be relaxed; the Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly preparing to reverse a key emissions finding a move that could limit future climate regulations. The AI rollout comes amid growing power demands and rising emissions. Google's 2024 sustainability report cited a 48% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 2019; the surge was largely attributed to energy-intensive AI infrastructure. Despite promising that AI will complement human labor, the plan arrives as companies increasingly turn to automation. Job cuts from Recruit Holdings (owner of Indeed and Glassdoor), Salesforce, and others have been linked directly to AI deployment. Some analysts see the rollout as investor-friendly. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives called it a watershed moment and a big step forward in the AI arms race. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. 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
Forbes
17 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
DOGE Built An AI To Delete Half Of Federal Regulations. Will It Work?
The Dwight Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC. The Washington Post recently revealed that the Department of Government Efficiency, known by its acronym DOGE, is developing and deploying an artificial intelligence tool designed to eliminate as much as half of all federal regulations. According to internal government documents obtained by the Post, the 'DOGE AI Deregulation Decision Tool' has already flagged approximately 100,000 federal rules that are not required by law. The hope is that AI can also be used to automate the most labor-intensive parts of the regulatory repeal process, so that a major deregulatory effort will be underway by the first anniversary of President Trump's second term in office. The internal documents reviewed by the Post include a PowerPoint presentation dated July 1, 2025, which lays out the assumptions and expectations driving the initiative. That document proposes that roughly 50 percent of the Code of Federal Regulations, or around 100,000 individual rule sections, could be repealed without violating any statutory obligations. DOGE estimates that the total cost of regulatory compliance in the United States is around $3.1 trillion annually. Stripping out rules that are not legally required could generate up to $1.5 trillion in annual compliance savings. Additionally, deregulation could unlock $600 billion in new investment and $1.1 trillion in new government revenue from untapped economic activity, according to DOGE. These are headline-grabbing numbers, though the methodology behind them isn't fully clear from the presentation. The AI tool at the center of DOGE's efforts is built to scan large volumes of regulatory text, compare those rules against their enabling statutes, and determine whether each section is mandatory or discretionary. In theory, if a rule goes beyond what Congress has required, or simply rephrases statutory language without adding any interpretive value, it could be marked for deletion. In practice, the task could get more complicated, as legal interpretation often lies in gray areas that AI algorithms may struggle to understand. DOGE's analysis suggests that repealing 100,000 regulations through traditional means would require about 3.6 million man-hours of legal and policy work. This includes the time required to research the law, draft proposed repeal notices, review and respond to public comments, and finalize repeal orders. Using the AI tool, the presentation claims this workload could be reduced by 93 percent. Most of the reduction would come from automation of tasks such as generating initial legal drafts and analyzing public comment responses. The AI tool has already been deployed at a couple of agencies. At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it was used to evaluate over 1,000 regulatory sections in under two weeks. A similar effort at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reportedly relied on the AI to draft 100 percent of the agency's deregulation proposals. Whether these pilot programs can be replicated across the government remains to be seen. Some agency officials have voiced concerns about the accuracy of the tool's legal interpretations. According to the Post, HUD staffers found that the AI misread the law in a number of cases. In the short term, the process to identify and repeal rules will inevitably require human oversight. Regulations exist within a complex and dynamic legal environment, and understanding their interactions with statutes, case law, and enforcement practices is not something that can yet be fully delegated to machines. However, DOGE has thus far framed the tool as an assistant that can reduce labor burdens and help focus legal expertise where it's most needed, not as a substitute for human judgment. Even so, the legal terrain surrounding this initiative is uncertain. The Administrative Procedure Act sets out specific requirements for repealing federal rules, including public notice and comment, reasoned explanation from the agency, and a prohibition on actions deemed 'arbitrary and capricious.' Courts have been skeptical in the past of deregulatory efforts that fail to meet these standards, and the use of AI could trigger new legal questions about what constitutes adequate administrative reasoning. There is also the matter of institutional resistance. The Post reports that some career staff have expressed reluctance to adopt DOGE's approach, citing concerns about outsourcing regulatory judgments to machines. Workforce reductions in the federal government may also have left agencies understaffed to manage a sudden surge in AI-generated repeal proposals. Still, the plan marches forward. DOGE intends to train all federal agencies on the use of its tool by the end of July. Each agency is expected to submit a finalized list of regulatory sections targeted for elimination by September 1. The timeline culminates in January 2026, when agencies are scheduled to submit repeal packages for review and approval. The slide deck calls this the 'Relaunch America' initiative. Whether that reboot is successful, or even legally viable, is an open question. It's possible that the courts will reject major parts of the initiative if AI-generated repeal notices fail to meet administrative law standards. But some degree of litigation may be inevitable, and perhaps even useful. The judicial system could play a constructive role in clarifying the extent to which AI can be used in regulatory decision-making. As with past episodes of administrative innovation, it often takes a few lawsuits to define the rules of the game. In the end, this DOGE initiative is a test of the federal government's appetite for experimentation. It is a wager that some portion of the administrative state is ripe for digitization. But it may also reveal the limits of current institutional capacity. In the coming months, we will find out which of limits are malleable, and which are not. The era of algorithmic governance may not be fully upon us, but it is no longer a thought experiment confined to white papers. It has arrived in the form of actual updates to government code. Whatever happens, the experiment is worth watching.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
DOGE has built an AI tool to slash federal regulations
The Department of Government Efficiency hopes to use a new AI tool to eliminate half of the federal government's regulatory mandates, according to The Washington Post. Citing a PowerPoint presentation dated July 1, The Post reports that the DOGE AI Deregulation Decision Tool is supposed to analyze around 200,000 federal regulations and identify the ones that are no longer required by law, with the goal of eliminating half those regulations by the first anniversary of President Donald Trump's return to office. It seems this work is already underway, with the presentation declaring the tool has already been used to review regulations at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and to write '100% of deregulations' Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A White House spokesperson told The Post that 'no single plan has been approved or greenlit' but praised the DOGE team as 'the best and brightest in the business.' This is just the latest AI tool developed by DOGE (led in the early months of the Trump administration by Elon Musk), including one reportedly error-prone tool that would hallucinate the size of Veterans Affairs contracts. 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
