(WASHINGTON) — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency formed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to safeguard Americans against unfair business practices, is the newest target of Elon Musk and the Trump administration.
The agency is at a virtual standstill after Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and Russell Vought, the leader of the White House budget office and now acting director of the CFPB, took control.
They and congressional Republicans have accused the agency of overreach and not being politically accountable.
Internal emails obtained by ABC News show Vought advised the agency’s headquarters in Washington will be closed all week and told employees, “Please do not perform any work tasks.”
In a post on X Saturday night, Vought said the CFPB’s funding, which comes through the Federal Reserve, is “now being turned off.”
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who helped create the CFBP, posted a video on Monday “ringing the alarm bell” on what the impact will be if its gutted.
Warren highlighted what she said the agency does for average Americans, including finding fraud in payment apps, stepping in if a bank tries to repossess your car and working to cut credit card fees. She argued that only Congress can dismantle the CFPB, and that Trump and Musk do not have the authority to do so unilaterally.
“So, why are these two guys trying to gut the CFPB? It’s not rocket science: Trump campaigned on helping working people, but now that he’s in charge, this is the payoff to the rich guys who invested in his campaign and who want to cheat families — and not have anybody around to stop them. Yeah, it’s another scam,” she said.
Congressional Democrats and others protested outside the agency on Monday afternoon.
Here is what to know about the agency and its work.
What is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
The CFPB is an independent agency established by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It’s a consumer watchdog aimed at protecting American households from unfair and deceptive practices across the financial services industry.
Its oversight applies to everything from mortgages to credit cards to bank fees to student loans. By law, the CFPB has the rare ability to issue new rules — and impose fines against companies who break them.
Since its establishment in 2011, the CFPB says it has clawed back $20.7 billion for American consumers.
Unlike many federal agencies that are beholden to appropriations battles in Congress, the CFPB’s funding comes through the Federal Reserve system. This has made it a frequent target by Republicans and industry groups. Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled the CFPB’s source of funding is constitutional.
Key actions under the Biden administration
Under the Biden administration, the CFPB took aggressive steps to take on big players in the banking and financial services industries — issuing regulations that aimed to put money back in the pockets of tens of millions of Americans.
In December, it finalized a rule that would cap most bank overdraft fees at $5 (right now those fees can be as high as $35 per transaction). The agency said that would save the typical household $225 per year, or about $5 billion in total. That rule was set to take effect October 1, 2025 — but its fate is now in limbo given the work stoppage order from acting director Vought.
The CFPB also finalized a rule in January that would wipe medical debt from Americans’ credit reports. The agency estimated that would affect roughly 15 million Americans with $49 billion in unpaid medical bills on their credit reports. The change, set to take effect in March, is currently on hold as it faces legal challenges. A similar rule capping credit card late fees is also in legal limbo.
Beyond issuing new rules, the CFPB also addresses direct complaints from consumers who might have been scammed on everything from credit cards to cryptocurrency to car loans.
Overseeing mortgages and banks
The 2008 recession exposed how many Americans were left vulnerable in the unregulated subprime mortgage market. One of the key goals of the CFPB was to oversee the “nonbank mortgage market.” In other words, this applies to homebuyers who take out mortgages through independent lenders that aren’t banks.
According to the CFPB, nonbank lenders account for 65% of all mortgages in the U.S. in a market worth $13 trillion.
In practice, what this means is that the CFPB monitors and keeps tabs on nonbank lenders to try to ensure they aren’t deceiving or ripping off customers.
The agency also supervises banks and credit unions holding more than $10 billion in assets, accounting for more than 80% of the banking industry’s total assets. This includes banks like JPMorgan, Citigroup and Bank of America. Other federal agencies like the Fed, FDIC and Office of the Comptroller also regulate banks.
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic lawmakers continue to protest tech billionaire Elon Musk’s sweeping influence over government decisions and material, with protests, proposed legislation and other attempts to obstruct President Donald Trump’s agenda and the efforts of his close ally to cut what the Trump administration considers wasteful spending.
Dozens of lawmakers appeared Tuesday at a “Nobody Elected Elon” rally outside the Treasury Department, each delivering fiery attacks directed toward Trump and Musk. They described Musk’s action as a “heist,” a “takeover” and an “abuse of power.”
Rep. Ayanna Pressley went as far as calling Musk a “Nazi nepo baby.”
Democrats have pushed back against Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts, mounting growing protests, introducing legislation and threatening to try to derail his agenda by holding up confirmation of his appointees.
Rep. Maxine Waters said, “We have got to tell Elon Musk, ‘Nobody elected your ass. Nobody told you you could get all of our private information. Nobody told you you could be in charge of the payments of this country.’”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren added, “Not one Democrat in America voted for Elon Musk, not one not one Republican in America voted for Elon Musk, not one independent in America voted for Elon Musk, not one libertarian in America voted for Elon Musk, dammit, not one vegetarian in America voted for Elon Musk, and yet, Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal cautioned his Republican colleagues that Musk’s actions could have harmful consequences for their constituents as well.
Sen. Chris Murphy struck a similar tone as his Democratic colleagues, threatening to stall Trump’s nominees from being confirmed should Musk continue his overreach.
“You will remember this is the moment that made a difference for America, because the message here is, we have to reach beyond this crowd, reach beyond this city. Reach beyond Democrats, to Republicans and say you’re losing your country too,” Murphy said.
Pressley reached out to Republicans, too.
“I want to say to our Republican colleagues, pay attention. We’re here today in the hopes that you will see the light. But if you do not see the light, we will bring the fire. Resist,” she said Rep. Pressley.
During multiple times, there were chants of “Lock him up!” from the crowd, which appeared to be directed at Trump and Musk.
Murphy also made a dig at the young staffers reportedly working for DOGE.
“When we open up the Senate every single morning, we don’t pledge allegiance to the billionaires. We don’t. We don’t pledge allegiance to Elon Musk. We don’t pledge allegiance to the creepy 22 year olds working for Elon Musk. We pledge allegiance to the United States of America,” he said to cheers.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said they’re pushing joint legislation that would block ‘unlawful meddling’ in the Treasury Department’s payment systems — responding to news on Monday that Treasury gave Musk and representatives of DOGE access to its vast federal payment system.
At a news conference at the Capitol, the Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the “Stop the Steal” Act, a play off of Trump’s rallying cry as he sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The legislation would deny special government employees and anyone with conflicts of interest or a lack of appropriate clearance any access to the Treasury payment system. It also would include personal tax information into existing privacy protections, according to Schumer.
The White House said Monday that Musk received status as a special government employee, meaning he’s a short-term federal worker who works under looser ethics rules.
Jeffries said the legislation will be introduced “in short order” to prevent “unlawful access with respect to the Department of Treasury’s payment system connected to people who are trying to steal personal, sensitive and confidential information related to Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients, taxpayers, businesses, not-for-profits, veterans and everyday Americans.”
“It is unacceptable, unconscionable and unAmerican,” he said.
Given the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, it is unlikely the legislation will advance. However, Schumer and Jeffries outlined other avenues Democrats could take. Schumer threatened to block funding legislation until there are changes and added that Democrats would also hold shadow hearings with whistleblowers.
Though the leaders repeatedly mentioned DOGE, they stayed away from directly saying Elon Musk’s name until asked by reporters.
Jeffries avoided saying the legislation was solely focused on Musk but rather centered around the “whole process” of the recent Treasury moves, when asked how concerned he was specifically about the Tesla founder.
“We’re concerned that Musk is in charge of DOGE, but we’re concerned about the how the whole process works, and ultimately the buck falls with Donald Trump, the president,” Jeffries said. “But we are concerned that a small number of people are concerned with the whole process, including Musk and including the others,” Jeffries said.
The Democrats repeatedly downplayed DOGE’s power.
“It has no authority to make spending decisions, to shut down programs or ignore federal law. This is not debatable. This is an indisputable fact: No authority for spending decisions to shut down programs or ignore federal law,” Schumer warned.
Schumer said that “all 47 Democrats” in the Senate would oppose the confirmation of Office of Management and Budget nominee Russell Vought in light of the federal funding freezes announced last week.
“We are united in our agreement that Russell Vought is a dangerous and destructive choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget, and we saw a precursor to his leadership last week during the dangerous federal funding fees that crippled nearly crippled critical duties of the federal government and its operations,” Schumer said.
“Senate Democrats will unanimously oppose him and do everything we can to prevent him from needing OMB,” he added.
(NEW YORK) — Former President Bill Clinton, during an appearance on ABC’s The View on Wednesday, indicated he hopes President Joe Biden will not preemptively pardon people who could be targeted by the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, including Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“If President Biden wanted to talk to me about that, I would talk to him about it. But I don’t think I should be giving public advice on the pardon power. I think it’s too — it’s a very personal thing, but it is — I hope he won’t do that,” Clinton said.
“Most of us get out of this world ahead of where we’d get if all we got was simple justice. And so it’s normally a fool’s errand. You spend a lot of time trying to get even,” he added.
President Biden and his senior aides have been discussing possible preemptive pardons for people who might be targeted by the new Trump administration, according to a source close to the president. Experts have told ABC News he has the power to do so under the Constitution.
Clinton emphasized that he does not believe any potential charges from the incoming Trump administration brought against Hillary Clinton would be valid, arguing that she did not do anything wrong with her handling of emails during her time at the State Department — a controversy which became a flashpoint late in the 2016 election cycle.
Asked separately about his recent comments that a Republican could be more likely to be the first female president, Clinton said, “The impulse to say a woman probably shouldn’t be president comes more from the right than from the left — in the brain — and it’s an impulsive thing.”
He also surmised that voters are not always looking toward how much experience a politician had, because of how they’re focused on day-to-day issues.
“If you’re an alienated voter and you’re genuinely worried about your family’s financial security or your personal security, then the last thing you want is somebody who’s well qualified … if you think the total sum of impact of government action is negative, then you may not want somebody who’s well qualified,” Clinton said.
“And that’s the danger we’re at now, because it actually does matter if you know things.”
Asked about what may happen after Trump’s victory, Clinton emphasized that Trump won fairly.
“So, I think what we have to do is to observe a peaceful transfer of power, stand up for what we believe, and work together when we can,” Clinton said.
“I do not think we should just be jamming them, even though they do that to us a lot. I think it’s a mistake,” he added.
During the 2024 campaign cycle, Bill Clinton campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris, serving as a key surrogate sent to rural areas and to speak with working-class voters.
Asked how Democrats can win back working-class voters who have been shifting to support Republicans, Clinton said that he feels part of the challenge is “cultural,” as rural voters skewer more conservative and are dealing with things they are not used to.
“The world moves on, and things that once made sense to people don’t anymore,” he said. “The world moves on, and things that once made sense to people don’t anymore. Things that should make sense don’t anymore.”
“We need to quit screaming at each other and listen to each other. We need to have a serious conversation about these things. And I think one of the things that Democrats sometimes do is give up on too many people, because the demographics say they’re not going to be for it,” Clinton said.
“Well, that may be, but you know, if you don’t deal with something that’s controversial, just because you don’t want to hear it, that’s like an insult to voters.”
Clinton has devoted time to charitable and health causes since his presidency, and his memoir “Citizen: My Life After the White House” released in November.
“First, it was fun, and secondly, it was important,” Clinton said of his charitable work. “And thirdly, I could do it. And it didn’t matter if the president was Barack Obama or George Bush, we just did things that human beings needed.”
(WASHINGTON) — As Democratic governors prepare to navigate and resist parts of President-elect Donald Trump’s next administration, one told ABC News she is most alarmed by Trump’s tariff plan.
“Tariffs would be devastating to our economy, especially with the amount of trade we do with Canada,” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey told ABC News.
Trump has threatened to impose a 25% across the board tariff on Mexico and Canada, in addition to a 10% tariff on goods imported from China. These are the U.S.’s top three trading partners. Economists warn this would raise prices on everyday goods and wreak havoc on the economy.
“I’m a governor who’s come in, cut taxes, worked to lower housing costs, grow the economy. If he were to impose tariffs — it would first of all — I think it’s not smart to do — and it would be devastating to consumers,” Healey said, “Think about all the housing we’re trying to build here right now — what will that do to housing costs?”
In an interview with NBC News that aired on Sunday, Trump said he couldn’t guarantee that his tariff plan would not raise prices for American consumers.
Other Democratic governors, who gathered last weekend for the first time since the election for a winter meeting in Beverly Hills, California, said Trump’s tariff proposals were a chief concern among a number of others: threats to entitlements, his immigration proposals, and repeals of climate and reproductive protections. Several high-profile governors told ABC News they’re deep into preparations to use legislative, executive or legal actions to combat Trump’s moves.
At the Beverly Hilton over the weekend, the tight-knit group of Democratic talent — many of whom will be some of the strongest detractors of Trump’s policies and also some of the best-positioned to be at the top of the party’s presidential ticket in 2028 — gathered for private, closed-door meetings with one another, donors and other stakeholders. The group of about 18 governors and governors-elect, hosted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, focused on how to navigate through Trump’s leadership, according to several who spoke with ABC News, rather than any significant post-election analysis following the Democrats’ losses last month.
The group of governors in Beverly Hills included many of the likely 2028 contenders, including blue state leaders like Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who have been actively on offense against Republican leadership since Nov. 6, and red state ones like Democratic Governors Association Vice Chair and Chair-elect Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear.
Healey, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz were also on the guest list — many of whom have questions looming about their own political futures.
“I would expect that we’ll put up quite a fight to take the House back. And I think that we’ll have an incredible bench in the primary ’28,” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told ABC News about the plans of many of the governors.
Different tones in taking on Trump
The governors are striking different tones as they prepare for Trump’s presidency.
The strongest, most combative voices of course have been from leaders like Newsom, who initiated a recently convened a special legislative session in California to increase funding for its Department of Justice and other agencies so they’ll be able to quickly file litigation to challenge actions taken by a second Trump administration. Pritzker, too, has made not-so-veiled threats about how he’d approach the administration should it “come for” his people, and recently announced his position as co-chair, along with Jared Polis of Colorado, of a new nonpartisan coalition of governors committed to protecting the “state-level institutions of democracy” ahead of Trump’s presidency.
Other governors encouraged their peers to meet this moment offensively through their agendas.
“Democratic governors should approach this with strength and resolution and an activist agenda. Because this is the place where we can make progress too,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee told ABC News.
“You can’t stop some 85% of the things I would like to do in that state, so I think the order of the day is defend where we can in fighting with an advance every day with our own ambitions and unaffected by him, so that shadow doesn’t fall in our state,” said Inslee, who is leaving his seat this winter to make way for incoming Gov. Bob Ferguson.
But a different group of governors are acting much more lukewarm in their approaches, emphasizing their desire to “work” with the Trump administration and some citing past collaborations with the president-elect’s team, like during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Beshear said last weekend that Democrats needed to lean into “reason” while Trump is in office and that he’s willing to work with the incoming administration.
“The middle ground, middle of the road, common ground, common sense, is open. It’s open,” Beshear told a group of reporters on Saturday.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, the DGA’s chair, said this weekend that she wasn’t yet anticipating Trump or his agencies’ actions, but “We will always look for ways to work together” with the caveat that she’ll “draw the line” on things “that they push us to do that we think are wrong, illegal, anything like that.”
The varying approaches from governors to Trump’s agenda could be a coordinated strategy as the group wrestles with how best to support each other within a party attempting to rebuild — a complicated task as they also eye each other as potential presidential primary competition.
“We know how to create space to protect people and protect the priorities,” Lujan Grisham told ABC, noting that she and many other governors aren’t officially part of Pritzker and Polis’ new coalition, for example. “We did it on climate. We still do it on climate. We did it on reproductive premiums, we’re gonna have to still do it on reproductive premiums, and we’ll do some test cases in states that allow us to frame and direct these coalitions.”
“We want to be strategic about what it is that we are announcing. And here’s why: We’ve got a president-elect and a team that, before this and every day, said ‘We’re going to punish anyone in our way, and we’re going to particularly punish states,'” she went on. “And the difference in California versus New Mexico — California is definitely on the radar. I don’t minimize what the Trump administration can negatively do to my state, but we’re also very effective at watching and understanding what’s occurring, and then we can deploy our joint efforts pretty damn fast.”
Plans to fight Trump’s tariff, immigration proposals
While governors can mount legal fights against parts of Trump’s plan, the president can use executive power to impose sweeping tariffs.
But for immigration, on the other hand, governors can resist Trump’s proposals in clearer ways.
Border state Gov. Lujan Grisham told ABC News she’d block Trump’s ability to use detention centers, deploy the National Guard or even request data in her state if he attempted mass deportations.
“I take him at his word. He says he’s going to do, try to do mass deportations,” she said, adding that she wouldn’t be a partner in those moves: “There’s a lot that he can’t do by himself.” .”I mean, I’ve made it very clear over a number of years on this issue is that I will not use our National Guard to perform that kind of service,” Kelly told reporters.
“I will not send them to the border. We have had Guard members go to the border, but they have been federalized when they’ve been down there. I don’t see that as the role of the National Guard — they are there to serve Kansas, Kansas issues, so I don’t see that changing… The State Police are mine, and it’s not their job, either. So we will take the same approach as we have with the Guard,” Kelly added.
On immigration, most Democratic governors agree that violent criminals need to be deported, noting that it’s always been the case that local and state law enforcement work with federal authorities on investigating crimes. But where many governors draw the line is on deporting undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in America for a long time, arguing it’s inhumane and damages the economy.
“We don’t know what President Trump’s immigration plan is going to look like at the end of the day. He is a master of saying something, creating a great deal of noise, and then the reality may be different. So I’m going to wait to see exactly what it is he ultimately proposes,” incoming North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein told reporters about his plans to respond to Trump’s immigration moves.
“The people of North Carolina have every right to be safe in their communities, and anybody who commits a violent crime must be held accountable, fully, and that’s whether they’re in this country as American citizens or they’re here as undocumented people, and if they’re here undocumented, they should be deported,” Stein said.
They also question how Trump will execute his plan. Trump could direct the National Guard to help with transport and logistics, but one Democratic governor told ABC News these are precious resources, and they need their National Guard for emergencies like storms, fires and severe flooding.
Trump’s team has discussed in the past how to strip federal resources from Democratic-run cities if they refuse to work with the administration on deporting undocumented immigrants, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Blue state governors say they’re concerned about the Trump administration weaponizing federal funding and “picking winners and losers.” One governor told ABC News their state is focused on locking down every federal dollar the state is entitled to, and securing all of the funding made available through the Biden administration’s infrastructure law and CHIPS and Science Act.
In California, Newsom has also started to “Trump-proof” his budget, which is one of the aims of his move to convene the legislature last week.
