Podcasts about cfpb

Divestment is often credited with helping end apartheid in South Africa. So can divestment from fossil fuel businesses similarly help make a difference when it comes to climate and the environment? This morning, we're joined by Amy Scott, host of Marketplace's "How We Survive" podcast, to discuss. But first: plans to cut funding for financial literacy and consumer education at the CFPB and headwinds for the consulting industry.

In this episode of Everyday Black Men, the crew picks up where "Reed's Split Personality" left off, with Reed praising the CFPB chair featured on Breaking Points. White Collar Suge declares his political independence but gets heated when Riker cracks a joke about him being a certain animal, sparking playful tension. The discussion shifts to critiques of Obama and the gig economy, with Riker calling out Uber as a fake job and dubbing Suge the “Blue Collar Supreme” among his peers. Reed jokes that Suge has earned the right to start cheating now that he's "made it," prompting Riker to ask if Reed is projecting. The episode wraps with Suge reflecting on wasted opportunities in the Black community, like squandering refund checks on Jordans, while Reed throws in a jab about $20 baby photo shoots and staying humble—closing the episode with laughter and layered insights.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/everyday-black-men--2988631/support.

In This Episode Live from the main stage at Arizent's Digital Banking 2025, this high-energy episode of Breaking Banks brings the regulatory heat. Host Jason Henrichs is joined by Alex Johnson (Fintech Takes) and Dara Tarkowski (Actuate Law) for unfiltered, rapid-fire takes on the most urgent—and divisive—issues shaping digital finance regulation today. In a fintech twist on the classic ‘90s game FMK, the trio tackles which regulatory bodies to "love, leave, or reform"—from the CFPB and OCC to the NCUA and beyond. No topic is off-limits as they debate the shifting landscape around Section 1033, Open Banking implementation, UDAP enforcement, and the growing tensions between innovation and compliance. Plus: what do the STABLE Act, the GENIUS Act, and Stablecoin policy have in common? They all point to a regulatory future that's as complex as it is critical to get right. This episode is not for the faint of heart, but essential listening for anyone working at the intersection of fintech, policy, and consumer protection.

Streamed live on Feb 11, 2025 The SITCH and ADAM Show! (Full Livestreams)If you bought a copy of our comic book, please make sure you have the correct shipping address on Indiegogo: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/su... How banks create money: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/med...Last chance to buy our graphic novel!!! http://adamfriended.com/supervillains New media channel:    / @howtokillafranchise  

Our podcast show being released today is Part 2 of our two-part series featuring two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. Part 1 of our two-part series was released last Thursday, June 12.  The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future?11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.” During this part of the podcast show, we discussed the fact that the CFPB has entered into agreements with a few companies that had previously entered into consent agreements with former Director Chopra. After the recording of this podcast, the Federal District Court that presided over the Townstone Financial enforcement litigation involving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act refused to approve the rescission or undoing of the consent agreement based on Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of the strong public policy of preserving the finality of judgments.

Our podcast shows being released today and next Wednesday, June 18 feature two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future? 11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.”

In this special crossover episode between FCRA Focus and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Kim Phan, Dave Gettings, Chris Willis, and Cindy Hanson explore the recent withdrawal of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) guidance affecting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of how these changes impact key areas such as preemption, background screening, permissible purpose, artificial intelligence, and state attorneys general enforcement actions. The discussion highlights the implications for consumer reporting agencies, furnishers, end-users, and the broader regulatory landscape, offering valuable insights for professionals navigating these evolving challenges. Tune in to understand the potential shifts in compliance and enforcement.

Wednesday June 11, 2025 Top CFPB Enforcement Official Resigns

  A decade-and-a-half ago in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the financial crisis that sparked it, consumer advocates in North Carolina and around the country succeeded in spurring the creation of a new federal government watchdog known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the years since, the CFPB has done prodigious work […]

Welcome to Connect, a podcast featuring one-on-one interviews with some of the top movers and shakers in the mortgage industry. This week we welcome Mitch Kider, Managing Partner, Weiner Brodsky Kider, PC  Episode discussion timestamps: 1:29 - The last time you were on Connect; we were fresh off the 2024 Presidential election. Now that this Administration has taken so many actions across the board that impact lenders, what are you sharing with lenders about the current state of the CFPB? 4:27 - It has been stated, and we're certainly seeing it in California, that the actions at the federal level will force states to be more aggressive from a legislative or regulatory standpoint.  How are you seeing the states react? 9:12 - In this type of uncertain regulatory environment, what advice are you giving lenders? 10:33 - Outside of the regulatory environment for a moment, what are some of trends in litigation for lenders? You've been a big supporter of the California MBA, for which I'm always grateful.  From what you've shared today, its clear that the advocacy efforts of the state MBAs becomes much more significant in this Administration.  Why should lenders support the state MBAs in which they're licensed? To learn more about the California MBA, visit cmba.com

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy emerges. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is a comprehensive blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States. At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power, placing the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its adherence to the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that centralizes control in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has explicitly stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president. This vision is not new; it has roots in the Reagan administration and has been reinforced by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society[4].The plan's ambition is evident in its proposals for radical changes within federal agencies. For instance, Project 2025 advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has been vocal about her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The project's scope extends far beyond the State Department. It includes proposals to eliminate entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions are part of a broader effort to streamline the government and cut costs, with the goal of saving $1 trillion. However, the methods employed by the Trump administration, particularly through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have been criticized for their chaotic and legally questionable nature. Musk's DOGE has already led to the layoff or planned layoff of 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The elimination of agencies like the CFPB is a stark example of Project 2025's intent to dismantle regulatory bodies seen as obstacles to conservative policy goals. The CFPB, established to protect consumers from financial abuse, is viewed by proponents of the project as an overreach of government power. By abolishing such agencies, Project 2025 aims to reduce what it perceives as bureaucratic inefficiencies and restore what it sees as proper executive authority.The potential implications of these changes are far-reaching and have sparked significant concern among various stakeholders. Critics argue that these actions will have devastating consequences for workers and the general public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals under Project 2025, highlighting the potential harm to workers and the erosion of regulatory protections[3].Experts warn that the centralization of power envisioned by Project 2025 could undermine the independence of critical agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This could lead to a politicization of law enforcement and judicial processes, compromising the integrity of these institutions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are also targeted for similar restructuring, which could have profound impacts on telecommunications and consumer protection policies[4].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 is likely to face numerous legal and political challenges. The chaotic execution by the Trump administration has already tested the legal system, and future actions will undoubtedly be scrutinized by courts and Congress. The upcoming months will be crucial as various stakeholders, including federal employees, advocacy groups, and lawmakers, navigate the implications of these sweeping changes.In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in American governance, driven by a conservative vision of centralized executive power. While its proponents see it as a necessary reform to streamline government and restore presidential authority, critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic checks and balances. As the project continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how these ambitious plans will shape the future of the federal government and the lives of millions of Americans. One thing is certain: the journey ahead will be marked by intense debate, legal battles, and a profound redefinition of the role of the executive branch in American politics.

Our podcast show being released today features two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Supervision Division under prior directors: Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford. Peggywas a founding executive of the CFPB when the agency was created in 2010 and led the development of the first federal supervision program over nonbank consumer financial companies. Beginning in 2012, as head of CFPB's Office of Supervision Policy, Peggy led the office responsible for developing supervision strategy for bank and nonbank markets and ensuring that federal consumer financial laws were applied consistently in supervisory matters across markets and regions. Paul served as head of the Office of Supervision Examinations for the CFPB from 2012-2020 with responsibility for ensuring the credible conduct of consumer protection examinations. The purpose of this podcast show was primarily to obtain the opinions of Peggy and Paul about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Supervision Priority documents which guided former directors and (ii) drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, the cancellation of all supervisory exams and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Supervision's staff to 50 employees) We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. Peggy and Paul describe in detail the CFPB Supervision priorities under Director Chopra and compare and contrast those priorities with the new priorities established by Paoletta which are: 1.  “Shift back” CFPB Supervision to the proportions focused on depository institutions to nonbanks to where it was in 2012 -- to a 70% depository and 30% nonbank, compared to the more recent 60% on nonbanks to 40% depositories.  2.  Focus CFPB Supervision on “conciliation, correction, and remediation of harms subject to consumer complaints” and “collaborative efforts with the supervised entities to resolve problems so that there are measurable benefits to consumers.” 3.  Focus CFPB Supervision on “actual fraud” where there are “identifiable victims with material and measurable consumer damages as opposed to matters where the consumers made “wrong” choices. 4. Focus CFPB Supervision on the following priorities: ·       Mortgages as the highest priority ·       FCRA/Reg V data furnishing violations ·       FDCPA/Reg F relating to consumer contracts/debts ·       Fraudulent overcharges, fees, etc. ·       Inadequate controls to protect consumer information resulting in actual loss to consumers. 5.  Focus CFPB Supervision on providing redress to service members and their families and veterans. 6. The areas that will be deprioritized by CFPB Supervision will be loans for “justice involved” individuals, medical debt, peer-to-peer platforms and lending, student loans, remittances, consumer data and digital payments.  7. Respect Federalism” and not prioritize supervision where States “have and exercise” ample regulatory and supervisory authority and participating in multi-state exams (unless required by statute). 8.  Eliminate duplicative supervision where other federal agencies have supervisory jurisdiction 9.  Not pursue supervision under “novel legal theories.” 10.  For fair lending, ignore redlining or “bias assessment” based solely on statistical evidence, and only pursue matters with “proven actual intentional racial discrimination and actual identified victims.” Peggy and Paul also discussed their skepticism as to whether CFPB Supervision will be able to comply with its statutory duties if the RIF is carried out and Supervision's staff is reduced to 50 employees. Alan Kaplinsky, former longtime Chair of the Consumer Financial Group and now Senior Counsel hosted the podcast.

Thursday June 5, 2025 Lawsuit: Firing of CFPB Comissioners Illegal by Russell Mokhiber

In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, Chris Willis, Jason Cover, and Taylor Gess unravel the often-confused distinctions between loans and credit sales in the first installment of our Point-of-Sale Finance Series. This episode sheds light on the regulatory nuances that impact the delivery of financial products. From the historical backdrop of Retail Installment Sales Acts to the modern-day challenges of terminology, the conversation offers a comprehensive overview of the pros and cons of retail installment contracts and direct loans. Whether you're a seasoned professional or new to consumer finance, this discussion will enhance your understanding of these pivotal financial structures.

In this episode, Dean and Len discuss the critical role of compliance management systems (CMS) within financial institutions, especially during periods of regulatory change and uncertainty. They emphasize that strong CMS is more than just box-checking—it is the foundation for harmonizing policies, monitoring risks, and ensuring ethical operations across departments. The conversation highlights challenges such as evolving regulations, complex financial products, digital assets, and talent shortages, as well as the recent regulatory shifts like the rollback of the 2023 CRA rule and changing CFPB priorities. The hosts stress that proactive, values-driven compliance management helps institutions stay resilient, maintain stability, and navigate future regulatory swings, especially as concerns grow around data privacy, cybersecurity, and the integration of AI and automation. Brought to you by GeoDataVision and M&M Consulting      

In this week's episode of Fintech Recap, Jason Mikula and I break down a surprisingly busy run of headlines. The IPO window is open after all: eToro priced above its range, Circle (the issuer of the USDC stablecoin) is eyeing a debut, and we can't not dig into Chime's S-1. First up: the S-1 heard round the world. Chime has finally filed to go public, and it's … complicated. Is it a payments company? A bank in denial? We unpack the Rorschach test (Alex's gloss) that is Chime's business model. Plus, a look into Chime's $1.5B in marketing spend and the real question that's not really a question but a comment: Chime still hasn't cracked credit in a compelling way? Next, it's the open banking implosion no one saw coming. The CFPB's open banking rule (Section 1033) could be overturned (yes, everything the CFPB has done since 2022 could be wiped off the map, including 1033). Jason and I walk through how the legal and regulatory whiplash could kill the broader API economy, spark a screen scraping renaissance, and more. Then, stablecoin legislation enters the chat. The GENIUS Act (yes, that's the real name) is gaining steam in Congress, but the fine print matters. We dig into what the bill actually allows (yield or no yield?), what banks are really scared of, and why the next few years could make or break trust in digitally-issued (nonbank) monies. Plus, we can't let go of the recent NYC crypto kidnapping straight out of Law & Order. When you're self-custodying and everyone knows what your “bank” holds, well … maybe the next era of crypto will finally learn what old money always knew: real wealth whispers. This episode is brought to you by: Newline™ by Fifth Third is an innovative, API-first platform that enables fintechs to launch embedded payment, card and deposit solutions directly with Fifth Third Bank. Visit Newline53.com to see how Newline can elevate your business. Sign up for Alex's Fintech Takes newsletter for the latest insightful analysis on fintech trends, along with a heaping pile of pop culture references and copious footnotes. Every Monday and Thursday: https://workweek.com/brand/fintech-takes/  And for more exclusive insider content, don't forget to check out my YouTube page. Follow Jason: Newsletter: https://fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonmikula/   Follow Alex:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Jason Cover to introduce an upcoming special series focused on point-of-sale finance, a rapidly evolving sector in consumer financial services. This teaser provides a sneak peek into increasingly popular topics that will be discussed throughout the series, including innovative point-of-sale finance solutions such as payment methods beyond traditional credit and debit cards, in addition to a diverse range of products and the dynamic interactions between fintech lenders, financial institutions, and merchants. The series will also explore foundational concepts and specific models across various industries, such as home improvements and medical financing, setting the stage for a deep dive into the transformative impact of point-of-sale finance on consumer transactions.

Glen speaks with Edelman Smithfield's Deidre Campbell to explore her firm's new Financial Services Trust Barometer and the (mostly) positive signs for banks and credit unions. Also- the latest Gen AI fiasco has a familiar ring, Illinois' unworkable interchange law moves bizarrely close to reality, and why the CFPB's withdrawal of its open banking rule isn't necessarily cause for celebration.     Links related to this episode:   The 2025 Edelman Financial Services Trust Barometer: https://www.edelmansmithfield.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer/report-financial-sector  Our February conversation with Deidre on global trust overall: https://www.big-fintech.com/scams-grievances-and-the-enduring-value-of-trust/  The Chicago Sun-Times' mea culpa for printing invented book titles: https://chicago.suntimes.com/press-room/2025/05/20/chicago-sun-times-response-to-may-18-special-section  Our May 2023 “Package Delivery Blues” episode exposing some familiar AI shortcomings: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3njgklKC8n2fehQrjj9s6U si=Uhhi0sSVR1q2qBOLjj_Hmg&nd=1&dlsi=00114d6259894dfa  CU Broadcast's recent coverage of the Interchange Fee Prohibition Act with the Illinois Credit Union League (NOTE- On May 31 the Illinois General Assembly postponed implementation of the IFPA for a year, until July 1, 2026):  https://www.cubroadcast.com/episodes/3983-how-illinois-interchange-fee-prohibition-act-could-affect-entire-financial-services-industry  Coverage of the CFPB's decision to pull its Section 1033 (Open Banking) rule: https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2025/05/28/cfpb-will-kill-section-1033-open-banking-rule/    Join us for our next CU Town Hall- Wednesday June 11 at 3pm ET/Noon PT- for a live and lively interactive conversation tackling the major issues facing credit unions today. Industry developments keep coming fast and furious- the CU Town Hall is the place to make sense of these items together. It's free to attend, but advance registration is required:  https://www.cutownhall.com/   Join us on Bluesky!  @bigfintech.bsky.social;  @154advisors.bsky.social (Glen); @jbfintech.bsky.social (John) And connect on LinkedIn for insights like the Friday Fintech Five: https://www.linkedin.com/company/best-innovation-group/  https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbfintech/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/glensarvady/

We are releasing today on our podcast show a repurposed webinar which we produced on May 13, 2025 entitled “What is happening at the federal agencies (other than the CFPB) that is relevant to the consumer financial services industry.” During this podcast, we will inform you about recent developments at those other agencies, including the FTC, OCC, FDIC, FRB and DOJ (collectively, the “Agencies”) and the White House (through the issuance of Executive Orders). Some of the issues we consider are: •        What are the strategic priorities of the Agencies, including cryptocurrency (OCC, FRB and DOJ); reducing regulatory burden, promoting financial inclusion, embracing bank-fintech partnerships and expanding responsible bank activities involving digital assets (OCC); adopt a more open-minded approach to innovation and technology adoption (FDIC); public inquiry into anti-competitive regulations (FTC and DOJ); and regulation of AI technology, boosting protections for children and teens online and strengthening enforcement against companies that sell, transfer, or disclose Americans' geolocation information and other sensitive data to foreign adversaries, more emphasis on antitrust enforcement and less on consumer protection (FTC). •        What is the status of proposed or final regulations of the Agencies? (e.g., FTC CARS Rule, Click-to-Cancel Rule, Junk Fees Rule, and Rule banning Noncompetes; FDIC advertisement and brokered-deposit rules, OCC rule on bank mergers; and the Community Reinvestment Act final rule)? •        What is the status of enforcement investigations and litigation of the Agencies? •        What impact will staff cuts have on supervisory examinations? •        What is the impact of President Trump's executive order requiring the Agencies to obtain approval from the White House of all proposed and final regulations? •        Will the Supreme Court approve of President Donald Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the FTC and NCUA and other federal agencies (who have subsequently sued Trump to challenge the firings) and, if so, what are its implications? •        What is the significance of the FDIC and OCC agreeing to eliminate “reputation risk” as a basis for evaluating risks to banks? •        Will the OCC adopt a regulation or other guidance, or will Congress enact legislation pertaining to debanking/fair access? •        Will the OCC and/or FDIC issue any guidance or regulations pertaining to federal preemption of state law in light of the Supreme Court's opinion last term in Cantero and the impending Courts of Appeal decisions in Cantero, Kivett and Conti? •        What is the significance of the FDIC withdrawing its amicus brief in support of the Colorado Attorney General in the 10th Circuit in the lawsuit brought by industry against him challenging a Colorado statute which purported to opt out of Section 521 of DIDMCA? •        Will there continue to be fair lending and disparate impact enforcement at any of the Agencies? Alan Kaplinsky, former chair and now senior counsel of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderated the presentations of the following other members of the Consumer Financial Services Group:  Scott Coleman, Ronald Vaske and Kristen Larson.

 Santi: Hi, this is a special episode of Statecraft. I've got a wonderful guest host with me today. Kyla Scanlon: Hey, I'm Kyla Scanlon! I'm the author of a book called In This Economy and an economic commentator. Santi: Kyla has joined me today for a couple reasons. One, I'm a big fan of her newsletter: it's about economics, among many other things. She had a great piece recently on what we can learn from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, which is a favorite book of mine.Kyla's also on today because we're interviewing Wally Adeyemo, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration. We figured we each had questions we wanted answered.Kyla: Yeah, I've had the opportunity to interview Wally a couple times during the Biden administration, and I wanted to see where he thinks things are at now. He played a key role in implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, financial sanctions on Russia, and a whole bunch of other things.Santi: For my part, I'm stuck on Wally's role in setting up the IRS's Direct File program, where you can file your taxes for free directly through the IRS instead of paying TurboTax a hundred bucks to do it. “Good governance types” tend to love Direct File, but the current admin is thinking of killing it. I wanted to understand how the program got rolled out, how Wally would respond to criticisms of the program, and what he learned from building something in government, which now may disappear.Kyla, you've talked to Wally before. How did that conversation go? Kyla: I actually was able to go to his office in D.C., and I talked to a couple of key people in the Biden administration: Jared Bernstein, the former chair of the CEA, and Daniel Hornung, who was at the National Economic Council.We're talking to Wally on the day that the House passed the one big beautiful bill. There's also so much happening financially, like the bond market is totally rebelling against the US government right now. I'm really curious how he thinks things are, as a key player in the last administration.Santi: Wally, you've spent most of your career in Democratic Party institutions. You worked on the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. You served in the Obama admin. You were the first chief of staff to the CFPB, the president of the Obama Foundation, and, most recently, Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Biden admin.30,000ft question: How do you see the Democratic Party today?My view is that we continue to be the party that cares deeply about working-class people, but we haven't done a good job of communicating that to people, especially when it comes to the things that matter most to them. From my standpoint, it's costs: things in America cost too much for a working-class family.I want to make sure I define working class: I think about people who make under $100,000 a year, many of whom don't own homes on the coast or don't own a significant amount of stocks (which means they haven't seen the asset appreciation that's led to a great deal of wealth creation over the last several decades). When you define it that way, 81% of Americans sit in that category of people. Despite the fact that they've seen their median incomes rise 5-10% over the last five years, they've seen the cost of the things they care about rise even faster.We haven't had a clear-cut agenda focused on the standard of living, which I think is the thing that matters most to Americans today.Santi: There are folks who would say the problem for Democrats wasn't that they couldn't communicate clearly, or that they didn't have a governing agenda, but that they couldn't execute their agenda the way they hoped to in the time available to them. Would you say there's truth to that claim?Most people talk about a communications issue, but I don't think it's a communications issue. There are two issues. One is an implementation issue, and the second is an issue of the actual substance and policy at the Treasury Department. I was the deputy secretary, but I was also the Chief Operating Officer, which meant that I was in charge of execution. The two most significant domestic things I had to execute were the American Rescue Plan, where $1.9 trillion flowed through the Treasury Department, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The challenge with execution in the government is that we don't spend a lot on our systems, on making execution as easy as possible.For example, the Advanced Child Tax Credit was intended to give people money to help with each of their children during the pandemic. What Congress called on us to do was to pay people on a monthly basis. In the IRS system, you pay your taxes mostly on an annual basis, which meant that most of our systems weren't set up to pay a monthly check to Americans. It took us a great deal of work to figure out a way to recreate a system just to do that.We've underinvested in the systems that the IRS works on. The last time we made a significant investment in the IRS's digital infrastructure was the 1960s; before we had an ATM machine, before we sent a man to the moon, before we had a personal computer. So that meant that everything was coded in a language called COBOL.So execution was quite hard in the American Rescue Plan. People were left out and felt that the government wasn't working for them. If you called the IRS, only 13% of your calls were being answered. We got that back up to 85% before we left. Ultimately, I think part of this is an execution challenge. In government we want to spend money coming up with new policies, but we don't want to pay for execution, which then means that when you get the policy passed, implementation isn't great.When Jen Pahlka was on your show, she talked about the need to focus on identifying the enablers to implementation. Direct File was one of the best examples of us taking implementation very seriously.But also, on some policy issues that mattered most to Americans, we weren't advancing the types of strategies that would've helped lower the cost of housing and lowering the cost of medicine. We did some things there, but there's clearly more that we could have done, and more we need to do going forward to demonstrate that we're fighting to bring down those costs. It's everything from permitting reform — not just at the federal level, but what can we do to incentivize it at the state and local level — to thinking about what we can do on drug costs. Why does it cost so much more to get a medicine in America than in Canada? That is something that we can solve. We've just chosen not to at the federal level.At the end of the year, we were going to take action to go after some of the middlemen in the pharmacy industry who were taking out rents and large amounts of money. It dropped out of the bill because of the negotiations between the Republican Congress and then President-elect Trump. But there are a lot of things that we can do both on implementation, which will mean that Americans feel the programs that we're passing in a more effective way, and policy solutions that we need to advance as a party that will help us as well.Kyla: Some people think Americans tend to vote against their own self-interest. How can your party message to people that these sorts of policies are really important for them?Ultimately, what I found is that most people just understand their self-interest differently, and for them, a big part of this was, “Who's fighting for me on the issues that I care most about?”From my standpoint, part of the problem we had with Direct File, which I think was an innovative solution, was that we got to implementing it so late in the administration that we didn't have the ability for it to show the impact. I'm hoping future administrations will think through how to start their implementation journey on things like Direct File sooner in the administration, when you have a great deal of political capital, so people can actually feel the impact over time.To your question, it's not just about the messaging, it's about the messenger. People tend to trust people who look like them, who come from the places they come from. When it came to the Child Tax Credit and also to Direct File, the biggest innovation wasn't the technology: the technology for Direct File has been used by the Australians, the British, and other countries for decades.The biggest innovation was us joining that technology with trusted people in communities who were going out to talk to people about those programs and building those relationships. That was something that the IRS hadn't done a great deal of. We invested a great deal in those community navigators who were helping us get people to trust the things the government was doing again, like the Child Tax Credit, like Direct File, so that they could use it.We often think that Washington is going to be able to give messages to the country that people are going to hear. But we're both in a more complicated media environment, where people are far more skeptical of things that come from people in Washington. So the best people to advocate for and celebrate the things that we're doing are people who are closer to the communities we're trying to reach. In product advertising today, more companies are looking to influencers to advertise things, rather than putting an ad on television, because people trust the people that they follow. The same is true for the things that we do in government.Santi: I've talked to colleagues of yours in the last administration who say things like, “In the White House, we did not have a good enough sense of the shot clock.” They point to various reasons, including COVID, as a reason the admin didn't do a good enough job of prioritization.Do you think that's true, that across the administration, there was a missing sense of the shot clock or a missing sense of prioritization? No, because I'm a Lakers fan. These are professionals. We're professionals. This is not our first rodeo. We know how much time is on the shot clock; we played this game. The challenge wasn't just COVID. For me at Treasury — and I think this is the coolest part of being Deputy Secretary of the Treasury — I had responsibilities domestic and international. As I'm trying to modernize the IRS, to invest all my time in making the system work better for customers and to collect more taxes from the people who owe money, Russia invades Ukraine. I had to turn a bunch of my attention to thinking about what we were going to do there. Then you have Hamas attacking Israel.There was more we should have done on the domestic end, but we have to remember that part of the presidency is: you get to do the things you want to do, but you also have to do the things you have to do. We had a lot of things we had to do that we weren't planning for which required all-of-the-administration responses.I think the most important lesson I've learned about that is that it comes down to both being focused on the things that matter, and being willing to communicate to the American people why your priorities have to change in light of things that happen in the world.But the people I'm sure you've talked to, most of them work on domestic policy alone, and they probably never have been in a National Security Council meeting, where you're thinking about the risks to the country. The president has to do both of those things. So I get how difficult it is to do that, just given where I sat at the Treasury Department.Santi: Looking back from an implementation perspective, are there things you would've done differently during your time at Treasury?The most important thing that I would've done differently was to immediately set up a permanent implementation and delivery unit in the Treasury Department. We always like to pretend like the Treasury Department is just a policy department where we make policy, we collect taxes. But in any crisis the country ever has, a great deal of responsibility — for execution or implementation of whatever the response is — falls to the Treasury Department. Think about the financial crisis, which is clearly something that's in the Treasury's domain. The vast majority of money for COVID flowed through the Treasury Department. You think about the IRA, a climate bill: the vast majority of that money flows through the Treasury Department.And Treasury doesn't have a dedicated staff that's just focused on implementation: How do we do this well? How do we make sure the right people are served? How do we make sure that we communicate this well? We did this to a degree by a team that was focused on the American Rescue Plan. But it was only focused on the American Rescue Plan. If I could start again, I would have said, “I want a permanent implementation structure within the Treasury Department of people who are cross-cutting, who only think about how we execute the policies that we pass through Congress and that we put together through an executive order. How do we do that extremely well?”Kyla: What you're talking about is very people-centric: How do we get an implementation team, and how do we make sure that the right people are doing the right jobs? Now we have DOGE, which is less people-centric. How do you reconcile what Doge is doing relative to what you would've done differently in this role that you had?As you would suspect, I wasn't excited about the fact we had lost the election, but initially I thought DOGE could be helpful with technology. I think marrying technology with people — that's the key to success for the government. We've never really been great at doing technology in the government.Part of the reason for that is a procurement process that is very slow because of how the federal acquisition rules work. What we are trying to do is prevent corruption and also waste, fraud, and abuse. But what that does is, it leads to slowness in our ability to get the technology on board that we need, and in getting the right people.I was hoping DOGE would bring in people who knew a great deal about technology and put us in a position where we could use that to build better products for the American people. I thought they would love Direct File, and that they would find ways to improve Direct File and expand it to more Americans.My view is that any American in the working class or middle class should not have to pay a company to file their taxes. We have the ability in this country, and I think Direct File was proving that. My goal, if we'd had more time, was to expand this to almost any American being able to use it. I thought they'd be able to accelerate that by bringing in the right people, but also the right technology. We were on that path before they took those two things apart.My sense is that you have to reform the way that we hire people because it's too hard to hire the right people. In some cases, you don't need some of the people you have today because technology is going to require different skills to do different things. It's easier to break something, I found, than it is to build something. I think that's what they're finding today as well.Santi: When I talk to left-of-center folks about the DOGE push, they tend to be skeptical about the idea that AI or modern technology can replace existing federal workers. I think some of that is a natural backlash to the extreme partisan coding of DOGE, and the fact that they're firing a lot of people very quickly. But what's your view? After DOGE, what kinds of roles would you like to see automated?Let me say: I disagree with the view that DOGE and technology can't replace some of the things that federal workers do today. My view is that “productivity enhancing” tech — it's not that it is going to make employees who are currently doing the job more productive. It is going to mean you need fewer employees. We have to be honest about that.Go to the IRS, for example. When I got there, we had a huge paper backlog at the IRS because, despite what most people think, millions of people still file their taxes by paper, and they send them to the IRS. And during the pandemic, the commissioner, who was then working for President Trump, decided to shut down the IRS for public health reasons — to make sure employees did not have to risk getting COVID.There were piles of paper backing up, so much so that they had filled cafeterias at the IRS facilities with huge piles of paper. The problem, of course, is that, unlike modern systems, you could not just machine-read those papers and put them into our systems. Much of that required humans to code those papers into the system by hand. There is no need in the 21st century for that to happen, so one of the things that we started to do was introduce this simple thing called scanning, where you would scan the papers — I know it sounds like a novel idea. That would help you get people's tax returns faster into the system, but also get checks out quickly, and allow us to see if people are underpaying their taxes, because we can use that data with a modern system. But over time, what would that mean? We'd need fewer people to enter the data from those forms.When we get money for the IRS from Congress, it is actually seen as revenue-raising because they expect it to bring down the debt and deficit, which is completely true. But the model Congress uses to do that is reliant on the number of full-time employees we hire. One challenge we have with the IRS — and in government systems in general — is that you don't get credit for technology investments that should improve your return on investment.So whenever we did the ROI calculations for the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office would calculate how much revenue we'd bring in, and it was always based on the number of people you had doing enforcement work that would lead to certain dollars coming in. So we got no credit for the technology investments. Which was absolutely the opposite of what we knew would be true: the more you invested in technology, the more likely you were to bring in more revenue, and you would be able to cut the cost of employees.Santi: If the CBO changed the way it scored technology improvements, would more Congresspeople be interested in funding technology?It is just a CBO issue. It's one we've tried to talk to them about over the last several years, but one where they've been unwilling to move. My view is that unlocking this will unlock greater investment in technology in a place like the IRS, because every dollar you invest in technology — I think — would earn back $10 in additional tax revenue we'd be able to collect from people who are skipping out on their taxes today. It's far more valuable to invest in that technology than to grow the number of employees working in enforcement at the IRS. You need both, but you can't say that a person is worth 5x their salary in revenue and that technology is worth 0. That makes no sense.Kyla: When we spoke about Direct File many months ago, people in my comment section were super excited and saying things like, “I just want the government to tell me how much money I owe.” When you think about the implementation of Direct File, what went right, and how do you think it has evolved?The thing that went right was that we proved that we could build something quite easily, and we built it ourselves, unlike many technology projects in government. We didn't go out and hire a bunch of consultants and contractors to do it. We did it with people at the IRS, but also with people from 18F and from GSA who worked in the government. We did it in partnership with a number of stakeholders outside the government who gave us advice, but the build was done by us.The reason that was important — and the reason it's important to build more things internally rather than hiring consulting firms or other people to build it — is that you then have the intellectual capital from building that, and that can be used to build other things. This was one product, but my view is that I want the IRS home page to one day look a lot more like the screen on your iPhone, so that you can click on the app on the IRS homepage that can help you, depending on what you need — if it's a Direct File, or if it's a tax transcript.By building Direct File internally, we were getting closer to that, and the user scores on the effectiveness of the tool and the ability to use it were through the roof. Even for a private sector company, it would've been seen as a great success. In the first year, we launched late in the filing season, mostly just to test the product, but also to build stakeholder support for it. In the limited release, 140,000 people used it. The average user said that before Direct File, it took them about 13 hours to file their taxes, and with Direct File, it took them just over an hour to file their taxes.But you also have to think about how much money the average American spends filing their taxes: about $200. That's $200 that a family making under $100,000 could invest in their kids, in paying some bills, rather than in filing their taxes.Even this year, with no advertising by the Trump administration of Direct File, we had more than 300,000 people use it. The user scores for the product were above 85%. The challenge, of course, is that instead of DOGE investing in improving the product — which was a place where you could have seen real intellectual capital go to work and make something that works for all Americans — they've decided to discontinue Direct File. [NB: There has been widespread reporting that the administration plans to discontinue Direct File. The GOP tax bill passed by the House would end Direct File if it becomes law. At the time of publication, the Direct File has not been discontinued.]The sad part is that when you think about where we are as a country, this is a tool that could both save people money, save people time, improve our ability to collect taxes, and is something that exists in almost every other developed economy. It makes no sense to me why you would end something like this rather than continue to develop it.Santi: People remember the failure of healthcare.gov, which crashed when it was rolled out all at once to everyone in the country. It was an embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, and political actors in that administration learned they had to pilot things and roll them out in phases.Is there a tension between that instinct — to test things slowly, to roll them out to a select group of users, and then to add users in following cycles — Is there a tension between that and trying to implement quickly, so that people see the benefit of the work you're doing?One of my bosses in the Obama administration was Jeff Zients, the person who was brought in to fix healthcare.gov. He relentlessly focused on execution. He always made the point that it's easy to come up with a strategy to some degree: you can figure out what the policy solution is. But the difference between good and great is how you execute against it. I think there is some tension there, but not as much as you would think.Once we were able to show that the pilot was a success, I got invited to states all over the country, like Maryland, to announce that they were joining Direct File the next year. These members of Congress wanted to do Direct File events telling people in their state, “This product that's worked so well elsewhere is coming to us next.” It gave us the ability to celebrate the success.I learned the lesson not just from Zients, but also from then-professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I worked for as chief of staff at the CFPB. One challenge we had at the CFPB was to build a complaint hotline, at that point mostly phone-operated, for people who were suffering. They said it would take us at least a year to build out all the product functions we need. We decided to take a modular approach and say, “How long would it take for us to build the system for one product? Let's try that and see how that works. We'll do a test.”It was successful, and we were able to use that to tell the story about the CFPB and what it would do, not just for mortgages, but for all these other products. We built user interest in the complaint hotline, in a way that we couldn't have if we'd waited to build the whole thing at once. While I think you're right that there is some tension between getting everyone to feel it right away and piloting; if the pilot is successful, it also gives you the opportunity to go out and sell this thing to people and say, “Here's what people who did the pilot are saying about this product.”I remember someone in Texas who was willing to do a direct-to-camera and talk about the ways that Direct File was so easy for them to use. It gets back to my point on message and messenger. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo telling you about this great thing the government did is one thing. But an American who looks like you, who's a nurse, who's a mom of two kids, telling you that this product actually worked for her: That's something that more people identify with.Healthcare.gov taught us the lesson of piloting and doing things in a modular way. This is what companies have been doing for decades. If it's worked for them, I think it can work for the government too.Santi: I'm a fan of Direct File, personally. I don't want this administration to kill it. But I was looking through some of the criticism that Direct File got: for instance, there's criticism about it rivaling the IRS Free File program, which is another IRS program that partners with nonprofits to help some folks file their taxes for free.Then there's this broader philosophical criticism: “I don't want the feds telling me how much I owe them.” The idea is that the government is incentivized to squeeze every last dollar out of you.I'm curious what you make of that, in part because I spoke recently to an American who worked on building e-government systems for Estonia. One of the things that has allowed Estonia to build cutting-edge digital systems in the government is that Estonia is a small and very high-trust society. Everybody's one degree of separation from everybody else.We're a much bigger and more diverse country. How do you think that affects the federal government's ability to build tools like Direct File?I think it affects it a lot, and it gets back to my point: not just the message but the messenger. I saw this not just with Direct File, but with the Advanced Child Tax Credit, which was intended to help kids who were living in poverty, but also families overall. What we found initially in the data was that, among families that didn't have to file taxes because they made too little, many of them were unwilling to take advantage of Direct File and the Advanced Child Tax Credit because they couldn't believe the government was doing something to just help them. I spent a lot of time with priests, pastors, and other community leaders in many of the communities where people were under-filing to try and get them to talk about this program and why it was something that they should apply for.One of the challenges we suffer from right now in America, overall, is a lack of trust in institutions. You have to really go local and try to rebuild that trust.That also speaks to taking a pilot approach that goes slower in some cases. Some of the criticism we got was, “Why don't you just fill out this form for us and then just send it to us, so that Direct File is just me pressing a button so I can pay my taxes?”Part of the challenge for us in doing that is a technology challenge: we are not there technologically. But the other problem is a trust problem. If I were to just fill out your taxes for you and send them to you, I think people, at this stage, would distrust the government and distrust the technology.Direct File had to be on a journey with people, showing people, “If I put in this information, it accurately sends me back my check.” As people develop more trust, we can also add more features to it that I think people will trust. But the key has to be: how do you earn that trust over time?We can't expect that if we put out a product that looks like something the Estonian government or Australia would put out, that people would trust it at this point. We have to realize that we are on a journey to regain the trust of the American people.The government can and will work for them, and Direct File was a part of that. We started to demonstrate that with that product because the people who used it in these communities became the spokespeople for it in a better way than I ever could be, than the Secretary or the President could be.Everyone knows that they need to pay their taxes because it's part of their responsibility living in this country. The things that make people the most upset is the fact that there are people who don't pay their taxes. We committed that we were going to go after them.The second frustration was: “Why do you make it so hard for me to pay my taxes? Why can't I get through to you on the phone line? Why do I have to pay somebody else to do my taxes?” Our goal was to solve those two problems by investing money and going after the people who just decided they weren't going to pay, but also by making it as easy as possible for you to pay your taxes and for most people, to get that tax refund as quickly as possible.But doing that was about going on a journey with people, about regaining their trust in an institution that mattered to them a great deal because 90 something-percent of the money that funds our government comes in through the IRS.Kyla: You have a piece out in Foreign Affairs called “Make Moscow Pay,” and what I found most interesting about that essay is that you said Europe needs to step it up because the United States won't. Talk through the role of Treasury in financial sanctions, and your reasons for writing this piece.People often think about the Treasury Department as doing a few things. One is working with Wall Street; another one is collecting your taxes. Most people don't think about the fact that the Treasury Department is a major part of the National Security Committee, because we have these tools called financial sections.They use the power of the dollar to try and change the behavior of foreign actors who are taking steps that aren't consistent with our national security interests. A great example of this is what we did with regard to Russia — saying that we're going to cut off Russian banks from the US financial system, which means that you can't transact in US dollars.The problem for any bank that can transact in dollars is that the backbone of most of the financial world is built on the US dollar. It increases their cost, it makes it more difficult for them to transact, and makes it harder for them to be part of the global economy, nearly impossible.And that's what we've done in lots of cases when it comes to Russia. We have financial sanction programs that touch all over the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan. The US government, since 9/11, has used sanctions as one of its primary tools of impacting foreign policy. Some of them have gone well, some of them I think haven't gone as well, and there's a need for us to think through how we use those policies.Santi: What makes sanctions an effective tool? Positions on sanctions don't line up neatly on partisan lines. Sanctions have a mixed track record, and you'll have Republicans who say sanctions have failed, and you'll have Democrats say sanctions have been an effective tool, and vice versa.The way I think about sanctions is that they are intended to bring change, and the only way that they work is that they're part of an overarching foreign policy strategy. That type of behavior change was what we saw when Iran came to the table and wanted to negotiate a way to reduce sanctions in exchange for limits on their nuclear program. That's the type of behavior change we're trying to accomplish with sanctions, but you can't do it with sanctions alone. You need a foreign policy strategy. We didn't do it by the United States confronting Iran; we got our allies and partners to work together with us. When I came into office in 2021, Secretary Yellen asked me to do a review of our sanctions policies — what's worked, what hasn't — because it had been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks.And the most important lesson I learned was that the sanctions programs that were the most effective were the ones we did on a multilateral basis — so we did it with our friends and allies. Part of the reason for this is that while the dollar is the most dominant currency around the world, oftentimes if you can't do something in dollars, you do it in a euro, or you do it in a Japanese yen, or pound sterling.The benefit of having allies all over the world is that the dominant, convertible currencies in the world are controlled by allies and partners. When we acted together with them, we were more effective in curtailing the economic activity of our adversary, and our pressure is more likely to lead to them changing their behavior.We had to be very cautious about collateral damage. You might be targeting an individual, but by targeting that individual, you might make it harder for a company they're affiliated with to continue doing business, or for a country that they're in to get access to banking services. Let's say that you're a huge bank in America, and you're worried about sanctions risk in a small country where you do little business. Why not pull out, rather than having to put in place a huge compliance program? One of the challenges that we have is that the people who make the decisions about whether to extend sanctions don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about some of these economic consequences of the sanctions approach.Whenever I was around the table and we were making a decision about using weapons, there was a process that was very elaborate that ended up with something going to the president. You'd often think about kinetic force very seriously, because you were going to have to get the president to make a decision. We didn't always take that kind of rigor when it came to thinking about using our sanctions policy, but the impact on the lives of people in these countries was just as significant for their access to not only money, but to food and to the resources they needed to live.Santi: What do you make of the effectiveness of the initial sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine? I've heard mixed reviews from folks inside and outside the Biden administration.Sanctions, again, to my point, are only a tool. They've had to be part of a larger strategy, and I think those sanctions were quite effective. I think the saving grace for the Russians has been the fact that China has largely been able and willing to give them access to the things they need to continue to perpetuate.There was a choice for Ukraine, but when you think about Russia's economy today vs. Russia's economy before the sanctions were put in place, it's vastly different. Inflation in Russia still runs far higher than inflation anywhere else in the world. If you were a Russian citizen, you would feel the impacts of sanctions.The challenge, of course, is that it hasn't changed Vladimir Putin's behavior or the behavior of the Kremlin, largely because they've had access to the goods and supplies they need from China, Iran, and North Korea. But over time, it means Russia's economy is becoming less competitive. They have less access to resources; they're going to struggle.I think everyone hoped that sanctions would immediately change the calculus of the Kremlin, but we've never seen that to be the case. When sanctions are effective, they take time, because the economic consequences continue to compound over time, and they have to be part of a larger strategy for the behavior of the individual. That's why I wrote the article, because while the Kremlin and Russia are under pressure, their view is that ultimately the West is going to get tired of supporting Ukraine, financially and politically, because the economic consequences for us — while not as significant as for Moscow or for Kiev — have been quite significant, when you think about the cost of living issues in Europe.I think it's important to write this now, when it appears that Russia is stalling on negotiations, because ultimately, US financial support is waning. We just know that the Trump administration is not willing to put more money into Ukraine, so Europe is going to have to do more, at a time when their economic situation is quite complicated as well.They've got a lot to do to build up their economy and their military-industrial base. Asking them to also increase their support for Ukraine at the same time is going to be quite difficult. So using this money that Russia owes to Ukraine — because they owe them compensation at this moment — can be quite influential in helping support the Ukrainians, but also changing Russia's calculus with regard to the ability of Ukraine to sustain itself.Kyla: On CNBC about a month ago, you said if we ever have a recession over the next couple of months or so, it would be a self-inflicted one. Do you still resonate with that idea? To build on the point I was making, the economy has done quite well over the course of the first few months of the year, largely because of the strength of the consumer, where our balance sheets are still quite strong. Companies in America have done well. The biggest headwind the US economy faces has been self-inflicted by the tariffs the president has put on. Part of what I still do is talk to CEOs of companies, big and small. Small businesses feel the impact of this even more than the big businesses. What they tell me is that it's not just the tariffs and the fact that they are making it more expensive for them to get the goods that they need, but it's the uncertainty created by the off-again, on-again, nature of those tariffs that makes it impossible for them to plan for what supplies they're going to get the next quarter. How are they going to fulfill their orders? What employees are they going to need? It's having a real impact on the performance of these companies, but also their ability to hire people and plan for the future.If you go to the grocery store, you're going to start seeing — and you're starting to see already — price increases. The thing that Americans care most about is, the cost of living is just too high. You're at the grocery store, as you're shopping for your kids for the summer, you're going to see costs go up because of a self-imposed tax we've put in place. So I still do think that if we do find ourselves in a recession, it's going to be because of the tariffs we've put in place.Even if we don't enter a technical recession, what we're seeing now is that those tariffs are going to raise the cost for people when they go out to buy things. It's going to raise the cost of building homes, which is going to make it harder for people to get houses, which is ultimately going to have an impact on the economy that isn't what I think the president or anyone wants at this point.Kyla: Is there anything else we haven't asked about? I think the place where we continue, as a country, to struggle is that, given the federal system we have, many of these problems aren't just in Washington — they're in state and local governments as well. When you think about the challenges to building more housing in this country, you can't just solve it by doing things at the federal level. You have to get state and local governments unified in taking a proactive approach. Part of this has to be not just financial or regulatory from the federal government, but we have to do more things that force state and local governments to get out of the way of people being able to build more housing. I think that the conversations that you've had on your show, and the conversations we're having in government, need to move past our regular policy conversations of: “Should we do more on LIHTC? Should we try to fix NEPA?” Those, to me, are table stakes, and we're in the middle of what I'd say is a generational crisis when it comes to housing. We have to be willing to treat it like a crisis, rather than what I think we've done so far, which is take incremental steps at different levels to try and solve this. That's one thing that I wanted to make sure that I said, because I think it's the most important thing that we can do at the moment.Kyla: Absolutely. During your time there, the Treasury was doing so much with zoning reform, with financial incentives. What I really liked about our last conversation was how much you talked about how important it is that workers can live close to work. Are you optimistic that we will be able to address the problem, or do you think we are sinking into quicksand?I'd say a little bit of both, and the thing that I'm doing now is getting hyperlocal. One of the projects I'm working on in my post-administration life is I'm working with 15 churches in D.C., where they have vacant land and want to use it to build affordable housing as quickly as possible.I'm learning that even when you have the land donated for free and you're willing to work as quickly as possible, it's still quite hard because you have regulations and financial issues that often get in the way of building things. Part of what we have to do now is just launch as many natural experiments as possible to see what works.What I've learned already from this lived experience is that even cities that are trying to get out of the way and make it easier to build housing struggle because of what you all know to be true, which is that the local politics of this is quite complicated. Oftentimes, the way that you get them over the line is by creating incentives or disincentives.In the past, I talked a lot about incentives in terms of “giving people money to do things.” I'm now in favor of “not giving money to people who don't do things” — if you don't take steps to fix your zoning, some of the federal money that you regularly get is not coming to your jurisdiction. I'm going to reallocate that money to places that are doing this activity. I think we have to take those types of radical steps.It's similar to what we did with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, where if you didn't spend your money, we could take your money back and reallocate it to people who were giving away emergency rental assistance money.That motivates people a lot — when they feel like something's going to be taken away from them. I'm of the view that we have to find more radical things that we can do to get housing built. If we don't, costs will continue to rise faster than people's incomes.Santi: Wally, I have to ask after that point you just made: did you read the paper by my colleague Chris Elmendorf on using LIHTC funds? The idea is to re-allocate those federal funds away from big, expensive cities and into other places in a state, if the cities don't commit to basic zoning reforms.I completely agree with him, and I think I would go even further than just LIHTC money. I would reallocate non-housing money as well, because from my standpoint, if you think about the most important issue for a family, it's being able to find housing that is affordable near their place of work and where their kids go to school. I said that on purpose. I didn't say “affordable housing.” I said “housing that is affordable,” because affordable housing is, in lots of ways, targeted towards a population of people who need it the most. But for even people who are middle income in this country, it crowds out their ability to pay for other things when housing costs continue to creep higher.The only way we solve that problem is if you get rid of restrictive zoning covenants and fix permitting. The natural thing that every city and state is thinking about right now is throwing more money at the problem. There's going to need to be money here, just in light of some of the headwinds, but it's going to be more costly and less effective if we don't fix the underlying issues that are making it hard to build housing where we want it.Right now in California, we're having a huge debate over what we do with infill housing in urban areas. A simple solution — you don't have to do another environmental review if one was already done in this area— is taking months to work through the California legislature, which demonstrates that we're going too slow. California's seeing an exodus of people. I just talked to a CEO who said, “I'm moving my business because the people who work for me can't afford to live in California anymore.” This is the kind of problem that you can solve. State legislatures, Congress, and executives have to get together and take some radical steps to make it easier to build housing.I appreciate what you said about what we were doing at Treasury, but from my standpoint, I wish we had done more earlier to focus on this issue. We had a lot going on, but fundamentally, the most important thing on housing is taking a step to try and build housing today, which is going to have an impact on the economy 10, 20, 30 years from now. We just have to start doing that as soon as possible.Thanks to Emma Hilbert for her transcript and audio edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis and Lori Sommerfield discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) recent withdrawal of more than 60 pieces of informal guidance, focusing on those related to fair lending and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) issues. This conversation highlights key pieces of guidance that have been rescinded, including those concerning adverse action notices and abusive practices, in addition to insights on how these developments might influence the CFPB's enforcement priorities moving forward. This episode is part of a series across multiple podcasts from our Consumer Financial Services practice regarding the recent CFPB advisory withdrawals, and their impact in various areas.

On this episode of Background Check Radio, Kevin Bachman is joined by fellow IQubed Advisors' colleagues Nick Fishman, Bianca Lager and Jason Morris. We discussed the state of the industry, our concern about limited new product innovation, the growing gap between large and small CRAs, and how the guidance withdraws from the CFPB will affect screeners and employers.

Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun, Andrea deLorimier Last week, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from ten other states, and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation wrote the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau's Acting Director, Russell Vought, pressing the CFPB to issue ​“long-delayed restitution” to consumers allegedly harmed by a business offering online training for tech positions.

President Trump's genius plan to announce that he's about to violate the First Amendment — and then do it! — runs into the judicial buzzsaw as two federal courts restrain his attacks on Harvard and the law firm Jenner & Block. And his campaign's lawsuit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer continues to be a humiliating series of self-owns. But SCOTUS hands the administration a win by allowing the president to fire anyone and everyone. They exempted Fed Chair Jerome Powell for, uh, reasons.   Links:   Jenner & Block v. DOJ [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice   Trump v. Selzer [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69476247/trump-v-selzer/   Trump Allies Look to Benefit From Pro Bono Promises by Elite Law Firms https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/25/business/trump-law-firms-pro-bono.html   Trump v. Wilcox [Supreme Court order] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf   Seila Law v. CFPB https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf   President and Fellows of Harvard College v. DHS [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70349156/president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college-v-united-states-department-of/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Live from FICO World 2025, this episode dives deep into the challenges facing small business owners in today's economy. Our guest, David Smith—an SBA insider and expert in business origination—joins host Merrill Chandler to talk about EIDL loan defaults, rising inflation, SBA lending changes, and the ripple effects of regulatory shifts at the IRS and CFPB. From Five Guys burgers to $136 cowboy steaks, we're unpacking what price elasticity and economic reality mean for your business survival. It's real talk, no fluff—just insight, strategy, and a little humor. Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share! http://getfundablepodcast.com/

They say that crisis reveals character, and for a brief moment, the pandemic revealed surprising financial resilience.Many Americans experienced a rare financial reset during that season, as savings rose and debt declined. But five years later, much of that progress has unraveled. Dr. Shane Enete joins us to unpack what changed—and how believers can respond faithfully in a culture gripped by renewed financial anxiety.Dr. Shane Enete is an Associate Professor of Finance at Biola University and founded the Biola Center for Financial Planning. He is also the author of the book Whole Heart Finances: A Jesus-Centered Guide to Managing Your Money with Joy.The Unexpected Silver Lining of the PandemicWhen the COVID-19 pandemic brought life to a standstill, something surprising happened with our money. Instead of overspending, many Americans buckled down.Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and the U.S. Government Accountability Office showed that people used pandemic stimulus checks to reduce credit card balances and cut spending. Simultaneously, emergency fund levels rose to 20-year highs.With fewer opportunities to spend and greater economic vulnerability, people embraced margin, paid down debt, and began saving like never before. It was a rare moment of collective financial wisdom.The Return to Old HabitsBut that moment didn't last.Fast-forward to today, and the picture looks far less encouraging. Credit card debt has now surpassed $1 trillion, and six in ten Americans are uncomfortable with their emergency savings, up from just 37% before the pandemic.The decline in financial well-being is measurable. According to the CFPB's 2024 Making Ends Meet survey, the average financial well-being score dropped from 55 to 49. This score reflects how confident households feel about meeting basic expenses, like paying bills and putting food on the table.Even more concerning: over one in three Americans now carry more credit card debt than they have saved. And 42% say they couldn't go even one month without income before falling behind.Why It Matters for ChristiansSo, what's going on? Why the backslide? The answer lies not just in behavior but also in belief.Fear takes over when Jesus isn't present in our financial decisions. We start believing that we have to carry the full weight of financial responsibility. But Scripture reminds us that we have a good Father and a faithful Shepherd who provides for His children.As believers, we're called to live differently—to manage God's resources with wisdom, margin, and generosity. This begins with a mindset shift from ownership to stewardship.Many people dread the word “budget”, but we should really see this through a new lens. If budgeting is about tracking God's provision—your daily bread, your shelter, your gas money—then it becomes an act of gratitude. It's a moment to declare God's goodness.”By embracing this spiritual practice, we open a line of communication with the Lord about our finances. Budgeting isn't just math. It's discipleship.Your Next Step Toward StewardshipWhere do you begin if you want to live this way?Start simple and track your spending. Shine a light on your habits without judgment. What you illuminate can be transformed. Ephesians 5:13 says, “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.”Using tools like the FaithFi app can help you begin this journey. And remember, you don't have to walk it alone.Living within your means, avoiding debt, and giving generously stand out in a culture of consumption. They testify to the Spirit's work in our lives, especially the fruit of self-control.When believers manage money wisely, they display a beautiful trait of the Holy Spirit. They model a life that's free, sustainable, and others-focused—the kind of financial light the world desperately needs.To read Dr. Enete's full article in the latest issue of our quarterly magazine, Faithful Steward, become a FaithFi Partner today with a gift of $35 a month or $400 a year. Just visit FaithFi.com/Partner to join.On Today's Program, Rob Answers Listener Questions:My mother, who's in her 90s, is going to be selling my house, which I've owned for over 30 years. It looks like the sale may exceed the $250,000 capital gains exemption. If the profit goes over by, say, $20,000, what happens? How is that taxed, and how soon would she have to address it after the sale?Resources Mentioned:Faithful Steward: FaithFi's New Quarterly Magazine (Become a FaithFi Partner)Heart for LebanonWisdom Over Wealth: 12 Lessons from Ecclesiastes on Money (Pre-Order)Look At The Sparrows: A 21-Day Devotional on Financial Fear and AnxietyRich Toward God: A Study on the Parable of the Rich FoolFind a Certified Kingdom Advisor (CKA) or Certified Christian Financial Counselor (CertCFC)FaithFi App Remember, you can call in to ask your questions most days at (800) 525-7000. Faith & Finance is also available on the Moody Radio Network and American Family Radio. Visit our website at FaithFi.com where you can join the FaithFi Community and give as we expand our outreach.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Lindsey Kress and Regina McClendon to analyze the complexities of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The discussion highlights recent amendments, including the prohibition on drip pricing, and examines strategic approaches for businesses facing potential litigation under this statute. With a focus on understanding the CLRA's unique provisions and defenses, the episode offers valuable guidance for companies navigating consumer protection challenges in California, along with addressing class action risks and safe harbors.

A joint advisory warns of Fancy Bear targeting Western logistics and technology firms. A nonprofit hospital network in Ohio suffers a disruptive ransomware attack. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) drops plans to subject data brokers to tighter regulations. KrebsOnSecurity and Google block a record breaking DDoS attack. A phishing campaign rerouted employee paychecks. Atlassian patches multiple high-severity vulnerabilities. A Wisconsin telecom provider confirms a cyberattack caused a week-long outage.  VMware issues a Security Advisory addressing multiple high-risk vulnerabilities.  Prosecutors say a 19-year-old student from Massachusetts will plead guilty to hacking PowerSchool. Our guest is Rob Allen, Chief Product Officer at ThreatLocker, discussing deliberate simplicity of fundamental controls around zero trust. Oversharing your call location data. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest On our Industry Voices segment, today we are joined by Rob Allen, Chief Product Officer at ThreatLocker from RSAC 2025. Rob is discussing the deliberate simplicity of fundamental controls around zero trust. Token theft and phishing attacks bypass traditional MFA protections, letting attackers impersonate users and access critical SaaS platforms — without needing passwords. Listen to Rob's interview here. Learn more from the ThreatLocker team here. Selected Reading Russian GRU Targeting Western Logistics Entities and Technology Companies ( CISA) Ransomware attack disrupts Kettering Health Network in Ohio (Beyond Machines) America's CFPB bins proposed data broker crackdown (The Register) Krebs on Security hit by 'test run' DDoS attack that peaked at 6.3 terabits of data per second (Metacurity) SEO poisoning campaign swipes direct deposits from employees (SC Media) Atlassian Warns of Multiple High-Severity Vulnerabilities Hits Data Center Server (Cybersecurity News) Cellcom Service Disruption Caused by Cyberattack (SecurityWeek) VMware releases patches for security flaws in multiple virtualization products (Beyond Machines) Massachusetts man will plead guilty in PowerSchool hack case (CyberScoop) O2 VoLTE: locating any customer with a phone call  (Mast Database) Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Derek Moran, Senior Vice President of US RMBS Ratings at Morningstar DBRS, joins host Patrick Dolan to explore home equity sharing agreements, their repayment structures, fees and how they compare to HELOCs. The discussion highlights key risks and increasing regulatory attention under the Trump Administration's CFPB.Listen and subscribe to the Securitization Insight podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast app.

Shaun has a hard time making peace. PLUS, Ashley Levine, attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation's Separation of Powers group, tells Shaun about Townstone Financial and Barry Sturner's lawsuit against the CFPB's illegal power grab and racial equity agenda. Shaun talks to John Adams of Liberty Cigar Company about their cigars and our upcoming Cigar Nights next week! And Shaun talks to Uri Kaufman, author of American Intifada: Israel, The Gaza War and the New Antisemitism, about the disturbing developments with Syria, the future of Gaza, and President Trump's Middle East visit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Google issues an emergency patch for a high-severity Chrome browser flaw. Researchers bypass BitLocker encryption in minutes. A massive Chinese-language black market has shut down. The CFPB cancels plans to curb the sale of personal information by data brokers. A cyberespionage campaign called Operation RoundPress targets vulnerable webmail servers. Google warns that Scattered Spider is now targeting U.S. retail companies. The largest steelmaker in the U.S. shut down operations following a cybersecurity incident. Our guest is Devin Ertel, Chief Information Security Officer at Menlo Security, discussing redefining enterprise security. The long and the short of layoffs. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest On our Industry Voices segment and direct from RSAC 2025, our guest is Devin Ertel, Chief Information Security Officer at Menlo Security, discussing redefining enterprise security. Listen to Devin's interview here. Selected Reading Google fixes high severity Chrome flaw with public exploit (Bleeping Computer) BitLocker Encryption Bypassed in Minutes Using Bitpixie Vulnerability: PoC Released (Cyber Security News) The Internet's Biggest-Ever Black Market Just Shut Down Amid a Telegram Purge (WIRED)  German operation shuts down crypto mixer eXch, seizes millions in assets (The Record) CFPB Quietly Kills Rule to Shield Americans From Data Brokers (WIRED) EU ruling: tracking-based advertising by Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X, across Europe has no legal basis (Irish Council for Civil Liberties) Operation RoundPress targeting high-value webmail servers (We Live Security) Google says hackers that hit UK retailers now targeting American stores (Reuters) Cybersecurity incident forces largest US steelmaker to take some operations offline (The Record) Infosec Layoffs Aren't the Bargain Boards May Think (Dark Reading)  Share your feedback. We want to ensure that you are getting the most out of the podcast. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey as we continually work to improve the show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ashley Levine, attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation's Separation of Powers group, tells Shaun about Townstone Financial and Barry Sturner's lawsuit against the CFPB's illegal power grab and racial equity agenda.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is set to withdraw a Biden-era rule aimed at cracking down on data brokers and their selling of Americans' personal and financial information. In a notice in the Federal Register, the CFPB said legislative rulemaking on the data broker industry “is not necessary or appropriate at this time,” and the agency does not plan to “take any further action” on the proposal. The notice was issued by Russell Vought, acting director of the agency, head of the Office of Management and Budget and a Project 2025 architect. The withdrawal of the rule, which was first reported by Wired, comes after President Donald Trump's initial nominee to lead the CFPB signaled to Congress in February an openness to continuing Biden administration data-broker rules. Jonathan McKernan, a former Treasury Department and Federal Housing Finance Agency staffer, told the Senate Banking Committee that Rohit Chopra — President Joe Biden's CFPB director — “was onto something” with his policies targeting data brokers and data aggregators. The CFPB's withdrawal notice took particular issue with the rule's focus on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, saying that the proposal was “not aligned with the Bureau's current interpretation of the FCRA, which it is in the process of revising.” The Senate on Wednesday voted 54-43 to confirm businessman Emil Michael as undersecretary of defense for research and engineering and the Pentagon's chief technology officer. In that position, Michael will serve as the primary advisor to the secretary of defense and other Defense Department leaders on tech development and transition, prototyping, experimentation, and management of testing ranges and activities. He'll also be in charge of synchronizing science and technology efforts across the DOD. Michael comes to the job from the private sector, where he's been a business executive, advisor and investor. He told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he's been involved with more than 50 different tech companies during his career. Perhaps most notable, from 2013 to 2017, he was chief business officer at Uber. In government, he previously served as special assistant to the secretary of defense when Robert Gates was Pentagon chief. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

 We talk to the National President of NTEU Doreen Greenwald about attacks on federal workers, and NTEU Chapter President Cat Farman about attacks on the CFPB specifically. Connor Lewis, a union member and a Catholic, calls in to talk about the new pope. Others can call in at 844-899-TVLR! ✦ ABOUT ✦The Valley Labor Report is the only union talk radio show in Alabama, elevating struggles for justice and fairness on the job, educating folks about how they can do the same, and bringing relevant news to workers in Alabama and beyond.Our single largest source of revenue *is our listeners* so your support really matters and helps us stay on the air!Make a one time donation or become a monthly donor on our website or patreon:TVLR.FMPatreon.com/thevalleylaborreportVisit our official website for more info on the show, membership, our sponsors, merch, and more: https://www.tvlr.fmFollow TVLR on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheValleyLab...Follow TVLR on Twitter: @LaborReportersFollow Jacob on Twitter: @JacobM_ALFollow TVLR Co-Creator David Story on Twitter: @RadiclUnionist✦ CONTACT US ✦Our phone number is 844-899-TVLR (8857), call or text us live on air, or leave us a voicemail and we might play it during the show!✦ OUR ADVERTISERS KEEP US ON THE AIR! ✦Support them if you can.The attorneys at MAPLES, TUCKER, AND JACOB fight for working people. Let them represent you in your workplace injury claim. Mtandj.com; (855) 617-9333The MACHINISTS UNION represents workers in several industries including healthcare, the defense industry, woodworking, and more. iamaw44.org (256) 286-3704 / organize@iamaw44.orgDo you need good union laborers on your construction site, or do you want a union construction job? Reach out to the IRONWORKERS LOCAL 477. Ironworkers477.org  256-383-3334 (Jeb Miles) / local477@bellsouth.netThe NORTH ALABAMA DSA is looking for folks to work for a better North Alabama, fighting for liberty and justice for all. Contact / Join: DSANorthAlabama@gmail.comIBEW LOCAL 136 is a group of over 900 electricians and electrical workers providing our area with the finest workforce in the construction industry. You belong here. ibew136.org Contact: (205) 833-0909IFPTE - We are engineers, scientists, nonprofit employees, technicians, lawyers, and many other professions who have joined together to have a greater voice in our careers. With over 80,000 members spread across the U.S. and Canada, we invite you and your colleagues to consider the benefits of engaging in collective bargaining. IFPTE.org Contact: (202) 239-4880THE HUNTSVILLE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD is a union open to any and all working people. Call or email them today to begin organizing your workplace - wherever it is. On the Web: https://hsviww.org/ Contact: (256) 651-6707 / organize@hsviww.orgENERGY ALABAMA is accelerating Alabama's transition to sustainable energy. We are a nonprofit membership-based organization that has advocated for clean energy in Alabama since 2014. Our work is based on three pillars: education, advocacy, and technical assistance. Energy Alabama on the Web: https://alcse.org/ Contact: (256) 812-1431 / dtait@energyalabama.orgThe Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union represents in a wide range of industries, including but not limited to retail, grocery stores, poultry processing, dairy processing, cereal processing, soda bottlers, bakeries, health care, hotels, manufacturing, public sector workers like crossing guards, sanitation, and highway workers, warehouses, building services,  and distribution. Learn more at RWDSU.infoThe American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union proudly representing 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas. Learn more at AFGE.orgAre you looking for a better future, a career that can have you set for life, and to be a part of something that's bigger than yourself?   Consider a skilled trades apprenticeship with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. Learn more at IUPAT.orgUnionly is a union-focused company created specifically to support organized labor. We believe that providing online payments should be simple, safe, and secure.  Visit https://unionly.io/ to learn more.Hometown Action envisions inclusive, revitalized, and sustainable communities built through multiracial working class organizing and leadership development at the local and state level to create opportunities for all people to thrive. Learn more at hometownaction.orgMembers of IBEW have some of the best wages and benefits in North Alabama. Find out more and join their team at ibew558.org ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

With a new administration in place, the payments industry is bracing for regulatory changes—and now, some early outlines of those changes are coming into focus.  In this episode, IPA's Ben Jackson speaks with Brian Tate, CEO of the Innovative Payments Association, about what's happening in Washington and beyond. They discuss:  The CFPB's announcement that it may rewrite the open banking rule  Potential changes to the prepaid rule  The implications of the CFPB ending its appeal in the PayPal case  This episode was recorded on May 8, 2025. Please note that developments may have occurred since then.  Additional Resources:  IPA Summer of Learning Webinar Series  IPA Compliance Boot Camp – September in Chicago  Stay tuned for future episodes and don't forget to subscribe!   

Today's podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the two Democratic members of the FTC, leaving only two Republican members as commissioners. He did this even though the FTC Act provides that a commissioner may be fired by the President only for good cause and that the commission is to be governed by a bi-partisan 5-member commission This is the third time in the past few weeks that Trump has fired without good cause democratic members of other federal agencies; the other two being the National Labor Relations Board (The “NLRB”) and the Merit Selection Protection Board (The “MSPB”). The statutes governing those two agencies, like the FTC Act, allow the President to fire a member of the governing board for good cause only. The fired members of all three agencies initiated lawsuits in federal district court for the District of Columbia, seeking mandatory preliminary injunctions requiring those agencies to reinstate them with back pay. We discuss the status of the two lawsuits and how the outcome will turn on whether the Supreme Court will apply or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor, which held that the provision in the Constitution allowing the President to fire an FTC commissioner for good cause only did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. Conversely, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law, LLC V. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should apply to these two new cases. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held on Constitutional grounds, that the President could fire without good cause the sole director of the CFPB even though the Dodd-Frank Act allowed the President to fire the sole director of the CFPB for good cause only. Until this gets resolved, the FTC will be governed only by two Republican commissioners who will constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting official business. Professor Calkins explains how a Supreme Court ruling in these two new cases upholding Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the agencies could enable the President to fire without good cause members of other multiple-member agencies, like the Federal Reserve Board. We then discuss the status of the following four final controversial FTC rule, some of which were challenged in court: the CARS Rule, the Click-to-Cancel Rule, the Junk Fee Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule. We also discuss the impact of President Trump's Executive Order requiring that all federal agencies, including so-called “independent” agencies, must obtain approval from the White House before taking any significant actions, like proposing or finalizing rules. Then, we discuss the status of enforcement investigations and litigation and whether any of them have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the FTC under Trump 2.0, whether any new enforcement lawsuits been filed, and what they involve. We discuss our expectation that the FTC will be a lot less active in the consumer protection enforcement area during Trump 2.0. We then discuss the impact on staffing because of DOGE-imposed reductions-in-force. Finally, we touch upon the status of pending antitrust enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, hosts the discussion.

Send us a textThis show started out as an exploration of Jack Henry's 7th annual Strategy Benchmark Survey where CEOs of credit unions and banks reveal what really matters to them.  It's a data trich survey, there's a link in the show notes and I say that because the talk with Lee Wetherington – Senior Director of Corporate Strategy at Jack Henry quickly veered into what's happening in Washington DC and how changes - especially at CFPB - may impact credit unions.Along the way we discuss how this is an age where data rules, open banking is coming at you ready or not, you probably don't know your members nearly as well as you think, and small business relationships probably aren't what you think but they may well be critical to the future of many credit unions.Does that spicy stew have your taste buds dancing with excitement? It should because this is a show that plunges into the unexpected but it's stuff you need to know about banking tomorrow.Listen up.Like what you are hearing? Find out how you can help sponsor this podcast here. Very affordable sponsorship packages are available. Email rjmcgarvey@gmail.com  And like this podcast on whatever service you use to stream it. That matters.  Find out more about CU2.0 and the digital transformation of credit unions here. It's a journey every credit union needs to take. Pronto

Brendan Pedersen, author of Punchbowl News' The Vault, talks about why key Democrats withdrew support for a bill to regulate stablecoins, how House Financial Services Committee GOP are targeting CFPB, and why an effort to overturn the medical debt rule appears to have failed for now.

Today on CarEdge Live, Ray and Justise discuss the new developments surrounding the FTC Cars Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Tune in to learn more!

Welcome to Loan Officer Freedom, the #1 podcast in the country for loan officers, hosted by Carl White. In this episode, your hosts, Carl White and Owen Lee dive into the latest developments surrounding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its significant changes under new leadership. They discuss the ongoing court battles regarding drastic staff reductions, the implications of these changes for the mortgage industry, and the uncertainty that comes with potential regulatory shifts. With insights into the political dynamics at play and the challenges of rulemaking, this episode offers a comprehensive look at how the CFPB's future could impact consumers and industry professionals alike. Tune in for an engaging discussion on the evolving landscape of financial regulation! Schedule a one-on-one free coaching call, click here or visit LoanOfficerStrategyCall.com.

The podcast we are releasing today is part 2 of a re-purposed webinar we produced on March 25 titled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Part 4.” As a result of the diminishing impact of the CFPB on enforcing the consumer financial services laws, we expect that void to be filled by state government enforcement agencies and private civil litigation, including class and mass actions.  Our webinar focused on private civil litigation. Our featured guest for this webinar was Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He was joined on the panel by Thomas Burke, Dan McKenna, Jenny Perkins, Joseph Schuster, and Melanie Vartabedian, litigators in our firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We discussed the following areas where the panelists are predicting an increase in private civil litigation during 2025 and beyond: 1. Solar Litigation Trends (Ira, Melanie). 2. Increased volume of arbitrations and mass arbitrations (Ira, Dan). 3. A general emphasis on “unfair” practices, including a close look at alleged unlawful fees (Ira). 4.  Crypto industry practices -fees, deception and third-party responsibility (Ira). 5.  National Bank Act preemption and DIDMCA opt-out litigation (Joseph). If you missed listening to part 1 of this re-purposed webinar, you can access the podcast in the link to the following blog which appears here. The blog describes the topics we covered. Alan Kaplinsky, the former chair for 25 years and now the Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show. For our podcasts repurposed from webinars that we produced as part of our series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB” Part 1 (regulations and other written guidance), click here and here; Part 2 (supervision and enforcement),  click here and here; Part 3 (state AGs and departments of banking), click here and here. 

It's Newsday Tuesday. Up top, Sam and Emma take in the White House's angry response to the news that Amazon had started to display the cost of tariffs on it's orders on one of its websites, before Amazon quickly back-peddled and apologized. Sam and Emma then talk to the former head of the CFPB and the FTC Rohit Chopra on the Trump administration taking a sledgehammer to regulations and consumer protections. After that, Canadian writer and podcaster Luke Savage breaks down the results of Canada's elections and what it means for the future of Canada-U.S. relations. Follow his Substack: https://www.lukewsavage.com/ As well as his delightful film podcast Michael and Us: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/michael-and-us/id1120756155 In the Fun Half, Emma and Sam check in on Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney in Washington, DC Ed Martin and his efforts to distance himself from his right wing media appearances, including his repeated praise of a January 6th rioter and apparent Nazi sympathizer. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer says he's sent a strongly worded letter to the Trump administration over their crackdown on academia, but also goes out of his way to denounce what he said were antisemitic incidents on college campuses. Andrew Callaghan tries to talk some sense into Patrick Bet-David regarding the relationship between homelessness, social welfare programs and taxation, to no avail. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Babel: Babbel.com/Majority for up to 60% off your subscription Fast Growing Trees: Get 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/majority Aura Frames: Exclusive $35-off Carver Mat at AuraFrames.com. Promo Code MAJORITY Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

President Trump is flirting with the idea of firing Fed Chairman Jerome Powell while the administration is attempting to lay off 90% of the CFPB's employees. John Heltman, Washington bureau chief of American Banker, and Kate Berry, the paper's consumer reporter, discuss what's next for these two agencies.

Judges across the country are calling BS on the Trump administration's lies in court. But the government has come up with a genius plan to impress the judiciary by perpwalking a Wisconsin judge out of her own courthouse. If that doesn't work, they'll try contaminated milk. Links:   STRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA'S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/strengthening-and-unleashing-americas-law-enforcement-to-pursue-criminals-and-protect-innocent-citizens/   State of NY v. Department of Education [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69944116/state-of-new-york-v-department-of-education/   American Bar Association v. DOJ [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69934429/american-bar-association-v-us-department-of-justice/   NTEU v. Vought [DDC docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69624423/national-treasury-employees-union-v-vought/?   NTEU v. Vought [DC Cir docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69821739/national-treasury-employees-union-v-russell-vought/   Trump Administration Previews Genius New Legal Strategy https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/trump-admin-previes-genius-new-legal   US v. Dugan docket (E.D. Wisc.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943130/united-states-v-dugan/   Russell W. Currier and John A. Widness, A Brief History of Milk Hygiene and Its Impact on Infant Mortality from 1875 to 1925 and Implications for Today: A Review, Journal of Food Protection (Oct. 2018) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X22087610   Could changes at the FDA call the kosher status of milk into question? Many are asking. Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2025 https://www.jpost.com/food-recipes/article-851470   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Welcome to Credit Union Conversations. I'm Mark, and today's episode will be a little different. I don't usually record podcasts like this, but sometimes you just need to talk through what's been on your mind. There's been a lot happening in the business lending world, and I've been reflecting on where things stand—what's working, what's shifting, and what credit unions need to be paying attention to right now. This is more of a pulse check, a chance to unpack the momentum and opportunities ahead. So, thanks for joining me for this more personal take—I'm looking forward to getting into it with you.IN THIS EPISODE:(00:00) Introduction(00:49) Mark shares what's on his mind in the credit union space(02:41) Business is up this first quarter(06:16) The shrinking base of credit unions and the pay-for-play model of conventions(12:17) The CFPB and the CDFI and the NCUA(17:11) The changing culture of the credit union and what can be doneKEY TAKEAWAYS: Business lending is experiencing a resurgence, with increased demand from small businesses and credit unions. It's proving to be a reliable income stream even amid economic fluctuations, offering more stability than consumer loans and mortgages, which have been impacted by interest rate volatility and market changes.There is a growing need for stronger portfolio management and compliance resources due to rising—though normalizing—delinquencies and heightened regulatory expectations. The competitive landscape is also intensifying, with more entrants vying for a shrinking pool of credit unions, leading to thinner margins and greater pressure on service providers.Industry conventions, especially larger ones, are becoming less effective for meaningful engagement. The consolidation of major trade organizations has shifted event participation to a pay-for-play model, limiting visibility for value-driven providers. This, combined with rising costs, is prompting a reevaluation of outreach strategies and event participation.RESOURCE LINKSMark Ritter - WebsiteMark Ritter - LinkedIn

The podcast we are releasing today is part 1 of a re-purposed webinar we produced on March 25 titled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Part 4.” As a result of the diminishing impact of the CFPB on enforcing the consumer financial services laws, we expect that void to be filled by state government enforcement agencies and private civil litigation, including class and mass actions. Our webinar will focus on private civil litigation. Our featured guest for this webinar was Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He was joined on the panel by Thomas Burke, Dan McKenna, Jenny Perkins, Joseph Schuster, and Melanie Vartabedian, litigators in our firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. The podcast began with Ira observing that state enforcement agencies and plaintiffs' class action lawyers will be taking a careful look at enforcement actions voluntarily dismissed by the CFPB to ascertain whether the complaints should be re-filed by them in federal or state court.  We then proceeded to discuss the following areas where the panelists are predicting an increase in private civil litigation during 2025 and beyond: Increased FCRA litigation, especially in ID Theft (Jenny, Ira). The use of AI and corporate responsibility for ensuring that it does not create unfair or discriminatory practices (Ira). Increased retail bank litigation, including EFTA claims (Ira, Tom). Part 2 of this re-purposed webinar will be released next Thursday, May 1. Alan Kaplinsky, the former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show. For our podcasts repurposed from webinars that we produced as part of our series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB” Part 1 (regulations and other written guidance), click here and here; Part 2 (supervision and enforcement),  click here and here; Part 3 (state AGs and departments of banking), click here and here. 

The CFBP went after a company because they didn't like what the owner said on a radio show and not because of any kind of discrimination plus the woke right is exactly like the woke left. Both need to be tossed in the trash heap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode, Editor in Chief Sarah Wheeler talks with Managing Editor James Kleimann about the CFPB firing up to 90% of its staff and the FHFA's focus on rooting out mortgage fraud. Related to this episode: With CFPB gutted, what's next for mortgage compliance? | HousingWire HousingWire | YouTube More info about HousingWire   Enjoy the episode! The HousingWire Daily podcast brings the full picture of the most compelling stories in the housing market reported across HousingWire. Each morning, listen to editor in chief Sarah Wheeler talk to leading industry voices and get a deeper look behind the scenes of the top mortgage and real estate stories. Hosted and produced by the HousingWire Content Studio. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rohit Chopra was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head until the end of January, when President Donald Trump fired him and Elon Musk's DOGE began trying to dismantle the agency. The CFPB has been pretty popular since it was founded in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers, so shutting it down has kicked off a bunch of controversies — not least of which was whether Trump and Musk even had the power to do it. This all led me to ask several times who made the decision to fire him, who is currently responsible for the various policies of our government, and whether any of those things add up to a clear plan. Some of the most powerful executives in the world answer questions like this on Decoder all the time. But Rohit just didn't know — and that should probably be as worrying as anything. Links:  Trump fires CFPB director Rohit Chopra | Associated Press Trump orders CFPB to stop work, closes building | Associated Press CFPB workers reinstated after court order but still can't work | The Verge Trump admin to appeal order blocking CFPB shutdown | Bloomberg Law A shady tech bootcamp may be sneaking back online | The Verge CFPB won't enforce long-awaited payday lending rule | Bloomberg Law CFPB seeks to vacate redlining settlement, refund lender | Banking Dive CFPB signals it will drop rule regulating BNPL like credit cards | PYMTS CFPB drops fraud lawsuit against banks, Zelle | CNBC Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Ursa Wright.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices