Podcasts about cfpb

Today's podcast episode is a continuation of a previous repurposed webinar held on August 12th, focusing on emerging opportunities in the consumer financial services sector under the Trump administration. The session aims to provide insights into the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for businesses and consumers. The first part of the webinar, released last Thursday, September 4, covered  the recently-passed GENIUS Act (which creates a federal infrastructure for Stablecoin); developments in crypto-backed lending and credit builder loans; the mortgage industry; developments in earned wage access and rent-to-own and lease-to-own financing products; and insights on income share agreements. Joining the podcast today are the following members of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group: Kristen Larson, of counsel, provides insights into the open banking rule; John Socknat, co-leader of the Group, speaks on home equity investment products; John Culhane, a partner in the group, relays insights on large installment loans at point of sale; and Dan Wilkinson, an associate, provides an overview of digital wallets. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years.  We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Project 2025 has quickly become the most consequential—and controversial—blueprint for American governance in recent history. Conceived by the Heritage Foundation and launched with a sprawling 927-page policy manual in April 2023, Project 2025's core goal is to reshape the entire federal government according to staunch conservative priorities. It is, as Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts puts it, an effort to “dismantle the administrative state and restore presidential control over the executive branch.”Yet behind those words lies an ambitious checklist for the next presidential administration, presuming a Republican—most likely Donald Trump—takes office. Project 2025 is not just a collection of ideas. It is a detailed playbook, complete with executive orders, departmental reorganization timetables, and a so-called 180-day playbook, designed for rapid execution on “Day One.”At the heart of Project 2025 is an unprecedented push to centralize power in the Oval Office. The plan relies on the controversial unitary executive theory, which argues all executive branch employees should be directly answerable to the president. Kevin Roberts has been explicit: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” According to the project manual, entire agencies such as the Department of Justice, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission would lose their current independence and fall under direct White House control.One of the most sweeping reforms revolves around personnel. The blueprint resurrects the idea of “Schedule F”—a Trump-era category that would allow the president to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees, instantly stripping them of protections from partisan firing. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns this would “give the president and his loyalists full control of the executive branch for personal and political gain,” hollowing out civil service checks that have traditionally protected against corruption and patronage.Concrete examples illustrate the scale of the changes envisioned. In foreign policy, the State Department chapter recommends that, before January 20, all leadership be dismissed and replaced with ideologically aligned “acting” appointees who bypass Senate confirmation entirely. Kiron Skinner, the former policy planning chief who wrote this section, has called for removing staff she considers too left-leaning, despite admitting she could not name a single time employees substantively obstructed White House policy.The playbook doesn't stop there. Project 2025 proposes slashing federal workforce numbers through forced attrition, with the White House directing agency heads to lay off or consolidate thousands of positions and eliminate entire offices deemed non-essential. For example, agencies like USAID and the CFPB are earmarked for dissolution, their functions either axed or merged into departments more closely monitored by the executive.Critics from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union highlight how Project 2025 seeks to erode key civil liberties across a range of issues—abortion, LGBTQ rights, free speech, and the environment. The ACLU describes the initiative as “a roadmap for how to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals.” Meanwhile, labor unions such as AFGE and NTEU have mounted lawsuits to block the executive orders targeting civil service protections, warning of the dangers of introducing broad political loyalty tests into government hiring and firing.Supporters claim these moves would eliminate bureaucratic inertia and bring swift, accountable leadership to Washington. Yet, legal scholars and former officials have called Project 2025 authoritarian, warning it undermines separation of powers and blurs the lines between partisanship and governance.With the November 2024 presidential election looming, Project 2025's fate comes down to political winds and court rulings. The Heritage Foundation and its partners have prepared a rapid-fire battery of executive orders, ready for signature if they get their candidate in office. Milestones to watch include ongoing legal challenges, Congressional resistance, and, above all, the outcome of the national vote.The scope and ambition of Project 2025 are nothing short of historic, representing both a culmination of decades-long conservative advocacy and an inflection point in debates over the very structure of American democracy. Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Klarna strebt erneut an die Börse mit einer Bewertung von 14 Milliarden Dollar. Salesforce-CEO Marc Benioff behauptet, 4.000 Support-Stellen durch KI ersetzt zu haben - die Zahlen sprechen eine andere Sprache. Anthropic schließt eine 13-Milliarden-Finanzierungsrunde ab. OpenAI erwirbt das A/B-Testing-Tool Statsig für 1,1 Milliarden. Der Arc-Browser wird von Atlassian für 610 Millionen übernommen. Google muss im Kartellverfahren Suchdaten teilen, behält aber Chrome und Android. Stripe baut eine eigene Blockchain für hochvolumige Zahlungen. Die Trump-Administration schwächt Verbraucherschutzrechte im Luftverkehr. Unterstütze unseren Podcast und entdecke die Angebote unserer Werbepartner auf ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠doppelgaenger.io/werbung⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Vielen Dank!  Philipp Glöckler und Philipp Klöckner sprechen heute über:   (00:00:00) Klarna IPO-Pläne (00:24:00) Salesforce KI-Versprechen (00:37:30) Anthropic 13-Milliarden-Runde (00:46:00) Google Kartellurteil (00:56:45) Stripe Tempo-Blockchain (01:06:00) Nvidia mietet eigene Chips (01:09:40) OpenAI kauft StatSig (01:18:30) Arc-Browser Übernahme (01:26:20) Figma Quartalszahlen (01:28:30) Podcast-Charts Update (01:36:00) Trump Tech-Dinner (01:45:25) X-Money, Grok Political Bias Shownotes Klarna, Investoren suchen 1,27 Milliarden Dollar im IPO nach Zollpause – bloomberg.com Klarna Group plc Haftungsausschluss-Seite – netroadshow.com Klarna versetzt Mitarbeiter in den Kundensupport nach KI-Bedenken – businessinsider.com Was Menschen nicht verstehen, vor allem Ingenieure: Ich habe seit über 20 Jahren "Vibe Coding" gemacht... – linkedin.com Salesforce-CEO: KI hat bereits 4.000 Arbeitsplätze ersetzt – sfchronicle.com Anthropic sammelt 13 Mrd. $ bei 183 Mrd. $ Bewertung ein – anthropic.com Katar-Investmentfonds QIA plant mehr Investitionen in KI-Startups – bloomberg.com Mistral auf $14 Milliarden Bewertung mit neuer Finanzierungsrunde festgelegt – bloomberg.com Google nicht verpflichtet, Chrome zu verkaufen. Richter verbieten exklusive Suchdeals, ordnen Datenaustausch an. – wsj.com U.S. Google-Suche Urteil – linkedin.com Stripe und Paradigm starten Tempo: Neue Blockchain für Zahlungen – x.com Nvidia zahlt $1,5 Milliarden für eigene Chips zurück – theinformation.com Statsig und OpenAI: Neues Kapitel für Produktexperimente – sequoiacap.com Atlassian übernimmt The Browser Co. für 610 Millionen Dollar – cnbc.com OpenAI plant Jobplattform und Zertifizierungsprogramm für KI-Rollen – bloomberg.com Google App Data Ruling – courthousenews.com Trump empfängt Tech-Giganten im Weißen Haus, Elon Musk fehlt – cbsnews.com Trump empfängt Tech-CEOs im neu renovierten Rosengarten – thehill.com Neue Verpflichtungen des Weißen Hauses: KI-Kompetenzen für Lehrer, Schüler und Arbeitssuchende – blogs.microsoft.com Microsoft bietet US-Regierung über 6 Milliarden Dollar Einsparungen bei Cloud-Diensten – cnbc.com Exklusiv | Rücktritt des CFO von xAI, Mike Liberatore – wsj.com X Money – theinformation.com Nikita Bier – x.com Wie Elon Musk Grok nach seinem Vorbild umgestaltet – nytimes.com Bewertung politischer Voreingenommenheit in LLMs – promptfoo.dev Trump kippt Bidens Entschädigungsregel für Flugstörungen – axios.com Bundesberufungsgericht erlaubt Zerschlagung der CFPB – axios.com

In the latest episode of our podcast, we explore the significant shifts in the regulatory landscape under the second Trump administration and how these recent deregulatory actions have opened new pathways for banks and FinTech companies by reducing barriers to entry and compliance costs. This evolving environment presents opportunities for innovation and market expansion, although state law oversight, including licensing and regulatory requirements. Today's episode is part one of a two-part series. Joining the podcast today are the following members of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group: Kristen Larson, of counsel, provides insights into the recently-passed GENIUS Act (which creates a federal infrastructure for Stablecoin); Ron Vaske, a partner, covers developments in crypto-backed lending and credit builder loans; John Socknat, co-leader of the Group, speaks on crypto and the mortgage industry; Dan Wilkinson, an associate, provides an overview of developments in earned wage access and rent-to-own and lease-to-own financing products; and John Culhane, a partner in the group, relays insights on income share agreements. Part two of this webinar will be released next Thursday, September 11.  In that episode, Kristen Larson, John Socknat, John Culhane, and Dan Wilkinson, return to continue the conversation, discussing open banking; home equity investment products; home equity loans; buy now, pay later; large installment loans at point of sale; payday loans; and digital wallets to access credit-like features. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years.  We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Welcome back to Fintech Takes. I'm Alex Johnson, joined (as always) by my partner-in-recapping, Jason Mikula.  First up, the open banking saga continues with a new 13-paged ANPR (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) that reopens every fight. From whether “representatives” can access your data, if banks can charge cost-recovery fees, how liability hides under “security,” what counts as privacy vs. secondary use, and whether deadlines can be punted at all. With Chevron overturned and Corner Post wiping out time limits, every rule is now a lawsuit waiting to happen (even Visa has suddenly decided U.S. open banking isn't worth the headache). From there we head to our old friend BaaS Island, where Synapse's implosion has left customers stranded. The CFPB's novel UDAP claim and a symbolic $1 penalty may unlock redress, but only after years (while distressed-debt investors eye Evolve and Mercury).  And then it's on to Congress's GENIUS Act, which hands stablecoins their first federal framework but also plenty of landmines. We discuss winners and losers, why Section 16(d) supercharges state preemption, and how Wyoming's state “token” exploits the gap. Plus, in our Can't Let It Go corner, it's  finance-as-casino: Chamath's new American Exceptionalism Acquisition Corp SPAC, Robinhood suing Nevada and New Jersey to push prediction markets, and a Polymarket bettor who called Taylor's engagement early and banked about $3,500 (the kind of thing that'd be called insider trading anywhere else!). 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/alexhjohnsonTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

This week on the pod, we welcome Bobby Coppola, Chief Strategy Officer and Bryant Gauthier, Vice President of Legal Technology at PLUSnxt. Bobby shares how his path from big law to legal tech shaped his focus on client service and strategy, while Bryant returns to the show to talk about what drew him to PLUSnxt after his time at Celerity.We break down what sets PLUSnxt apart in the crowded eDiscovery space, from helping clients separate hype from reality to focusing on innovation that actually makes life easier for corporations and law firms. The conversation turns to artificial intelligence in document review, obviously, where Bobby and Bryant highlight where adoption is real, where skepticism remains, and how GenAI is shifting client expectations. They also weigh in on whether the future lies in best-of-breed solutions or all-in-one platforms, sharing why no one really wants to manage a “franken-stack.” To wrap up, Bobby and Bryant share their takeaways from ILTACON and what trends they see shaping the next phase of legal tech.Along the way, the group reminisces about the dot-com era, old chat rooms (ASL anyone?), answering machines, fax machines, the Movie Phone guy, and even the “Callin' Oates” hotline. Definitely check this one out!At the intersection of law, business, and technology, Bobby Coppola  is focused on delivering industry leading legal technology and services to achieve the best outcome for his clients. He leverages his unique skill set based on his big law background and decades long-experience in the eDiscovery space to solve business and legal problems for companies and law firms globally. As Chief Strategy Officer at PLUSnxt, he is focused on the development of the company's short- and long-term strategy from both an operational and growth perspective. The underpinning of his approach to client relationships is a fanatical focus on client service and a vision of always putting himself in his client's position when developing a strategic plan for success.Bryant Gauthier is Vice President of Legal Technology at PLUSnxt, where he advises law firms and corporate counsel on building efficient eDiscovery programs. With more than 20 years of experience, he helps clients leverage technology, processes, and analytics to reduce costs and manage risk across the EDRM. He has led the launch of eDiscovery departments using advanced tools such as CAL, TAR, AI, text-to-audio search, and image recognition to streamline document review and investigations. His background includes leadership roles at Huron Consulting, Skadden Arps, Buckley Sandler, Finnegan Henderson, and Xerox.  Bryant supports legal teams in litigation, investigations, and regulatory matters, including SEC, DOJ, and CFPB inquiries, across industries such as banking, energy, healthcare, intellectual property, and technology. His expertise covers data identification, analysis, governance, privacy, and cross-border matters. PLUSnxt is a legal technology and services provider that helps law firms and corporations manage complex eDiscovery challenges with a focus on practical innovation and client service. They emphasizes building solutions that cut through the noise of legal tech hype, offering tools and expertise that actually improve how legal teams review, analyze, and manage data. PLUSnxt brings a mix of deep technical knowledge and real-world legal experience to its clients. Their approach combines advanced technologies such as AI and analytics with a clear understanding of business and legal priorities, making them a trusted partner for organizations navigating litigation, investigations, and regulatory matters.

We recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis, Heryka Knoespel, and Lori Sommerfield discuss overdraft and deposit account fees as they continue to dive into the CFPB's guidance withdrawal. They highlight the regulatory and litigation impacts of the rescinded guidance and its impact on banks and financial institutions, particularly in terms of compliance burdens and fee income, while also weighing potential reputational risks and operational challenges that may arise if policy changes follow the CFPB's withdrawn guidance. This episode also emphasizes the importance of financial institutions being prepared to defend against lawsuits, specifically those related to Regulation E and affirmative consent.

Bank Nerd Corner is back with Kiah Haslett returning … not just as co-host, but as an official member of Fintech Takes!  That's right, big news: Bank Nerd Corner will soon be its own podcast feed, with Kiah hosting (and Alex dropping in monthly as a guest).  Kiah's podcast launches this September alongside her new weekly newsletter, Fintech Takes Banking! If you're listening to this episode, you basically asked for it (sign up at fintechtakes.com/banking/newsletter-subscription). Now, onto Bank Nerding!  First up,  the topic that's going to end up on my tombstone when I die: open banking.  We dig into the CFPB's sudden flip on open banking. JPMorgan Chase tried charging for data access, the Bureau hit pause on litigation, and now an accelerated rulemaking process is underway. Will banks get the green light to price data, or did Chase just overplay its hand? Is this the beginning of monopoly pricing in disguise? Next, Kiah schools Alex (and the rest of us) on why crypto firms are suddenly obsessed with national trust charters (what they are, why they matter, and how they could function as narrow banks in disguise). Stablecoin reserves, custody rules, and OCC oversight are all on the table. And finally, the Palmer Luckey-backed digital bank Erebor enters the chat, promising to be the new Silicon Valley Bank for startups, crypto, and defense companies. Their pitch: political connections will fast-track their national bank charter with the OCC. But can political connections really expedite a de novo charter without wrecking regulators' credibility? 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 Kiah: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/khaslett/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/khaslett   Follow Alex:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

www.marktreichel.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-treichel/Episode SummaryIn this episode of With Flying Colors, I'm joined by two longtime friends and former NCUA colleagues — John McKechnie and Geoff Bacino — for a candid roundtable on the latest twists at the agency and across the credit union movement.From the legal limbo over NCUA board seats to the agency's shrinking staff and the Supreme Court case that could reshape presidential power, we dig into what it all means for your credit union. We also cover the leadership change at America's Credit Unions, the future of CFPB oversight, and what to expect from NCUA's upcoming strategic planning town hall.And yes — we wrap up with some NFL predictions (with John's Ravens, Geoff's Bears, and my Vikings all getting their fair share of good-natured ribbing).What You'll Learn in This EpisodeThe latest on the NCUA board shake-up: Harper, Ska, Trump, and the courtsHow the Humphrey's Executor Supreme Court case could upend federal regulatory appointmentsWhat NCUA's staff buyouts and hiring freeze mean for supervision and examinationsWhy communication between credit unions and regulators is more critical than everInsights on America's Credit Unions' new CEO Scott Simpson and what his leadership could signalThe future of CFPB oversight and how credit unions should prepare for the next compliance pendulum swingWhy the upcoming NCUA strategic planning town hall is a chance for credit unions to speak upSome football predictions to lighten the mood — Ravens, Bears, and Vikings fans, take note

The next episode in McGlinchey's Deep Dive into Lending series takes a close look at unsecured lending with insights from Aaron Kouhoupt and Adam Maarec. They discuss innovations in loan applications, underwriting, and customer interactions, and then explore the other side of the equation: what today's consumers expect from lenders and creditors.

Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast is centered around a novel and thought-provoking article by David Horton, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis. The article, titled "Do Arbitrators Follow the Law? Evidence from Clause Construction," dives into the intriguing question of whether arbitrators render decisions that align with judicial rulings. Horton explores the longstanding debate on arbitration's adherence to legal standards, focusing on whether arbitrators have followed the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that class-wide arbitration is not permitted when an arbitration clause is silent or ambiguous on the matter.  The podcast episode explores the ramifications of Horton's finding that in about 27% of the arbitrations studied, the arbitrators did not follow Lamps Plus.  Horton interprets that finding as suggesting that a significant minority of arbitrators may be motivated by financial considerations in allowing a class arbitration to proceed, notwithstanding Lamps Plus, because it is more lucrative for them than an individual arbitration.    Mark Levin, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, also joins the program. Mark interprets Horton's findings differently, emphasizing that in his view Horton's data strongly supports the conclusion that arbitration is not lawless since an overwhelming majority of the arbitrators (73%) did follow Lamps Plus.  Mark also dismisses Horton's suggestion that some arbitrators' rulings may be swayed by financial considerations as pure speculation.  On the contrary, he observes, the fact that some arbitrators have not strictly followed Lamps Plus does not show they were not following the law since the issue of clause construction has a lengthy complex history and prominent courts such as the Second Circuit have themselves found reasons for distinguishing Lamps Plus.    Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Project 2025 has become one of the most ambitious—and controversial—proposals to reshape American governance in modern times. Unveiled by the Heritage Foundation and backed by a coalition of over 100 conservative groups, this nearly thousand-page blueprint envisions a sweeping overhaul of the federal government if a Republican president takes office in January 2025. Its stated mission is nothing short of a root-and-branch restructuring: dismantle the so-called “administrative state,” reassert presidential control, and roll back everything from agency independence to civil service protections.As Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts put it, “all federal employees should answer to the president.” At Project 2025's core lies an aggressive reading of the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president should exercise direct oversight of the entire executive branch. The project calls for the elimination of the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. This would mean every official answers directly to the Oval Office, erasing barriers that, until now, protected agencies from political interference.Concrete examples of this ambition spill across the plan's 30 dense chapters. According to the policy document “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” Project 2025 proposes the immediate dismissal of all State Department leadership and their replacement by ideologically vetted appointees. Kiron Skinner, who led the chapter on the State Department, wrote that career officials should be replaced by those more loyal to the president's agenda—noting she considered most State staff as “too left-wing.”The implications run deep for the federal workforce. Project 2025 reinvigorates the controversial “Schedule F” system, which would allow the mass reclassification of up to a million civil service positions to at-will federal jobs. As the National Federation of Federal Employees explains, everyone in these positions could be fired and replaced at the president's discretion. This would gut long-standing protections intended to shield government workers from political retribution or interference, paving the way for a loyalist bureaucracy on “Day One.”Some of the earliest developments since the 2024 election have been dramatic. The new administration, working with an Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency, has already attempted to dismantle entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development. According to Politico, Musk's team eliminated the CFPB and USAID, fired tens of thousands of federal workers, and rapidly imposed return-to-office mandates intended to shrink the government's physical footprint. The White House described the effort as making government “more efficient and effective,” with President Trump issuing an executive order for agencies to hire only one new worker for every four who leave.Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, warn that Project 2025 poses a grave threat to civil liberties and democratic norms. The ACLU highlights that the blueprint would roll back protections for LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, and racial equity, while rolling out aggressive new policies on immigration, policing, and free speech. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these moves, reporting devastating consequences upon workers, the environment, and the rights of millions as the changes ripple through every U.S. state and territory.Supporters say Project 2025 is necessary to rid Washington of bias, inefficiency, and “woke” influence. Critics counter that it is, in the words of one legal expert for The Atlantic, “an attempt to intellectually retrofit a rationale for Trumpism.” They note that many proposals may require approval from Congress or survive Supreme Court scrutiny, but much of the plan is designed to work through executive action alone.As the country heads toward the 2026 congressional midterms, all eyes are on milestones set by the Project 2025 playbook. Will the courts uphold the expanded executive powers? Can civil service protections be permanently dismantled? And to what extent will Congress shield or resist the transformation underway? More executive orders, agency reshuffles, and legal showdowns are on the horizon, ensuring the fate of Project 2025 will remain a defining issue for the nation.Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Just days ago, Donald Trump was standing before the press in Washington, defiant as ever, with flashing cameras capturing every word. The timing couldn't be more consequential. On August 15th, as Trump spoke flanked by law enforcement officials, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was handing down a new motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in one of the most closely watched cases against him. The District's legal team argued for immediate intervention, referencing statements Trump had made at his press conference and linking them directly to their emergency application. That turbulent morning, as crowds gathered outside the courthouse, the air was thick with anticipation over what the court's swift action might mean for the former president and his legal team.Beyond Washington, the legal action was unfolding in California too. In Thakur v. Trump et al., a hearing scheduled for August 26th will determine whether the preliminary injunction against Trump's administration will be extended to a wider, provisionally certified class. This case is emblematic of the sweeping litigation Trump faces as plaintiffs challenge many of his executive actions, especially concerning national security and government oversight. Earlier this month, the Northern District Court held an order to show cause hearing related to the suspension of National Science Foundation grants, another issue tangentially tied to Trump's time in office and the repercussions that continue to reverberate across agencies.The Litigation Tracker managed by Lawfare details something staggering: more than two hundred ninety-eight active cases challenging Trump administration actions are currently still open, with some pushing all the way up to the Supreme Court. Judges have swung both ways—some ruling for the federal government, others against—while legal teams scramble to keep pace. The swirl of litigation encompasses issues big and small, from immigration enforcement to broader questions about executive authority and agency shutdowns.One of the hottest topics right now has centered on Trump's prerogative to force sweeping personnel changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On August 18th, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals cleared the Trump administration to resume its plan to fire more than fourteen hundred CFPB employees, a move that union groups fiercely opposed. While Judge Gregory Katsas—himself appointed by Trump—wrote that there's no legal foundation to claim the administration is shutting down the agency entirely, dissenting voices like Judge Cornelia Pillard have vigorously challenged that narrative, insisting the courts must intervene if an agency's existence is being imperiled.Throughout all of this, Trump's legal team has remained on war footing, acutely aware that each courtroom drama carries not just legal ramifications but political ones. As these proceedings continue to snake through the judicial system, every decision, dissent, and order is watched with hawk-like intensity—not just by Trump's allies and critics, but by the nation at large.Thanks for tuning in, everyone. Be sure to come back next week for deeper dives and the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production—check out Quiet Please Dot A I for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Welcome back to the Fintech Takes podcast. I'm Alex Johnson, joined by Dan Murphy — Founder of Sunset Park Advisors and former CFPB official who helped craft the agency's open banking rule (finalized last October). Our plan is simple: for listeners less steeped in the regulatory process, we'll walk through how the rule took shape, assess where things stand today, and focus on what comes next (and what should come next, realistic or not.) Granted, “today” remains a moving target. Just 20 minutes before we hit record, breaking news dropped that changed the open banking conversation yet again. Highlights include: The unusual bipartisan and cross-industry consensus (banks and fintechs alike) that pushed the rule across the finish line (and why that consensus collapsed after October 2024) Why JPMorgan's aggressive API fee move  rolled out while the no-fee rule was technically still in effect) may have backfired by uniting fintechs, crypto firms, merchants, and even regulators against it The hardest unresolved questions: whether banks can charge for data access, how liability is allocated when things go wrong, how far the rule should extend beyond checking and credit cards, and what counts as legitimate secondary data use. If you care about the future of data portability, the balance of power between banks and fintechs, or just want a front-row seat to the regulatory drama reshaping U.S. finance in real time, this is the episode you don't want to miss. 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 Dan Murphy: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danieljmurphy01/   Follow Alex Johnson:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson X: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down three major legal developments: the Supreme Court allowing Mississippi's age verification law for social media to take effect while litigation continues, a renewed but unlikely push to overturn the Court's marriage equality decision in Obergefell, and a federal court ruling enabling potential mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Jessica explains what these cases mean for our rights and daily lives, highlighting the ongoing balance between state power, individual liberties, and consumer protection.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court and Mississippi's Social Media Age Verification Law: The episode opens with a discussion of the Supreme Court's decision to allow Mississippi's new law requiring age verification for children on social media to take effect while legal battles continue. The law mandates social media companies verify users' ages and get parental consent for kids under 18. Supporters claim it protects children from online harms, while critics argue it's vague, intrusive, and may violate the First Amendment.Renewed Push to Overturn Marriage Equality (Obergefell v. Hodges): There's renewed legal activity aimed at overturning the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case gained attention due to Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, now asking the Supreme Court to revisit the ruling.Trump Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The final major story discusses a recent court decision paving the way for the Trump administration to pursue mass firings at the CFPB—a federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Nonbank auto lenders may soon have a reason to celebrate, following a proposed rule change by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to how it defines larger participants of the auto market. On Aug. 7, the bureau filed an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to change the definition of a larger participant in auto to nonbank entities with up to 1.1 million aggregate annual originations, an increase from 10,000. This followed the CFPB's July 14 motion filed with the Office of Management and Budget which would rule on the request. The change, if approved, would reduce the number of financiers considered larger participants to five from 63, according to the notice. Traditional lenders and nonbank entities would still be subject to state laws even if they are no longer under CFPB jurisdiction.  While this unfolds, lenders are also working to seize opportunities in the market.  Auto lenders are continuing to lean into refinance programs on the heels of stabilizing interest rates and consumers' search for affordability and better loan terms. Subprime lender Arivo Acceptance Chief Executive Landon Starr told Auto Finance News that the company is ramping up its refinance program with a goal of $60 million in average monthly origination volume. In fact, TransUnion estimates 18 million consumers, or 23% of borrowers with open auto loans, have interest rates that exceed the average APR in the industry.  Also, average vehicle transaction prices jumped 5.2% year over year in the second quarter to $31,216, according to an Edmunds report published Aug. 12. In this episode of the “Weekly Wrap,” Auto Finance News Senior Associate Editor Truth Headlam and Associate Editor Aidan Bush discuss trends across second-quarter bank earnings for the week ended Aug. 15.  

*

Today on our podcast, we're releasing a repurposed recording of our July 23, 2025 webinar titled “Student Lending Legislation and Litigation: 2025 Mid-Year Review.” The webinar features esteemed partners John Culhane and Tom Burke, who dive into the intricacies of student lending litigation and regulatory developments. As a senior partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, John Culhane shares his extensive knowledge on higher education finance, focusing on state legislation and private student loan litigation. Tom Burke, also a partner in the same group, brings his expertise in private class actions and state enforcement actions, providing insights into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its significant impact on federal loan servicers and discussing federal student loan litigation. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

This Day in Legal History: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | Reuters 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

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by veteran litigators Jason Manning and Carter Nichols to explore litigation implications following the CFPB's withdrawal of nearly 70 pieces of informal guidance earlier this year. The discussion examines how this significant shift impacts private litigation, particularly in cases where courts previously relied on these guidance documents, opening new avenues for legal arguments and challenges in a landscape where statutory interpretation and legal strategy become paramount with opportunities to redefine precedents and discover uncharted legal territories. The episode underscores the evolving nature of consumer finance litigation and the strategic considerations that come with these regulatory changes.

Welcome back to Fintech Takes.  I'm Alex Johnson, and today we're trying something different: a little audiobook experiment.  I'm turning my recent deep dive, “Why Is This Happening? An Exhaustive Review of the History and Nascent Culture of the CFPB,” into a podcast episode for your listening pleasure(s) anytime, anywhere. It's a sweeping, inside-the-agency history of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (told through interviews with more than two dozen former staffers) and an investigation into why, 14 years after its founding, the CFPB is being hollowed out in full public view. Along the way: cockroach-infested offices, chainsaw-wielding regulators, and a Mark Andreessen quote I never thought I'd have to say out loud.  If you haven't read it, or haven't revisited it since it ran in June, you'll hear the whole essay, start to finish.  And because the Bureau has been unusually busy these last two months, I've added fresh updates on what the CFPB's been up to (surprise flip-flop on open banking and intervention in the Synapse fiasco), and what those actions tell us about the future of the Bureau. 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 Alex:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnsonTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

Section 1033 of the Dodd Frank Act was finalized at the end of the Biden administration and would require banks to give consumers free access and control of their personal banking data.The rule had met legal pushback from the bank industry and the CFPB under the Trump administration planned to scrap it. But last week, the bureau said it will instead rewrite Section 1033.Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino discusses the news with Rohit Chopra, who served as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when the rule was finalized in 2024.

Section 1033 of the Dodd Frank Act was finalized at the end of the Biden administration and would require banks to give consumers free access and control of their personal banking data.The rule had met legal pushback from the bank industry and the CFPB under the Trump administration planned to scrap it. But last week, the bureau said it will instead rewrite Section 1033.Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino discusses the news with Rohit Chopra, who served as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when the rule was finalized in 2024.

Welcome back to Not Fintech Investment Advice, where Simon Taylor and I riff about fintech companies we're absolutely not giving investment advice on (though this one may test our willpower). We kick things off with Alix, which tackles one of the most bureaucratically brutal processes most people will ever face: settling a loved one's estate. It's admin + grief = chaos. Alix offers a $249 flat-fee concierge service that uses AI (plus humans) to cancel subscriptions, close accounts, and chase down deeds. It's DTC in a space no one wants to think about until they have to (think: Chime-level brand softness meets probate-level emotional complexity). Next up is Narrative, an AI-for-compliance startup that's not trying to do everything (just the very specific, painful thing of parsing and resolving consumer complaints). What stood out? It's not just trained on your written policies. It learns from how your best people make decisions. In a post-CFPB, state-by-state enforcement era, that nuance might be the difference between surviving a compliance audit … or hiring 300 more people to do what one model can. Then there's Ogment AI, which wants to be Shopify for agentic commerce. It builds MCP servers (think: APIs for LLMs) that let merchants make their products shoppable in ChatGPT, Claude, and co. But the big question isn't tech; it's trust. Can LLMs represent your brand voice in a way that doesn't reduce you to “cheap and ships fast”? TBD, but Ogment is skating where the puck might go. Finally, there's SOLO, which is kind of like a new school credit bureau. One that's trying to standardize, store, and reuse the messy contextual data that lives outside traditional credit files. Plus, it flips the economics: lenders get paid when others reuse their verified data. It's a trust layer disguised as underwriting tech, and its success may hinge more on old-school, squishy human partnerships than the tech. Plus, manifestations: We want the Timothée Chalamet of fintech; the operators who give a damn about striving to be the best at their craft. Often, the most profitable companies started that way and the monies followed as a byproduct of obsession with doing it right. Now that's worth spotlighting. 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 Simon: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sytaylor/ Substack: https://sytaylor.substack.com   Follow Alex:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson Companies featured: https://www.meetalix.com/ https://thenarrative.dev/ https://www.ogment.ai/ https://solo.one/

Glen connects with Early Warning's Chief Partnerships Officer Eric Hoffman about the latest progress of Paze's digital wallet, and Payfinia GM Keith Riddle on his firm's deal to bring Paze to credit unions. Also- yet another twist in the open banking road, and hints of momentum for de novo institutions.     Links related to this episode:   Paze:  https://www.paze.com/ Payfinia: https://tyfone.com/payfinia/  Our interview with Paze's Head of Operations Catherine Murchie at Money 20/20 last October: https://www.big-fintech.com/onboarding-and-offboarding-at-money-20-20/  Planet Money's episode on Fortuna Bank's de novo journey: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/07/1236538076/new-bank-startup-regulations-entrepreneur  Our recent conversation with the CU De Novo Collective's Denise Wymore: https://www.big-fintech.com/starting-simple-small-and-with-purpose/  Payments Dive on the CFPB's plan to “substantially rework” its Open Banking rule: https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/open-banking-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-financial-payments-data-fintechs-Trump/756212/  Fintech Business Weekly on Chase's plan to charge for open banking data: https://fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/p/chase-strikes-first-with-open-banking  Fintech South August 19-20 in Atlanta: https://www.fintechsouth.com/ USE CODE BIGCAST25 FOR A REGISTRATION DISCOUNT   A special time for our next CU Town Hall: Mark your calendars for our next Town Hall session- Monday, August 18 at 3:30pm ET/12:30pm PT- streaming live from America's Credit Unions' Strategic Growth Conference. It's free to attend, but advance registration is required. Visit https://www.cutownhall.com/ to request an invitation.    Follow us on LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/best-innovation-group/   https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbfintech/  https://www.linkedin.com/in/glensarvady/

New job, more income — now what? Hear how one listener is managing his Roth IRA, health savings account, high-yield savings, and more. Is it smart to use a Roth IRA like a savings account? How should you prioritize your money across savings, debt, and retirement after getting a higher-paying job? Hosts Sean Pyles and Elizabeth Ayoola answer a listener's question about managing multiple financial goals and choosing the right accounts for short- and long-term needs. But first, they share their money hot takes, including Elizabeth's thoughts on Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) loans and Sean's interest in stronger pro-consumer protections in light of recent federal rollbacks. Then, they talk to listener Jake, who recently relocated for a new job and is navigating how to allocate his money now that he's earning a bigger paycheck. Jake wants to know if it makes sense to use a Roth IRA for savings and how to simplify or optimize his mix of bank accounts. They cover how to prioritize emergency savings, retirement contributions, and future goals like a home purchase, all while avoiding analysis paralysis and making the most of high-yield savings accounts. Inspired to navigate your finances with an advisor? Use NerdWallet Advisors Match to find vetted professionals today at https://www.nerdwalletadvisors.com/match  Learn more about NerdWallet Wealth Partners: https://nerdwalletwealthpartners.com/  Want us to review your budget? Fill out this form — completely anonymously if you want — and we might feature your budget in a future segment! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScK53yAufsc4v5UpghhVfxtk2MoyooHzlSIRBnRxUPl3hKBig/viewform?usp=header In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: how to use a Roth IRA for savings, Roth IRA withdrawal rules, high yield savings account vs Roth IRA, best high yield savings accounts, what is a CD ladder, Buy Now Pay Later pros and cons, budgeting after a raise, how to prioritize financial goals, how to automate savings, how to manage multiple bank accounts, closing bank accounts and credit score, best place to save for house down payment, emergency fund vs Roth IRA, what to do after getting a new job, student loan repayment benefits, HSA contribution strategy, how to save for a house in 5 years, budgeting in high cost of living area, saving for short-term goals, pros and cons of online-only banks, how to overcome analysis paralysis in finance, Roth IRA vs high yield savings account, how to choose a bank, CFPB budget cuts impact, FTC click-to-cancel rule rollback, responsible use of debt, financial planning for tech professionals, credit score impact of closing bank accounts, reverse budgeting explained, safe ways to grow savings, how to build financial peace, using automation in budgeting, HSA vs IRA vs savings, debt vs savings prioritization, how to start a CD ladder, and when not to invest money. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to protect your credit from medical debt and choose the right way to save for a home down payment. How does medical debt affect your credit score? What accounts can you use to save for a house down payment? Hosts Sean Pyles and Elizabeth Ayoola discuss the recent reversal of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that would have removed medical debt under $500 from credit reports and explore the consequences for consumers. Joined by senior news writer Anna Helhoski and guest Rohit Chopra, former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they explain why the rule was proposed, what the legal ruling means for borrowers, and what consumers can do to protect themselves. They share insights on why the CFPB is vital to maintaining financial fairness and what the agency's dormancy could mean for future protections. Then, housing Nerd Kate Wood joins Sean and Elizabeth to discuss how to save for a home in today's high-cost, high-interest-rate housing market. They dig into what emergency fund you should consider having before buying a house, how to choose between high-yield savings accounts and CDs, and why the 20% down payment myth could be holding you back. The conversation also covers how much you really should save (spoiler: it's more than just your down payment), why closing costs are often misunderstood, and how first-time buyers can explore down payment assistance programs that offer real help. NerdWallet's list of the best high-yield savings accounts: https://www.nerdwallet.com/best/banking/high-yield-online-savings-accounts  Want us to review your budget? Fill out this form — completely anonymously if you want — and we might feature your budget in a future segment! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScK53yAufsc4v5UpghhVfxtk2MoyooHzlSIRBnRxUPl3hKBig/viewform?usp=header In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: medical debt and credit scores, saving for a down payment, CFPB medical debt rule, how to save for a house, down payment assistance programs, how medical debt affects credit, CFPB rule overturned, home buying costs, closing costs calculator, how much to save for a house, best high yield savings accounts, down payment myths, private mortgage insurance explained, how much to put down on a house, 20% down payment myth, CD ladder strategy, high yield CD rates, CD vs savings account, home equity from appreciation, real estate agent commission changes, home maintenance budgeting, how to avoid PMI, how to get rid of PMI, what is PMI, CFPB complaint database, checking credit reports, how to prequalify for a mortgage, how to calculate closing costs, state housing authority grants, and first-time homebuyer programs. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Banking on Fraudology is part of the Fraudology Podcast Network.In this eye-opening episode of Banking on Fraudology, host Hailey Windham dives into a critical development in the financial fraud prevention landscape. Fresh off a cruise where she performed her fraud-prevention parody of Meghan Trainor's "No," Hailey shifts gears to discuss a major opportunity for fraud professionals to shape future policy. The CFPB, NCUA, FDIC, OCC, and the Fed have issued a joint request for information, seeking input from industry experts on how to address rising threats in digital payments fraud.Hailey breaks down the key areas regulators are focusing on, including effective fraud prevention tools, barriers to data sharing, industry collaboration, consumer education, and regulatory gaps. She emphasizes the importance of credit unions and regional banks participating in this conversation, as their unique perspectives and challenges need representation. The host provides actionable advice for listeners, encouraging them to read the summary, discuss it with their teams, and submit comments before the September 18 deadline.This episode serves as a rallying cry for fraud fighters to seize this rare opportunity to influence regulatory policy directly. Hailey's passion for the subject shines through as she urges listeners to elevate each other's voices and show up "smart and aligned." Don't miss this chance to make your experience count in shaping the future of fraud prevention. Listen now and prepare to make your voice heard in this crucial industry conversation.https://americascus.widen.net/view/pdf/e03c71f0-112b-4e61-a57b-b6f8bffb6911/Interagency[…]&_hsmi=368732194&utm_content=368732194&utm_source=hs_emailAbout Hailey Windham:As a 2023 CU Rockstar Recipient, Hailey Windham, CFCS (Certified Financial Crimes Specialist) demonstrated unbounding passion for educating her community, organization and credit union membership on scams in the market and best practices to avoid them. She has implemented several programs within her previous organizations that aim at holistically learning about how to prevent and detect fraud targeted at membership and employees. Windham's initiatives to build strong relationships and partnerships throughout the credit union community and industry experts have led to countless success stories. Her applied knowledge of payments system programs combined with her experience in fraud investigations offers practical concepts that are transferable, no matter the organization's size. Connect with Hailey on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hailey-windham/

In this episode, Alex Johnson and I discussed:* The revelation that JPMorgan Chase intends to begin charging third-parties, including aggregators like Plaid and MX, to access consumers' data rocked the U.S. fintech landscape last week. Alex and I unpacked what it could mean.* Since we recorded this last week, a group trade associations, including the Financial Technology Association and the American Fintech Council, sent a letter to President Trump, essentially asking him to reconsider the CFPB's position to abandon defense of the rule (I covered this on Sunday here.)* In a surprising turn of events, the CFPB filed a motion in the challenge brought against the rule by a small Kentucky bank, the Kentucky Bankers Association, and the Bank Policy Institute, asking the court to pause the proceedings.* The CFPB said it will undertake a new open banking rulemaking and expects to release an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking within the next three weeks, kicking off an “accelerated” rulemaking process. Stay tuned for Sunday, where I'll unpack the latest developments and what they mean for open banking.* GENIUS is law: what's next for stablecoin issuers, banks, custodians, and consumers?* And, as always, what Alex and I just can't let go of. Get full access to Fintech Business Weekly at fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Alex Johnson and I discussed:* The revelation that JPMorgan Chase intends to begin charging third-parties, including aggregators like Plaid and MX, to access consumers' data rocked the U.S. fintech landscape last week. Alex and I unpacked what it could mean.* Since we recorded this last week, a group trade associations, including the Financial Technology Association and the American Fintech Council, sent a letter to President Trump, essentially asking him to reconsider the CFPB's position to abandon defense of the rule (I covered this on Sunday here.)* In a surprising turn of events, the CFPB filed a motion in the challenge brought against the rule by a small Kentucky bank, the Kentucky Bankers Association, and the Bank Policy Institute, asking the court to pause the proceedings.* The CFPB said it will undertake a new open banking rulemaking and expects to release an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking within the next three weeks, kicking off an “accelerated” rulemaking process. Stay tuned for Sunday, where I'll unpack the latest developments and what they mean for open banking.* GENIUS is law: what's next for stablecoin issuers, banks, custodians, and consumers?* And, as always, what Alex and I just can't let go of. Get full access to Fintech Business Weekly at fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back to Fintech Takes. I'm Alex Johnson, joined (as always) by my partner-in-recapping, Jason Mikula. Usually, we sift through a grab bag of headlines, but not this time. There are two seismic fintech stories worth your time (both tied to data access, control, and what comes next). So that's where we're headed. No visit to BaaS Island this time.  Our first story: JPMorgan Chase's proposed pricing for open banking API access is reportedly 10x what aggregators currently charge their customers. The fee isn't just financial; it's strategic. Payments use cases (ahem, Pay by Bank) are priced highest.  With the CFPB's open banking rule under fire (and the CFPB now switching legal sides to ask the court to toss out its own rule), we unpack what this means for consumer data access and the economics of data sharing. With Chase proposing “punitive” fees that could render key fintech use cases economically unviable, are we on the verge of screen scraping 2.0? Our second story: Congress passes the Genius Act, giving stablecoins their first real federal framework. It could be a win for players like Circle, but what does it mean for banks, tokenized deposits, and global dollar dominance? Are we just exporting U.S. monetary power through DeFi rails (and will regulators have the bandwidth to keep up)? Plus, in our Can't Let It Go corner: Jason goes off on the ethics of betting on people's divorces. Meanwhile, I spiral down the rabbit hole of Bill Pulte's unhinged Twitter (where he's on a mission to destroy FICO and get Jerome Powell fired, in ALL CAPS and random quotation marks). Enjoy! 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

Does a giant logo really build trust? Josh and John tackle outdated compliance mandates, the CFPB's role in consumer perception, and how loyalty programs (done right) can teach banks to deliver value beyond the fine print. The post Episode 192 | More Than a Disclaimer: Why Compliance Isn't Marketing appeared first on Marketing Money Podcast.

Welcome to Model Citizens: AI Compliance for Banks and Fintech Lenders, a six-part miniseries from the Fintech Takes podcast in partnership with FairPlay. In this series, I'm joined by FairPlay's Kareem Saleh (Founder & CEO) to explore how banks and fintechs can build fair, compliant lending systems in an era of regulatory uncertainty. Episode 1 tackles one of the biggest questions in financial services today: what happens when the top federal watchdog (that was/is the CFPB) loses its bite? Joined by David Silberman (former CFPB Associate Director for Research, Markets, and Regulation) and Abby Hogan (SVP of Legal & Regulatory Affairs; ex-CFPB), we explore the vacuum left by a defanged CFPB and the new patchwork of enforcement that's emerging in its place. Highlights include: Why 50-state compliance is the most expensive form of “deregulation” you've never asked for How pragmatic state regulators are becoming the new R&D lab for rulemaking since fintech innovation won't wait What the five-year lookback really means for compliance teams (hint: regulatory whiplash isn't a free pass to hit cruise control) Whether the CFPB could be rebuilt (and how fast the talent might come roaring back) This episode sets the stage for what's ahead. Because the future of fair lending isn't just about algorithms; it's about who's making the rules, who's watching, who's suing, and who's redrawing the lines of fairness and risk.  In other words: it's about what kind of model citizens we want our institutions (and our systems) to be. Don't forget to subscribe and catch more insights on Model Citizens in upcoming episodes! This miniseries is brought to you by FairPlay. FairPlay is an AI enablement company for financial services. They help companies build, test, optimize, validate and govern AI models. Learn more at Fairplay.ai 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/ Follow Alex:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson Follow David: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-silberman-1143414a/ Follow Kareem: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kareemsaleh/ Follow Abby: https://www.linkedin.com/in/abbyhogan/ Learn more about FairPlay here.

Consumer advocacy groups led by Rise Economy filed a lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for not implementing a small-business data collection rule mandated by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and seeks to require the CFPB to collect and publish data on small-business loan applications, including demographic details and loan denials. Banking trade groups have also challenged the rule, citing compliance burdens, resulting in multiple court delays and an extended compliance deadline to July 2026. The case centers on the need for data to identify lending discrimination and credit access gaps for small businesses.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We are releasing today a very interesting podcast show which is also breaking news. Before I read an article by Professor Charlotte Haendler of Southern Methodist University and Professor Rawley Z. Heimer of Arizona State University titled “The Hidden Costs of Financial Services: Consumer Complaints and Financial Restitution,” I never knew that the CFPB authorized outside third-parties access to non-public data collected about consumer complaints that it received so that those third-parties could conduct studies. Professors Haendler and Heimer used that data to determine the demographics of complainants who received the most restitution versus the demographics of those who received no or little restitution. The study they conducted is described in the abstract of the article which is available here on SSRN: Financial disputes are a widespread but understudied feature of consumer financial markets. Using confidential data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), we analyze nearly two million consumer complaints filed since 2014, which have led to an average payout of $1,470 per successful complaint. The volume of complaints and total restitution have increased substantially over time, suggesting significant scope for additional compensation. When understanding who secures restitution—and why—we find little evidence that differences across firms systematically drive restitution outcomes. Instead, product complexity and consumer engagement play key roles—consumers with higher income and education (high-SES) are more likely to explicitly request refunds, claim fraud, and submit supporting documentation, making firms more responsive. Leveraging previously unexamined CFPB monitoring reviews, where the agency systematically screens company responses and issues confidential reports highlighting deficiencies, we show that regulatory scrutiny increases restitution but disproportionately benefits high-SES consumers, reinforcing individual-specific mechanisms. Our results highlight the complementary nature of regulatory interventions and suggest that financial sophistication and self-advocacy are critical determinants of consumer redress. During the webinar, the Professors answered the following questions: 1.  Why did you conduct an in-depth CFPB consumer complaints study in the first place? 2.  Why did you basically use the CFPB complaint data as a proxy for consumer disputes in the entire industry? 3.  In your paper you mostly focus on the likelihood of a complaint resulting in financial restitution (i.e., some sort of monetary relief for the troubles endured). The title of your paper is “The hidden costs of financial services: consumer complaints and financial restitution”. First of all, what do you mean by hidden costs? 4.  Was the confidential data you received from the CFPB essential in better understanding the mechanisms behind the resolution of these consumer disputes? 5.  Did you find differences in complaint outcomes depending on the type of product involved? 6.  Is there a lot of variation across companies in the likelihood to award financial restitution to a complainant? 7.   Is the likelihood of a complainant receiving restitution more about the complexity of the product and potentially how the consumer relates to it than about there being some rogue companies? 8. Do certain consumer characteristics—like income, education, and even racial and ethnic background—correlate with greater likelihood of financial restitution. 9.   How do consumer characteristics end up influencing the likelihood of restitution? 10.  Does oversight from the CFPB change how firms handle disputes and award financial restitution? 11.  What should regulators, firms, and consumers take away from this research? This is how they answered that question: (a)  It is critical to recognize that the capabilities to navigate the dispute process aren't equal across consumers. (b)  For regulators, we see that scrutiny and nudging alone do not substitute for consumer engagement. Hence the challenge is to design systems that help level the playing field, perhaps by educating the consumer more, or by flagging poorly-articulated but potentially valid complaints for extra review and documentation. (c)  For companies, this study highlights the negotiating power of the consumer in disputes, and how this negotiating power hinges on self-advocacy and financial sophistication. It could also be a wakeup call to consider how certain demographics might be struggling to understand the financial product offered and how to cater to them to reach a greater customer base and higher levels of consumer satisfaction. (d)  For consumers, it's a reminder that being specific, using strong language, and submitting documentation really matters in getting your voice heard. Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former Chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted this podcast show.

In this special joint episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, Chris Willis, co-leader of Troutman Pepper Locke's Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Practice, is joined by Keith Barnett and Jason Cover from the Payments Pros podcast, along with Troutman Pepper Locke Consumer Financial Services Partner Mark Furletti. They discuss the future of earned-wage access (EWA) products following the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) rescission of previous guidance. The conversation explores the history and evolution of EWA products, initially designed as employer-based solutions to provide employees early access to earned wages without extending credit.The group highlights regulatory challenges, including the CFPB's changing stance and the impact of state laws on EWA offerings. They examine how these products are structured to avoid being classified as credit, focusing on optional fees and the absence of repayment obligations. The discussion also addresses the legal landscape, noting potential state-level regulatory landmines and private litigation. The episode emphasizes the importance for fintechs and payroll processors to navigate these complexities carefully, especially in states with stringent regulations like California and New York. The podcast concludes with insights into the future of EWA, stressing the need for compliance with evolving state and federal laws.

Welcome back to the Fintech Takes podcast. I'm Alex Johnson, joined by Evan Weinberger, Bloomberg Law reporter and bank regulation whisperer (and the rare guest who can quote both Caddyshack and Empire Strikes Back in a single episode, enjoy). This week's show unpacks the JP Morgan Chase open banking fee bombshell (they're now charging for access to their open banking APIs) — the story Evan himself and Bloomberg colleague Paige Smith broke — and the ripple effect it's having across fintech, data aggregators, and regulators who seem genuinely unprepared for how fast it's all moving. If there's a central theme, it's this: When the banks move first, everyone else scrambles. We dig into Chase's strategy, the pricing breakdowns, and what the “value capture” narrative says about the future of open finance. But that's just the start. Highlights include: -Why the CFPB is simultaneously gutting its rulebook and losing most of its staff -Why regulators are quietly abandoning disparate impact and what it means for fair lending -Why the Trump administration is targeting CDFIs (even though they serve many rural Southern areas aligned with the GOP) -How a data fight might unite crypto VCs and big box merchants (yes, really) This episode has it all: open banking drama, more regulatory whiplash, and fintech caught in the middle wondering what the hell just happened. 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 Evan Weinberger: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-weinberger-3746aa4/ X: https://x.com/reporterev  Follow Alex Johnson:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson X: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

The podcast show we are releasing today features Professor Jonathan Gould of University of California (Berkeley) Law School who discusses his recent article co-written with Professor Rory Van Loo of Boston University School of Law which was recently published in the University of Chicago Law Review titled “Legislating for the Future”. The introduction of the article describes “legislating for the future” as follows: Public policy must address threats that will manifest in the future. Legislation enacted today affects the severity of tomorrow's harms arising from biotechnology, climate change, and artificial intelligence. This Essay focuses on Congress's capacity to confront future threats. It uses a detailed case study of financial crises to show the limits and possibilities of legislation to prevent future catastrophes. By paying insufficient attention to Congress, the existing literature does not recognize the full nature and extent of the institutional challenges in regulating systemic risk. Fully recognizing those challenges reveals important design insights for future-risk legislation. During the podcast, we discuss the dynamics around enacting legislation through Congress that aims to increase the stability of the financial system and prevent financial crises. We discuss with Professor Gould about why passing this sort of legislation is so difficult and what Congress might be able to do about that. We consider the following questions: 1.  What are the basic dynamics that make it so hard to pass financial stability legislation? 2.    How does the structure of Congress affect the difficulty of passing financial stability legislation? 3.   We have seen some big bills lately, like Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and the big taxing and spending bill from Trump this year.  Why is financial regulation harder to enact than these other types of legislation? 4.   Has it gotten easier or harder over time to enact financial regulation? 5.  What happens after financial stability legislation is enacted? 6.   What can Congress do to enhance its capacity in this area? 7.   What types of legislative drafting techniques are likely to be especially promising? 8.   What role is there for federal agencies to play in augmenting congressional capacity? 9.  What role is there for states or private plaintiffs to play in augmenting congressional capacity? 10. What relevance does this all have beyond financial regulation? 11. In light of the fact that the article was published before the 2024 election and change in administration are any of Professor Gould's conclusions altered by more recent events? This podcast was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group.

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports there's been a rollback on consumer related penalties for companies under the Trump administration.

Welcome to The Chrisman Commentary, your go-to daily mortgage news podcast, where industry insights meet expert analysis. Hosted by Robbie Chrisman, this podcast delivers the latest updates on mortgage rates, capital markets, and the forces shaping the housing finance landscape. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just looking to stay informed, you'll get clear, concise breakdowns of market trends and economic shifts that impact the mortgage world.In today's episode, we look at market sentiment as it assesses the labor market. Plus, Robbie sits down with Polunsky Beitel Green's Peter Idziak to discuss the recent Senate Parliamentarian's decision blocking efforts to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau via reconciliation and the implications for the agency's independence and the broader mortgage lending framework. And we close by examining what to make of today's light economic calendar.Thank you to Truework, the only all-in-one, automated VOIEA platform that helps mortgage providers achieve up to 50% cost savings with an industry leading 75% completion rate.

In Episode 98, Dean and Len discuss the CFPB's newly announced 2025 Section 1071 Interim Final Rule, which further delays the compliance dates for small business lending data collection and reporting by roughly one year for thousands of banks, credit unions, and commercial lenders. The hosts break down the complexities created by shifting rules, changes in definitions of “small business loan,” and the overlap with Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements. They highlight how the new staggered compliance dates and partial-year reporting could create confusion, unnecessary costs, and data that's not useful for analysis. The podcast encourages lenders to submit comments before the July 18, 2025 deadline, not just about compliance timing but also about issues like the expanded data requirements and demographic data isolation, and recommends all data collection start uniformly on January 1, 2028, to improve clarity and efficiency. Brought to you by GeoDataVision and M&M Consulting

Since its creation 14 years ago the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has used its powers to return billions of dollars to defrauded consumers. Now the Trump administration wants to close it. What the CFPB has meant for consumer protection in the U.S.

Welcome to The Chrisman Commentary, your go-to daily mortgage news podcast, where industry insights meet expert analysis. Hosted by Robbie Chrisman, this podcast delivers the latest updates on mortgage rates, capital markets, and the forces shaping the housing finance landscape. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just looking to stay informed, you'll get clear, concise breakdowns of market trends and economic shifts that impact the mortgage world.In today's episode, we look at the vacuum from the shrinking of the CFPB and how state regulators have stepped into the void. Plus, Robbie sits down with Figure's Michael Tannenbaum to discuss stable coins, the latest happenings at Figure, and product proliferation in the mortgage industry as a result of borrower and investor demand. And we look at this week's packed economic calendar into a condensed week.Thank you to Figure. Figure is shaking up the lending world with their five-day HELOC, offering borrower approvals in as little as five minutes and funding in five days. Figure has hundreds of partners in the Banking, Credit Union, Home Improvement, and of course, IMB space embedding their technology. Lenders, give your borrowers an experience they will rave about. Learn more at figure.com.

In the aftermath of the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, we welcome back Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy Emeritus at MIT to give his expert technical assessment on where that assault leaves the Iranian nuclear program. Then, Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, gives us his analysis of the political side of the issue.Theodore Postol is Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy Emeritus in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. His expertise is in nuclear weapon systems, including submarine warfare, applications of nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, and ballistic missiles more generally.No one at that point after the attack could have known whether or not there was success of any kind, even if there was success. And I doubt there was any success.Theodore PostolThe Israelis have done everything in their power to create an internal argument among the political leadership in Iran to proceed to build a nuclear weapon so that this kind of thing won't happen again. So the Israeli grand strategy, if you want to call it that, shows no intelligence or thought of any kind.Theodore PostolTrita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the co-founder and former President of the National Iranian American Council. He is an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He has authored three books on US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran and Israel— Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama's Diplomacy with Iran, and Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy.Israel is not enhancing American power in the Middle East. Israel is consuming it.Trita Parsi, Executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible StatecraftIf the (Iranian regime) were to collapse it would most likely be because there would be an internal coup. And the next regime would be coming from the very same regime. It would just be a much more aggressive and hardline.Trita Parsi20 Worst Recent Trump Headlines1. Trump Administration Abruptly Cuts Billions From State Health Services (Apoorva Mandavilli, Margot Sanger-Katz and Jan Hoffman, New York Times, March 26, 2025)2. The EPA is canceling almost 800 environmental justice grants, court filing reveals (Maxine Joselow and Amudalat Ajasa, Washington Post, April 29, 2025)3. Trump's attack on federal unions a ‘test case' for broader assault, warn lawyers (Michael Sainato, The Guardian, 5/1/25)4. Trump fires all 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Jaclyn Diaz, NPR, 5/9/25)5. Federal employee unions fight for survival as Trump tries to eviscerate them (Andrea Hsu, NPR, 5/11/25)6. Trump's DOJ agrees to let Boeing escape guilty plea. It was a deal victims' families didn't want. (Alexis Keenan, Yahoo Finance, 5/23/25)7. Trump made a promise not to touch Medicare. His megabill just broke it. (Alan L. Cohen, NBC, 5/23/25)8. Trump's safety research cuts heighten workplace risks, federal workers warn (Michael Sainato, The Guardian, 5/27/25)9. Provision in GOP budget bill puts millions at risk of losing SNAP benefits (Lisa Desjardins and Jackson Hudgins, PBS, 5/29/25)10. White House proposes shutting down chemical safety agency (Maxine Joselow Washington Post, 6/3/25)11. Trump tax bill would add $550 billion in interest payments to national debt (Jacob Bogage, Washington Post, 6/5/25)12. RFK Jr. boots all members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee (Will Stone, NPR, 6/9/25)13. Vance, Rubio peddle fiction that 88 percent of foreign aid doesn't go overseas (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 6/11/25)14. Trump's EPA plans to repeal climate pollution limits on fossil fuel power plants (Jeff Brady, NPR, 6/11/25)15. How Trump's assault on science is blinding America to climate change (Scott Waldman, E&E News, 6/16/2025)16. ‘Censorship:' See the National Park visitor responses after Trump requested help deleting ‘negative' signage (Government Executive Magazine, 6/18/25)17. Government drops cases against ‘predatory' financial firms (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, 6/20/25)18. 'Hell no, insane': A proposal for millions of acres of land under Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill sparks outrage (No Byline, Economic Times, 6/23/25)19. Under Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' child poverty will rise again (Arturo Baiocchi, Sacramento Bee, 6/23/25)20. Trump loves saying 'You're fired.' Now he's making it easier to fire federal workers (Andrea Hsu, NPR, 6/23/25)News 6/27/251. After a brutal initial barrage by the United States, followed by tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel and Iran, the U.S. is seeking to broker a ceasefire between the two states. On Truth Social, Trump posted “ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave' to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!” Just hours after this however, Israel did in fact bomb targets in Tehran, per Reuters. Israel also claims to have intercepted missiles fired from Iran following the ceasefire agreement. In the wake of the initial attacks, journalist Séamus Malekafzali reported that the “Iranian communist party Tudeh and the Communist Party of Israel [Hadash] release[d] a joint statement condemning the Israeli war on Iran, saying Israel's intent is to make the region ‘bow down to [US] imperialism' and that the only solution is full nuclear disarmament in the Middle East.” Israel's nuclear capabilities are an open secret in Washington, with estimates that the country possess between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads.2. In Congress, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has put forth a War Powers resolution in an attempt to check Trump's unilateral escalation in Iran. According to Newsweek, he expects to get Republican votes in the Senate. In the House, the effort is led by Reps. Ro Khanna and maverick Republican Thomas Massie, whom Trump has become so enraged with that he recently launched a PAC to oust him from his seat, per Axios. Meanwhile, AOC issued a statement reading, “The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.” Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, asked about AOC's impeachment comments, replied “No, no, that's a big threshold to cross,” per David Weigel.3. The escalation in Iran has exposed fissures in Trump's orbit. PBS reports major MAGA figures like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor-Greene are openly opposed, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has reportedly drawn Trump's ire for a string of comments out of step with the administration's messaging, starting with a video earlier this month in which she accused “political elites and warmongers [of] carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers,” per the Independent. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been iced out completely, according to the Washington Post.4. In more news concerning the administration, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has published a new report, finding that “Stephen Miller…Trump's powerful deputy chief of staff and homeland security advisor…has a personal financial stake…[of] up to a quarter million dollars of stock in Palantir.” POGO describes Palantir, the shadowy tech company founded by rightwing tech oligarch Peter Thiel, as “woven into the operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and used by other federal agencies such as the Pentagon.” POGO and other experts see this as a glaring potential conflict of interest. In an almost darkly comedic twist, “Democratic lawmakers have recently sought information from Palantir, [but] they are in the minority and cannot compel the company to produce records. A person who could is Representative James Comer (R-KY), the chairman of the [House] oversight committee...However, Comer bought…Palantir stock the day after Trump's inauguration…his only stock trade that day.” Palantir is the second-best-performing S&P 500 stock in 2025, with shares up 74% year-to-date, per Business Insider.5. In a rare case of corruption actually being prosecuted, the New York Times reports former New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez reported for his eleven-year prison sentence on June 17th. “After a nine-week trial in Manhattan, Mr. Menendez…became the only U.S. senator ever to be convicted of acting as an agent of a foreign government,” after taking part in a “yearslong bribery conspiracy” that included payoffs in the form of “kilo bars of gold, a Mercedes-Benz convertible and more than $480,000 in cash.” Menendez is now incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Schuylkill, a medium-security federal prison in Minersville, Pennsylvania. He has been assigned the prisoner number 67277-050.6. In other news, POLITICO reports, “FICO plans to launch a suite of credit scores later this year that incorporate [Buy Now Pay Later or BNPL] data, providing lenders a window into…consumers' repayment behavior on these increasingly popular installment loans.” As BNPL data has not been included in credit reporting before, this has become known as “phantom debt…a gigantic black box…[and] largely unregulated.” This story notes that the Trump administration CFPB has “dropped planned enforcement of a Biden administration rule that would have treated BNPL providers like credit card companies,” subjecting this industry to daylight and financial regulation. The administration's abandonment of this rule mirrors their declassification of cryptocurrency as securities in order to skirt SEC oversight. Many questions remain over how exactly BNPL data will factor into consumers' credit scores, but many are bracing for this data to reveal a growing chasm of consumer debt underpinning the already shaky economic picture.7. Meanwhile Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student and activist abducted by ICE on the eve of his son's birth – despite being a legal permanent resident – has finally been freed. Khalil was held in federal immigration detention in Louisiana for 104 days, per AP. Following his release, Khalil said “Justice prevailed, but it's very long overdue.” Khalil's legal battle will continue. Khalil stated in an interview with NPR, “My release is just the first step. The legal fight is still very, very long. The administration appealed the decision about my release, but we will prove our case – that what happened…was textbook retaliation against the First Amendment, that I was targeted because of speech the government did not like, and that there was nothing wrong with the speech I was engaged in. I want to make sure that everyone who contributed to my arrest will be held accountable.”8. Backlash to Trump's immigration policies is not confined to the political and legal realms either. Newsweek reports that the new Pope, Leo XIV, has “called for priests, deacons and parish leaders to accompany migrants to court and stand in solidarity with them.” This is an encouraging sign for those who hoped Leo would follow in the footsteps of Pope Francis. It also puts the new Pope at odds with more conservative American Catholics, such as Vice-President JD Vance who converted in adulthood. In May, Leo's brother John Prevost told New York Times that the new Pope, “has great, great desire to help the downtrodden and the disenfranchised, the people who are ignored.”9. In another immigration flashpoint, “A gang of masked federal agents swarmed, manhandled, and detained New York City Comptroller Brad Lander…as he sought to assist a defendant out of immigration court,” according to the American Prospect. The Prospect notes this arrest is “the latest instance of political violence against opposition party members, which has included the arrests of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver…the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan…and the brief detention of Sen. Alex Padilla.” Lander was released several hours after he was detained, when New York Governor Kathy Hochul showed up in person to demand his release. She called his arrest “b******t.” Later, in an interview with Joe Gallina, Lander said, “Courts tell undocumented immigrants their cases are ‘dismissed.' But what they really dismiss… is their asylum status. Then ICE grabs them. No lawyer. No warning.”10. Finally, 33-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani trounced disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary on Tuesday, winning by a completely unforeseen seven-point landslide. Polls up to election day showed Cuomo winning, some by as much as 24 points. Mamdani, a state legislator since 2021, ran on a platform of affordability, including making city buses free, establishing city-owned grocery stores and freezing the rent for all stabilized tenants. This platform – paired with cogent messaging, an extraordinary grassroots organizing campaign and shrewd alliances with other progressive candidates like Brad Lander – won the day for Zohran. However, an air of uncertainty about November remains. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams still plans to run for reelection as an independent and Cuomo hasn't ruled out doing the same, per the Hill. While many who endorsed or donated to Cuomo in the primary – some now openly admitting they merely did so out of fear of reprisal – have switched their allegiance to Mamdani, some are maintaining a hostile posture towards the presumptive Democratic nominee. There is no doubt this story will proceed in dramatic fashion.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

We are releasing today on our podcast show a repurposed webinar that we produced on June 11, 2025 entitled “What is happening at the federal agencies that is relevant to the residential mortgage and settlement service industries.” During this podcast, we will inform you about recent developments at federal agencies, including the CFPB, HUD/FHA, OCC, FDIC, FRB and USDA (collectively, the “Agencies”), as well as Congress, the White House, states and the courts. Some of the issues we consider are:   •     Changes in leadership and priorities at the CFPB, as well as efforts to significantly reduce the funding and staffing at the CFPB and related lawsuits. •     House Republican criticism of various CFPB actions under former Director Chopra. •     The rescission and revisiting of CFPB final rules, proposed rules and informal guidance, including the Nonbank Enforcement Order Registry final rule, Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing final rule, Residential Mortgage Servicing proposed rule, and FCRA “Data Broker” proposed rule. •     The termination of CFPB enforcement efforts and revisiting of CFPB redlining consent orders. •     The rescission of Community Reinvestment Act rule amendments. •     The White House directive for the federal government to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability. •     The status of the HUD disparate impact rule under the Fair Housing Act. •     HUD's reversal of various FHA policies adopted during the Biden Administration, including guidance regarding appraisal bias and reconsideration of value. •     Trigger leads bills. •     White House firings of independent agency board/commission members and efforts to exert control over independent agencies. •     State efforts to fill the void left by the actions at the CFPB.   John Socknat, co-head of our Consumer Financial Services Group, moderated and participated in the presentation, along with the following other members of the Consumer Financial Services and Mortgage Banking Groups: Richard Andreano, Jr., John Culhane and Matthew Morr.

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.

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 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.

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.