Trump halts dismantling of US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Protesters are urging the Trump administration to reverse its decision and keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) operational. This independent government agency was established in 2011 to protect consumers in the financial sector post-Great Recession.
Fox – Seattle
WASHINGTON − A federal judge instructed the Trump administration on Friday to cease efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, leading to another judicial confrontation regarding the authority of the executive vs. legislative branches over spending priorities.
President Donald Trump’s advisory council, known as the Department of Government Efficiency, proposed effectively closing the consumer oversight agency. However, the National Treasury Employees Union opposed this plan, describing it as a sweeping initiative to eliminate agency jobs and undermine consumer protections.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C., ordered the administration to restore and safeguard agency contracts, protect data, and ensure agency personnel can fulfill legally mandated responsibilities. She also required the CFPB to offer office space or allow remote work for employees and maintain a consumer complaint hotline.
“The decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction essentially poses a single question: should the Court intervene to maintain the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now, before the case regarding its future is concluded?” Jackson stated. “The findings are clear: the Court must intervene.”
CBPB Union President Cat Farman hailed the ruling as a victory for workers.
“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempts to dissolve the CFPB serve only the interests of corporate wrongdoers and affluent groups at the cost of everyday Americans,” Farman remarked in a statement. “I’m delighted to see the judge discard Russell Vought’s Project 2025 agenda. CFPB employees are ready to resume their duties in safeguarding the American public and their hard-earned income from Wall Street exploitation.”
The CFPB was among the earliest agencies targeted by Trump following his inauguration on January 20. Other entities such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Education Department were also on his list. However, unions, federal employees, and advocacy groups have contested these efforts in court, resulting in a legal standoff between Trump and judges who are intervening during the legal proceedings.
Typically, Congress is responsible for determining spending priorities as per the Constitution, yet Trump and his advisors assert that funding amounts are merely ceilings, allowing them to spend less. Another segment of the legal dispute is that Congress explicitly authorized the CFPB’s operations via statute, which means Trump cannot simply cancel it with an executive order.
The Supreme Court may eventually be called upon to delineate new parameters concerning which branch – legislative or executive – dictates funding priorities.
Jackson asserts Trump ignored Congressional authority in forming the agency
Jackson determined that the CFPB would suffer irreparable harm if she did not intervene to halt the dismantling during the litigation period.
Documentation from the chief operating officer and internal CFPB records indicated that Vought, the acting director of the CFPB, had instructed all employees to cease operations on February 10, Jackson noted. She highlighted that government officials were actively disassembling the agency – terminating temporary workers without justification, ending contracts, and shutting down offices.
In her ruling, Jackson stated that Trump’s actions displayed a “complete disregard” for the Congressional establishment of the agency following the 2008 financial crisis.
“The defendants continue to pursue a Presidential directive aimed at completely dismantling the agency swiftly,” Jackson wrote. “Without an injunction to maintain the current status – safeguarding the agency’s data, operational capabilities, and workforce – there exists a significant risk that the defendants will entirely eliminate the agency in violation of the law before the Court has the opportunity to rule on the substantive issues, making restoration impossible.”
