Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to cancel a recent agency action. It declares that a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to withdraw an earlier consumer circular has no force or effect. If Congress approves the joint resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the withdrawal is nullified and the original circular remains in effect. After disapproval, the agency is barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new law from Congress.
The rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that would withdraw "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023-02: Reopening Deposit Accounts That Consumers Previously Closed" (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
Under the Congressional Review Act, Senate consideration is expedited and the measure is not subject to a filibuster, so it can pass with a simple majority; a presidential signature (or a congressional veto override) is required for the disapproval to take effect.
This joint resolution, filed under the Congressional Review Act, would disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule that withdrew ‘Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023–02: Reopening Deposit Accounts That Consumers Previously Closed.’ If enacted, the resolution would nullify the CFPB’s withdrawal and prevent that withdrawal from taking effect, leaving the original Circular in place.
The bill text does not amend the Circular’s substance; it only seeks to block the agency’s action that rescinded it.
Narrow, non‑fiscal regulatory roll‑back increases viability, but partisan/regulatory alignment and procedural timing create significant uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped Congressional Review Act disapproval that is clear in purpose and explicit in mechanism, but it omits fiscal and oversight details which are not uncommon for this vehicle and are absent from the text.
Progressives emphasize consumer access and inclusion benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer access and inclusion benefits
Likely supportive: sees the resolution as protecting consumer access to banking and preventing financial exclusion.
Views congressional disapproval as restoring a consumer-protection guidance the CFPB issued about account reopenings.
Mildly supportive but cautious: values the consumer-protection intent while worrying about process and costs.
Prefers clearer rulemaking, cost analysis, and narrowly tailored fixes rather than blunt CRA disapproval.
Likely opposed: views the resolution as preventing regulatory relief and preserving intrusive agency guidance.
Prefers agency discretion and less federal micromanagement of banks' account decisions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, non‑fiscal regulatory roll‑back increases viability, but partisan/regulatory alignment and procedural timing create significant uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer access and inclusion benefits
Narrow, non‑fiscal regulatory roll‑back increases viability, but partisan/regulatory alignment and procedural timing create significant unc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped Congressional Review Act disapproval that is clear in purpose and explicit in mechanism, but it omits fiscal and oversight details which are not…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.