Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill requires the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to include in their annual reports detailed descriptions of their interactions with specified global financial regulatory or supervisory forums (examples listed include the BIS, Basel Committee, Financial Stability Board, IAIS, and NGFS).
For each forum in which an agency participates the agencies must report items such as the forum’s purpose and membership, sources of the forum’s funding, agency organizational arrangements for interaction (including charts and staff identified), positions taken and rationale, meeting summaries and outcomes, texts or links to final forum standards/recommendations, anticipated domestic implementing changes, and economic-impact justifications for agency actions implementing forum agreements.
The bill also amends existing law to require the Federal Reserve to testify biannually to Congress regarding its interactions at such global forums.
On content alone the bill is a modest, transparency-focused oversight measure without new spending or substantive regulatory mandates, which improves its prospects relative to sweeping reforms. However, it imposes detailed reporting burdens across multiple independent or semi-independent financial regulators and touches politically sensitive international forums (Basel, FSB, NGFS), which raises institutional and partisan concerns in the Senate and could slow or alter its path. Absent contextual political factors or negotiated amendments, passage in the House is plausible while enactment into law faces moderate obstacles in the Senate.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals emphasize the risk that disclosure and cost-justification requirements could be used to delay or weaken progressive regulatory initiatives (climate, consumer, or safety-focused); conservatives emphasize the benefit of preventing automatic adoption of international standards.
Liberals emphasize the risk that disclosure and cost-justification requirements could be used to delay or weaken progressive regulatory initiatives (climate, consumer, or safety-focused); conservatives emphasize the ben…
A mainstream liberal/left-leaning observer would generally welcome increased transparency about how U.S. banking regulators engage with international standard-setting bodies, because it could reveal whether international discussions support consumer protection, financial stability, climate goals, or equity.
However, they would be concerned that the detailed disclosure and a requirement to justify costs relative to benefits could be used politically to delay or block stronger regulatory actions (including those tied to climate or consumer protections).
They would also worry that overly broad public disclosure requirements could chill candid multilateral deliberations or force agencies to curtail participation, undermining U.S. influence on global standards that can advance progressive priorities.
A pragmatic centrist would view the bill as a reasonable step to increase congressional oversight and public transparency about how U.S. regulators engage with international financial standard-setters, while being cautious about unintended side effects.
They would appreciate better documentation of potential domestic impacts from international standards and the requirement for Fed testimony, but they would also be attentive to administrative cost, timing, and the potential for reduced U.S. participation in multilateral fora if disclosures are handled poorly.
Centrists would favor the bill if it included clear confidentiality protections, limited scope for burdensome committee demands, and funding or phasing to reduce operational disruption.
A mainstream conservative/center-right observer is likely to view the bill favorably as strengthening U.S. regulatory sovereignty and forcing transparency about international influences on domestic banking rules.
They would see the requirements for listing forums, funders, positions, and texts of final policies as tools to prevent automatic adoption of foreign standards and to expose any foreign or private funding that shapes international rules.
Conservatives would also welcome the Fed’s required biannual testimony as an accountability measure.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is a modest, transparency-focused oversight measure without new spending or substantive regulatory mandates, which improves its prospects relative to sweeping reforms. However, it imposes detailed reporting burdens across multiple independent or semi-independent financial regulators and touches politically sensitive international forums (Basel, FSB, NGFS), which raises institutional and partisan concerns in the Senate and could slow or alter its path. Absent contextual political factors or negotiated amendments, passage in the House is plausible while enactment into law faces moderate obstacles in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize the risk that disclosure and cost-justification requirements could be used to delay or weaken progressive regulatory ini…
On content alone the bill is a modest, transparency-focused oversight measure without new spending or substantive regulatory mandates, whic…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for American FIRST Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.