Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill requires several federal banking regulators (the OCC, NCUA, Federal Reserve, and FDIC), and jointly with state regulators, to publish annual reports on charter and deposit-insurance applications.
Each report must include counts of applications by disposition (received, approved preliminarily or finally, denied, withdrawn, etc.), mean and median processing times for key approvals, and common reasons for denials/withdrawals or expiration.
The joint report on State charters must show numbers and timing separately for each State (including DC and territories).
On content alone, the bill is a low-cost, narrow transparency mandate that does not alter substantive banking rules or create major new spending, making it relatively likely to attract bipartisan support and become law. Remaining obstacles are procedural (scheduling, floor time), possible agency or industry pushback over confidentiality or administrative burden, and any desire by lawmakers to attach amendments or use it as a vehicle for other provisions.
How solid the drafting looks.
Degree of concern about administrative burden and unfunded costs — centrists and conservatives emphasize this more than liberals.
Degree of concern about administrative burden and unfunded costs — centrists and conservatives emphasize this more than liberals.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill positively as an accountability and transparency measure for financial regulators.
They would appreciate data that could expose favoritism toward large incumbents, patterns of exclusion affecting underserved communities, or procedural delays that impede responsible community-oriented institutions.
They would also be attentive to whether the reports include information useful to evaluate equity impacts and whether the disclosure might harm applicants or enable regulatory capture.
A pragmatic moderate would generally favor the bill's transparency goals but will stress implementation details.
They would see value in measurable metrics (counts, mean/median times, reasons) to improve agency performance and inform policy, while worrying about costs, methodology, and confidentiality.
They would likely support passage if the bill includes clear standards, data definitions, and modest resources to avoid unfunded mandates and inconsistent reporting across agencies and states.
A mainstream conservative would be ambivalent: supportive of transparency and accountability for federal regulators, but wary of added federal reporting requirements that could intrude on state regulatory prerogatives or impose unfunded costs.
They may also worry the data could be used to pressure regulators or to advance deregulatory agendas if mischaracterized.
Overall, they would favor limited, aggregated disclosure that increases accountability without creating new federal micromanagement or legal/privacy issues.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a low-cost, narrow transparency mandate that does not alter substantive banking rules or create major new spending, making it relatively likely to attract bipartisan support and become law. Remaining obstacles are procedural (scheduling, floor time), possible agency or industry pushback over confidentiality or administrative burden, and any desire by lawmakers to attach amendments or use it as a vehicle for other provisions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Degree of concern about administrative burden and unfunded costs — centrists and conservatives emphasize this more than liberals.
On content alone, the bill is a low-cost, narrow transparency mandate that does not alter substantive banking rules or create major new spe…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for New BANK Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.