Press Releases

Today, the Subcommittee on Oversights and Investigations, led by Chairman Dan Meuser (PA-09), held a hearing examining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) broad authority, its regulation by enforcement scheme under former Director Rohit Chopra, and the harm these actions have caused to working-class Americans.

Before the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Meuser sent a letter to the Acting Inspector General of the CFPB requesting an investigation into former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra’s unlawful expansion of the CFPB’s statutory authority and weaponization of the Bureau.

On the Committee’s commitment to consumer protection:

“The question here is not whether this Committee is interested in consumer protection. It’s dedicated to consumer protection. The facts here are how to do it. Do it in the right way, the appropriate way based on business strategy, business size, business entity and in conjunction with what? The federal statute. The title of Dodd-Frank that set up the CFPB. Being true to that statute and not inventing law out of whole cloth or operating by regulation by enforcement. That is not the way our state and federal regulatory system has operated over the decades,” said Chairman French Hill (AR-02).

On the abuse of authority under Director Chopra at the CFPB:

"The CFPB was created to be a nonpartisan watchdog—an agency tasked with protecting American consumers from deceptive, unfair, and abusive financial practices. But under Director Chopra, that mission was abandoned. The CFPB ceased to be a pro-consumer agency and instead became an ideological weapon—used not to protect the public, but to pressure businesses into aligning with the CFPB’s goals through aggressive rules, enforcement, and supervision,” said Subcommittee Chairman Meuser.

“This agency was playing politics. ...The [CFPB] would pick on folks who they necessarily didn't like, and they would run them into the ground, run up expenses, and make it very hard for them to compete in an increasingly competitive world,” said Rep. Mike Haridopolos (FL-08).

"Under the former director, under Director Chopra, the CFPB was essentially fundamentally reshaped to reflect a progressive agenda prioritizing aggressive enforcement over clear guidance and balanced oversight. And the big injustice that always stuck out to me, and we've talked about this before in committee hearings, was how rules are made up on the fly,” said Rep. Tim Moore (NC-14).

Rep. Tim Moore asked, “My understanding is your business was specifically targeted by the previous director, and you received a civil investigative demand. Can you explain what a CID is and what it costs your business dealing with this mess?”

Jennifer Bassett responded, “I received one in July of 2022, but it's basically a subpoena where they're asking you for an unbelievable amount of documents. The statement of purpose was very vague in general, and it was the same they were issuing them to lots of people in our industry. And so, the process was, it's still ongoing for us, and it's been 3 years, and we spent close to $500,000. And for my small business that is just crippling.”

Witnesses echoed their support for the work of the Committee.

James Kim, Partner, Cooley LLP, said: “The CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crisis to address perceived gaps in federal oversight of consumer financial products and services. Congress granted the Bureau broad authority over a large universe of companies offering a wide range of financial products and services that help consumers in their everyday lives. There is no question the CFPB has strengthened consumer protections since its inception. But some of the Bureau’s actions in the past four years pushed its authority beyond the confines of the laws and rules that it enforces. During the last administration, the Bureau issued interpretive rules, guidance documents, and advisory opinions that purported to interpret or clarify federal consumer financial laws, but in reality expanded the Bureau’s already far-reaching jurisdiction. …Under the past administration, [Civil Investigation Demands] (CIDs) were typically overly broad. It was exceedingly difficult for companies to narrow CIDs or secure extensions. And this was especially difficult for small companies, who were often negotiating against nearly impossible expectations. This unfortunate pattern resulted in companies spending significant sums of money, not to mention thousands of personnel hours, responding to CIDs, which in some cases targeted practices that allegedly caused little, if any, consumer harm.”

Jennifer Bassett, Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Rim Alliance Corporation, said: “The Bureau’s endless investigation of Pacific Rim is a prime example of the weaponization of an agency that was designed to provide protection to consumers and recourse for those who have been harmed. The CFPB has never identified any consumer harm or violation of law by Pacific Rim. Further, the process provided to a company like ours for relief is woefully inadequate. Once served with a CID, a company has no way out other than to capitulate to the Bureau’s demands, no matter how unreasonable, costly, and burdensome they are. … I personally appeared for a full day of testimony and answered questions on a wide array of topics. No specific legal issues or violations were raised at the hearing. Following our response, and my testimony, the Bureau never advised us that it had found any violation, nor did it conclude its investigation. The Bureau never asked any follow up questions or additional explanations. Instead, we were left to wonder whether the matter was closed or ongoing. This CID cost us close to $100,000, in addition to the extreme personnel strain on our resources.”

Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute, said: “Regulatory enforcement abuse, such as occurred at the CFPB, is just another form of prosecutorial abuse. A normal prosecutor waits for a potential victim, examines the evidence to see if a well-known violation of the law occurred, and then brings enforcement to protect that specific victim. The problem occurs when the prosecutors follow the old Soviet saying: ‘Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’ …The rule of law is not a partisan issue. It is the foundation of our republic. Without it, no one is safe from arbitrary power. If we are to remain a free people, governed by laws and not by bureaucrats, then Congress must ensure that government agencies are themselves bound by the law.”