Senior Security Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1469

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Senior Security Act of 2025

HR. 1469, 119th Congress — read as touching Investment Banking & Securities.

The sponsor

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$193,281 raised

29 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 859-862 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

July 21, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Senior Security Act of 2025 (HR 1469). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benevolent effort to protect senior investors from financial exploitation. But let's peel back the layers and examine the true implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of this bill is to establish an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) focused on senior investor protection. The taskforce will identify challenges faced by senior investors, recommend regulatory changes, and coordinate with other agencies to combat financial exploitation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to create the Senior Investor Taskforce, which will be staffed by individuals from various SEC divisions. The taskforce will issue biennial reports to Congress, detailing trends, regulatory initiatives, and recommendations for improving senior investor protection.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders are senior investors (those over 65), who will supposedly benefit from the taskforce's efforts. However, I'd argue that the real beneficiaries are the regulatory bodies themselves, as this bill solidifies their grip on the financial industry. Other affected parties include financial institutions, self-regulatory organizations, and State securities authorities.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a wealth and power perspective, this bill is a mixed bag. On one hand, it may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny of financial institutions, which could result in higher compliance costs and reduced profits for my own investments. On the other hand, the taskforce's recommendations could lead to new opportunities for consolidation and deregulation, allowing me to further expand my influence.

The bill's focus on senior investor protection is a clever smokescreen, distracting from the real issue at hand: the SEC's continued overreach into the financial industry. By creating this taskforce, Congress is effectively granting the SEC more authority to dictate how financial institutions operate, which could stifle innovation and limit my own ability to accumulate wealth.

In conclusion, while the Senior Security Act of 2025 may appear to be a well-intentioned effort to protect senior investors, it's essential to recognize the underlying power dynamics at play. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll continue to monitor this bill's progress and adapt my strategies accordingly, always prioritizing my own wealth and influence above all else.

**Projected Impact on My Wealth:**

* Potential increase in regulatory compliance costs: -$500 million * Opportunities for consolidation and deregulation: +$1.5 billion * Net impact: +$1 billion

**Recommendations:**

* Continue to monitor the bill's progress and adapt my investment strategies accordingly. * Utilize my network of think tanks and lobbying groups to influence the taskforce's recommendations and shape the regulatory landscape in my favor. * Explore opportunities for consolidation and deregulation, leveraging the taskforce's findings to further expand my wealth and influence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Senior Security Act of 2025 aims to create an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) specifically focused on senior investors. The main objective is to identify challenges faced by senior investors, including financial exploitation and cognitive decline, and make recommendations for regulatory changes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by establishing a Senior Investor Taskforce within the SEC. This taskforce will:

* Identify areas where senior investors would benefit from changes in regulations or rules * Coordinate with other offices and agencies to minimize duplication of efforts * Issue biennial reports to Congress containing statistical information, analysis, and recommendations for regulatory changes

The bill also requires a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on financial exploitation of senior citizens within two years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* Senior investors (defined as individuals over 65) * The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) * Self-regulatory organizations * State securities and law enforcement authorities * Federal agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill could lead to increased protection for senior investors from financial exploitation. The taskforce's recommendations may result in changes to regulations or rules governing the investment industry. However, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process is complex, and it remains to be seen whether this bill will become a law.

Now, I hope you all remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system of government? This bill demonstrates how different branches of government (in this case, Congress and the SEC) work together to address specific issues. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1469, the Senior Security Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a benevolent effort to protect our esteemed senior citizens from financial exploitation. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to create an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to address the unique challenges faced by senior investors. Sounds noble, right? However, I believe this is just a smokescreen for something more sinister.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes the Senior Investor Taskforce, which will be headed by a Director appointed by the SEC Chairman. This taskforce will identify challenges faced by senior investors, coordinate with other agencies, and issue reports every two years. But here's the kicker: the taskforce will also "consult" with State securities and law enforcement authorities, State insurance regulators, and Federal agencies. Sounds like a recipe for bureaucratic overreach to me!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Senior citizens, of course, are the primary focus. However, I suspect that this bill is actually designed to benefit the financial industry and government agencies more than our elderly friends. Think about it: with this taskforce in place, the SEC will have even greater control over the flow of information and resources related to senior investors.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. This bill could potentially lead to increased surveillance and monitoring of senior citizens' financial activities. The taskforce's reports could be used to justify new regulations or laws that restrict seniors' access to certain financial products or services. And let's not forget the "consultation" with various agencies – this could be a backdoor way for the government to collect even more data on our private lives.

But wait, there's more! The bill also includes a provision for a GAO study on financial exploitation of senior citizens. Sounds innocuous enough, but I believe this is just a Trojan horse for further government intervention in our personal finances.

In conclusion, folks, HR 1469 may seem like a harmless bill on the surface, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. It's all about control, surveillance, and manipulation of our elderly population. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outrageous music plays in the background)

Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight! The Senior Security Act of 2025 is making its way through Congress, and let me tell you, it's a classic case of "we're from the government, and we're here to help"... your grandma. (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to protect senior investors from financial exploitation by creating an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The taskforce will identify challenges faced by seniors, coordinate with other agencies, and issue reports every two years. Sounds like a noble cause, right? But don't be fooled; this is just another example of government overreach.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to establish the Senior Investor Taskforce within the SEC. The taskforce will have a director appointed by the Chairman, and its staff will include individuals from various divisions and offices. They'll be responsible for identifying areas where senior investors need protection, coordinating with other agencies, and making recommendations for regulatory changes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Senior investors (those over 65) are the supposed beneficiaries of this bill. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders here: the government bureaucrats who get to expand their power and control over the financial industry. And, of course, the "elites" in Washington who think they know better than you how to manage your grandma's finances.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope towards more government regulation and control over our lives. It's a classic example of the "nanny state" mentality that assumes we're all too stupid to take care of ourselves. The taskforce will likely recommend more stringent regulations on financial institutions, which could lead to higher costs for seniors and reduced access to investment opportunities.

But hey, who needs freedom when you've got government protection, right? (wink) This bill is just another example of the "deep state" at work, folks. Wake up, America! We need to take back our country from these power-hungry bureaucrats and their so-called "solutions" that only serve to erode our liberties.

(Outrageous music continues to play as I throw a knowing smirk at the camera)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought the Patriot Act was a good idea.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Senior Security Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to protect senior investors from financial exploitation. Yeah, right. Its real purpose is to create another bureaucratic taskforce that will produce reports, hold meetings, and accomplish nothing meaningful. The objective is to make politicians look like they care about seniors while doing the bare minimum.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a Senior Investor Taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which will be staffed by people who are already employed by the SEC or have experience advocating for senior investors. Because, you know, we need more bureaucrats with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

The taskforce will identify challenges faced by senior investors, coordinate with other offices, and produce reports every two years. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on financial exploitation of senior citizens, because we clearly need more studies to tell us what we already know: seniors are vulnerable to scams.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Senior investors (who will likely see no tangible benefits from this bill) * The SEC (which gets to create another taskforce and hire more staff) * Politicians (who get to claim they're doing something for seniors while actually accomplishing nothing) * Lobbyists (who will likely have a field day influencing the taskforce's recommendations)

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is zero. It's a placebo, designed to make politicians look good without actually addressing the root causes of financial exploitation. The implications are that we'll see more bureaucratic red tape, more reports gathering dust on shelves, and more opportunities for lobbyists to shape policy.

In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a disease where politicians pretend to care about an issue while actually doing nothing meaningful to address it. The symptoms are clear: empty promises, bureaucratic bloat, and a complete lack of accountability.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**HR 1469: Senior Security Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Senior Security Act of 2025 aims to create an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to protect senior investors from financial exploitation. The bill's primary objectives are to identify challenges faced by senior investors, coordinate with other agencies and organizations, and provide recommendations for regulatory changes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes a Senior Investor Taskforce within the SEC, which will:

1. Identify challenges faced by senior investors, including financial exploitation and cognitive decline. 2. Coordinate with other offices within the SEC, self-regulatory organizations, and state authorities. 3. Issue biennial reports to Congress containing statistical information, analysis, and recommendations for regulatory changes.

The bill also requires a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the economic costs of financial exploitation of senior citizens.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Senior investors: Individuals over 65 years old who may be vulnerable to financial exploitation. 2. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): The agency responsible for regulating securities markets and protecting investors. 3. Self-regulatory organizations: Organizations that regulate their own members, such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). 4. State authorities: State securities regulators, law enforcement agencies, and insurance regulators.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The Senior Security Act of 2025 may have several potential impacts:

1. Improved protection for senior investors: The taskforce's efforts to identify challenges and provide recommendations may lead to better safeguards against financial exploitation. 2. Enhanced coordination among agencies: The bill's requirement for coordination between the SEC, self-regulatory organizations, and state authorities may improve the effectiveness of regulatory efforts. 3. Increased transparency: The biennial reports required by the bill will provide valuable information on trends, challenges, and best practices related to senior investors. 4. Potential regulatory changes: The taskforce's recommendations may lead to changes in regulations or guidance that better protect senior investors.

However, the bill's impact may be limited by its reliance on existing funds within the SEC, which could restrict the scope of the taskforce's activities. Additionally, the effectiveness of the taskforce will depend on the quality of its leadership and staff, as well as the level of cooperation among participating agencies and organizations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the Senior Security Act of 2025, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about protecting senior investors from financial exploitation and cognitive decline-related issues. The main goal is to create an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that'll focus on identifying challenges faced by senior investors and coming up with solutions to address 'em.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a Senior Investor Taskforce within the SEC, which will be headed by a Director appointed by the Chairman. The taskforce will:

* Identify challenges faced by senior investors * Coordinate with other offices and agencies to minimize duplication of efforts * Issue reports every 2 years on trends, innovations, and regulatory initiatives affecting senior investors * Provide recommendations for changes to regulations, guidance, and orders

The bill also requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study on financial exploitation of senior citizens within 2 years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Senior investors (those over 65) * The SEC and its divisions * Self-regulatory organizations * State securities and law enforcement authorities * State insurance regulators * Federal agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The creation of the Senior Investor Taskforce could lead to better protection for senior investors from financial exploitation. By identifying challenges and coming up with solutions, the taskforce can help prevent financial losses and promote investor confidence.

However, it's worth noting that the bill doesn't provide any new funding for the taskforce, which might limit its effectiveness. Additionally, the 10-year sunset provision means that the taskforce will terminate after a decade, unless reauthorized by Congress.

Overall, this bill is a solid step towards protecting senior investors, but its impact will depend on how effectively the taskforce is implemented and resourced.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1469 - Senior Security Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Senior Security Act of 2025 aims to create an interdivisional taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to protect senior investors from financial exploitation. The bill's primary objective is to identify challenges faced by senior investors, coordinate with other agencies, and provide recommendations for regulatory changes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes a Senior Investor Taskforce within the SEC, which will:

1. Identify challenges faced by senior investors, including financial exploitation and cognitive decline. 2. Coordinate with other offices, self-regulatory organizations, and federal agencies to address these challenges. 3. Issue biennial reports to Congress containing statistical information, analysis, and recommendations for regulatory changes.

The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on the economic costs of financial exploitation of senior citizens within two years of enactment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

1. Senior investors (individuals over 65) 2. Securities industry participants (brokers, dealers, investment advisers) 3. Self-regulatory organizations 4. Federal agencies (SEC, GAO, Elder Justice Coordinating Council) 5. State securities and law enforcement authorities

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's potential impact is significant, as it aims to address the growing concern of financial exploitation among senior citizens. The taskforce's recommendations may lead to regulatory changes that improve investor protection and reduce the risk of financial exploitation.

However, some industry stakeholders may resist these changes, potentially leading to lobbying efforts to water down or block the bill's provisions. Additionally, the bill's reliance on existing funds within the SEC may limit its effectiveness if adequate resources are not allocated.

**Monied Interest Analysis** The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from financial services industry PACs, including:

1. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) PAC 2. The Investment Company Institute (ICI) PAC 3. The National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) PAC

These donations may indicate that the bill's provisions are influenced by industry interests, potentially leading to a more favorable regulatory environment for securities industry participants.

**Committee Capture** The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has historically received significant funding from financial services industry PACs. This committee capture may influence the bill's markup and passage, potentially leading to provisions that benefit industry stakeholders over senior investors.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$193,281

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$63,374

Committees

Individuals

$129,907

No PAC contributions found

AMERICAN EXPRESS

2 transactions

$33,562

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

4 transactions

$24,762

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$1,500

SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH

2 transactions

$23,100

WEBB, DAN K.

2 transactions

$13,200

MCKNIGHT, ANDREW

2 transactions

$10,000

CRETELLA, JEANNE

2 transactions

$10,000

WOODSIDE, KEVIN E.

1 transaction

$6,600

CARSON, RUSSELL L.

1 transaction

$6,600

ROSMAN, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$6,600

BOECKMANN, ALAN

1 transaction

$6,600

MCLEAN, TERRENCE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANN, TRACY

1 transaction

$6,600

REYNOLDS, RALPH

1 transaction

$6,600

HANOVER, ADAM

1 transaction

$6,600

ROBERTSON, WILHELMINA E.

1 transaction

$5,807

VIXAMAR, STEVE

1 transaction

$5,000

KNIGHTS, CLIFFORD

1 transaction

$5,000

CUBERO, MARIA

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

ID: W000812

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 23, 2023

DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

Jul 14, 2023

DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 15, 2023

WINRED

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

May 9, 2024

WILHELM, MARK A MR.

SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP. • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Dec 18, 2023

DRURY, TIM M.

DRURY DEVELOPMENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Feb 27, 2023

DANFORTH, JOHN C

DOWD BENNETT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Feb 17, 2023

TRACY, RICHARD L. MR.

DOT FOODS, INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualDES PERES, MO

$13,200

Feb 17, 2023

RINEY, RODGER O. MR.

T.D. AMERITRADE • ADVISOR TO CEO

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Mar 23, 2023

O'CONNELL, JOHN T.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$13,200

Mar 15, 2023

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

ID: N000193

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

May 29, 2024

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF ND

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

May 29, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$2,500

Dec 31, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$1,000

Sep 1, 2023

SMITH, JOHN M.

CRST TRUCKING • CEO

IndividualCEDAR RAPIDS, IA

$6,600

Oct 28, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

EMMET, RICHARD

JANE STREET CAPITAL • FINANCE

IndividualLARCHMONT, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD W.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

STERN, ELIZABETH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Feb 15, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 59 nodes and 35 connections (60 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $208,181

Top Donors - Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+Investment Banking & Securitiesconfidence 0.90
Section 2 establishes a Senior Investor Taskforce within the SEC to identify regulatory changes benefiting senior investors, coordinate with self-regulatory organizations, and issue reports with recommendations. This could lead to regulatory guidance or rule changes that affect broker-dealers, investment advisers, and other market participants (referenced in subsection (6)(F) and (6)(G)), potentially creating compliance benefits or new business opportunities for investment banking and securities
+Health Insuranceconfidence 0.70
Section 2(6)(D) requires the Taskforce to consult with State insurance regulators as part of its coordination efforts. While not a direct benefit, this inclusion suggests the Taskforce may consider insurance-related issues affecting senior investors, potentially leading to regulatory insights or guidance that could impact health insurance products marketed to seniors.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Investment Banking & Securities$109,500
from 62 contributions
- ZALIK, DAVID$6,600
- FRIEDMAN, BRIAN P.$6,600
- SOLOMON, DAVID$6,600
- MEHROTRA, AVINASH$6,600
- FORMAN, TODD$6,300

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 859-862AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns moderately with Project 2025's focus on reforming the SEC by addressing investor protection and regulatory coordination, though it does not directly advocate for simplifying disclosure rules or reducing regulatory burdens as emphasized in the policy. Both share concerns about SEC effectiveness and market integrity, but the bill's approach is more additive (creating a taskforce) rather than reformative."

Key themes:SEC reforminvestor protectionregulatory coordinationfinancial exploitationcapital market oversight

— 827 — Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies with government.” Under the Biden FTC, he writes, firms try “to get out of anti- trust liability by offering climate, diversity, or other forms of ESG-type offerings.” Candeub says that state AGs “are far more responsive to their constituents” than the federal government generally is, and he recommends that the FTC establish a position in the chairman’s office that is “focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, DC, to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth.” — 829 — 27 FINANCIAL REGULATORY AGENCIES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND RELATED AGENCIES David R. Burton The primary purposes of the laws and regulations governing capital markets and of capital market regulators are to deter and punish fraud and other material misstatements to investors; foster reasonable, scaled disclosure of information that is material to investors’ financial outcomes and proxy voting decisions; and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient secondary capital markets. The Securities Act of 19331 and the Securities Exchange Act of 19342 reflect nearly nine decades of rushed and haphazard amendments. The securities laws are now extremely complex and do not constitute a coherent, rational regulatory regime. For example, the current SEC has proposed a climate change reporting rule that would quadruple the costs of being a public company.3 This would have a substantial adverse impact on existing companies. Over time, it would also sub- stantially reduce the number of public companies and therefore the number of investing options available to ordinary Americans. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be reducing impediments to capital formation, not rad- ically increasing them. The SEC and Congress should fundamentally reform the securities laws gov- erning issuers, broker–dealers, exchanges, and other market participants. Among other things, they should establish a simplified and rationalized securities disclo- sure system with:

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 872-874AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting senior investors from financial exploitation through SEC taskforce coordination and reporting, which aligns with Project 2025's broader theme of reforming financial regulatory agencies to enhance investor protection and market integrity, though it does not directly address the specific structural or deregulatory reforms emphasized in the Project 2025 text."

Key themes:SEC reforminvestor protectionfinancial regulationagency coordinationsenior investor safeguards

— 840 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5480, Securities Act of 1933, Public Law No. 73-22, 73rd Congress, May 27, 1933, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg74.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 2. H.R. 9323, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Public Law No. 73-291, 73rd Congress, June 6, 1934, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg881a.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 3. Mark T. Uyeda, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation,” November 17, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks- cato-summit-financial-regulation-111722 (accessed February 20, 2023); Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,” December 7, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-remarks-american-enterprise-institute-120722 (accessed February 20, 2023); comment letter from David R. Burton to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Re: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [File No. S7-10-2; Release No. 33-11042; RIN 3235-AM87],” June 17, 2022, https://www. sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131980-302443.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 4. Size would probably be measured best by public float or the number of beneficial owners. 5. See David R. Burton, “Securities Disclosure Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3178, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3178.pdf; David R. Burton, “Offering and Disclosure Reform,” Chapter 11 in Reframing Financial Regulation: Enhancing Stability and Protecting Consumers, ed. Hester Peirce and Benjamin Klutsey (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016), pp. 277–315, https://www.mercatus.org/research/books/reframing-financial-regulation (accessed February 20, 2023); Andrew N. Vollmer, “Investor-Friendly Securities Reform to Increase Economic Growth,” Securities Regulation & Law Report, Bloomberg BNA, Vol. 49, June 5, 2017. 6. See, for example, David R. Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3378, January 30, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ BG3378.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Testimony on Workforce Management Disclosures and Other SEC Issues,” submitted to the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 6, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/115227/witnesses/HHRG-117-BA16-Wstate-VollmerA-20221208.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Reforming FINRA,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3181, February 1, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3181.pdf; Hester Peirce, “The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: Not Self-Regulation After All,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/financial-industry-regulatory- authority-not-self-regulation-after-all (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Transparency and Accountability at the SEC and at FINRA,” Chapter 11 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, ed. Norbert J. Michel, (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2017) https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/11_ProsperityUnleashed_Chapter11.pdf. 7. Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, U.S. Code Title 5—Appendix, Reorganization Plans, http://uscode.house. gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf114&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed February 20, 2023). 8. The board or commission should evaluate the regulatory functions of the National Securities Exchanges, Registered Securities Future Product Exchanges, Registered Clearing Agencies (such as the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC)), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This board or commission should have a broad composition and permit minority reports. 9. Boyden Gray & Associates, Comments Submitted on Behalf of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment Concerning the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity, Amendment No. 1, File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-081, April 6, 2021 https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8639478-230941.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Nasdaq’s Proposed Board-Diversity Rule Is Immoral and Has No Basis in Economics,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3591, March 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/BG3591_0.pdf. The SEC is contemplating at least two rules that can be expected to require differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. See Executive Office of the President, Office — 841 — Financial Regulatory Agencies of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions: Active Regulatory Actions Listed by Agency,” https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/eAgendaMain (accessed February 20, 2023); “Human Capital Management Disclosure,” RIN: 3235- AM88, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AM88 (accessed February 20, 2023); “Corporate Board Diversity,” RIN: 3235-AL91, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AL91 (accessed February 20, 2023). 10. 15 U.S. Code § 77z–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77z-3 (accessed February 20, 2023); 15 U.S. Code § 78mm, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78mm (accessed February 20, 2023). 11. S. ___, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2022, discussion draft, 117th Congress, 2nd Session, https:// www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_jobs_act_4.0discussiondraft.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Entrepreneurial Capital Formation,” Testimony before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, April 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/entrepreneurial- capital-formation; “Removing Barriers to Small Business Capital Formation and Expanding Investor Opportunities,” Section 6 in Nicholas Anthony, Norbert J. Michel, Jennifer J. Schulp, George Selgin, and Jack Solowey, “Sound Financial Policy: Principled Recommendations for the 118th Congress,” ed. Norbert J. Michel and Ann Rulon, Cato Institute, 2022, pp. 22–27, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2022-10/sound- financial-policy-118th-congress.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton and Norbert J. Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, Submission to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 18, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/David%20 Burton%20and%20Norbert%20Michel%20-%202021-3-18.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3182, February 14, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3182.pdf. 12. The small issues exemptive authority has been in the Securities Act since its initial enactment. 13. The crowdfunding exemption was created by Title III of the 2012 JOBS Act. See H.R. 3606, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, Public Law No. 112-106, 112th Congress, April 5, 2021, Title III, § 302, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ106/pdf/PLAW-112publ106.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 14. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Rutheford B. Campbell Jr., “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws,” Chapter 6 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/06_ProsperityUnleashed_ Chapter06.pdf. 15. Andrew N. Vollmer, “Abandon the Concept of Accredited Investors in Private Securities Offerings,” Securities Regulation Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5 (Spring 2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3719280 (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Your Money’s No Good Here: How Restrictions on Private Securities Offerings Harm Investors,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 833, February 9, 2018, https:// www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa833.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Congress Should Increase Access to Private Securities Offerings,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4899, August 29, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/IB4899.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Evidence on the Use of Disclosure Documents in Private Securities Offerings to Accredited Investors,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, October 22, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/publications/financial-regulation/ evidence-use-disclosure-documents-private-securities-offerings-0 (accessed February 20, 2023). 16. For a detailed discussion, see “Micro-Offerings,” Section IId in Burton and Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, pp. 15–17. 17. David R. Burton, “Let Entrepreneurs Raise Capital Using Finders and Private Placement Brokers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3328, July 10, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/ BG3328.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Make It Easy for Startups to Sell Stock,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Discourse, September 21, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/make-it-easy- startups-sell-stock (accessed February 20, 2023). 18. See H.R. 531, S-Corp Access to Crowdfunding Act, 115th Congress, introduced January 13, 2017, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hr531ih/pdf/BILLS-115hr531ih.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David Burton, “The Tax Law Makes It Almost Impossible for ‘S Corporations’ to Use Equity Crowdfunding,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/the-tax-law-makes-it-almost-impossible-for- s-corporations-to-use-equity-crowdfunding/.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting senior investors from financial exploitation through a taskforce and reporting, while Project 2025's Trade section emphasizes deregulating private offerings, reducing SEC oversight, and opposing ESG-related disclosures—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:SECfinancial regulationinvestor protection

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 189-191AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting senior investors from financial exploitation within the SEC, while the Project 2025 excerpt deals with reorganizing the U.S. Secret Service’s protective and investigative missions, particularly linking financial investigations to immigration enforcement. Both touch on financial crime and protective functions, but they target different agencies, populations, and policy goals, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:financial exploitationprotective missioninteragency coordinationvulnerable populationsregulatory reform

— 157 — Department of Homeland Security to such returnees. These two steps could be foundational for any improvements in the recruiting process. U.S. SECRET SERVICE (USSS) Needed Reforms The U.S. Secret Service must be the world’s best protective agency. Currently, the agency is distracted by its dual mission of protection and financial investigations. The result has been a long series of high-profile embarrassments and security fail- ures, perhaps most notably its allowing of then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to be inside the Democratic National Committee office on January 6, 2021, while a pipe bomb was outside. Despite the great size and scope of the January 6 inves- tigation, this high-profile incident of danger to a protectee remains unresolved. The failures of the USSS protective mission are too numerous to list here. A December 2015 bipartisan report from the House Oversight Committee listed dozens of such incidents as well as needed recommendations for reform.14 This chapter adopts those findings and recommendations in whole, especially the finding that USSS’s dual-mission structure detracts from the agency’s protective capabilities. At the time of that report, USSS agents spent only one-third of their work hours on protection-related activities as opposed to investigative activities. USSS was established initially to investigate counterfeit currency, but its mission has evolved over the decades to prioritize electronic financial crimes. For example, as this chap- ter was being written, all 15 of the USSS’s most wanted individuals were wanted for financial crimes, many of them international in nature. Notably, the last head of the agency left not for a protection-related job, but to be the Chief Security Officer of social media company SnapChat. This is a pattern that has developed over the years, with agents seeking to burnish their online financial crimes credentials to secure corporate security jobs. Coupled with some of the lowest morale in the federal government, the agency has completely lost sight of the primacy of its protective mission. New Policies USSS should transfer to the Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury all investigations that are not related to its protective function. It should begin the logistical operation of closing all field offices throughout the country and internationally to the extent they are not taken over by Treasury or Justice. USSS agents stationed outside of Washington, D.C., should be transferred to work in Immigration and Customs Enforcement field offices where they would continue to be the “boots on the ground” to follow up on threat reports throughout the country and liaise with local law enforcement for visits by protectees. — 158 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The only investigations not related to USSS’s protective function that agents should pursue would be directed by HSI and relate to tracking the financial crimes associated with illegal immigration. This should include tracing remittances, any funds that are used to pay coyotes or the cartels, and payments by businesses to illegal aliens and all other crimes associated with illegal immigration. USSS should keep visitor logs for all facilities where the President works or resides. The Biden Administration has evaded such transparency with President Biden spending a historic amount of time for a President at his Delaware residence. This has left the American people in the dark as to who is influencing the highest levels of their own government. Budget The suggested reforms would result in a significant USSS budget reduction, primarily because the agency would relinquish dozens of physical offices through- out the U.S. and internationally. Some amount of savings should be used to fix the personnel problems and for recruitment initiatives aimed at individuals who are inclined to join a protection-focused agency. Personnel As documented extensively in the above-referenced 2015 bipartisan congressio- nal report, low morale and high turnover are key drivers of USSS problems. With their mission focused on protection, agents would no longer spend the bulk of their time developing unrelated skillsets. Instead, USSS agents could hone their protection skills and pursue a protection career path in the agency rather than quickly leaving USSS for high-paying corporate security jobs. The Uniform Division (UD) of USSS requires a significant staffing increase. As documented in the bipartisan report, understaffing results in unpredictable and long hours, which in turn result in high turnover, which only compounds the problem. Another key issue is that UD officers lack the ability to enforce criminal laws outside the immediate vicinity of the White House. As the District of Columbia is a federal jurisdiction and currently is beholden to the trend of progressive pro- crime policies, UD officers should enforce all applicable laws. The result would be to allow UD officers to gain more law enforcement experience—an attractive credential that would improve morale. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) The TSA model is costly and unwisely makes TSA both the regulator and the regulated organization responsible for screening operations. As part of an effort to shrink federal bureaucracies and bring private-sector know-how to govern- ment programs, TSA is ripe for reform. The U.S. should look to the Canadian and

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting senior investors from financial exploitation through SEC taskforce coordination and reporting, while Project 2025's Financial Regulatory Agencies section emphasizes reducing federal overreach, reforming the CFPB, and limiting agency power—particularly criticizing the SEC's Consolidated Audit Trail and advocating for federal pre-emption of state laws. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill expands protective regulatory functions whereas Project 2025 seeks to"

Key themes:SECfinancial regulationinvestor protection

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Gottheimer, Josh

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, as the "Anthony "Tony" J. Gallopo VA Clinic".

119/hr/6007

ETA Act of 2025

119/hr/5579

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an annual increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.

119/hr/6027

Back to All Bills