The bill
TIER Act of 2025
HR. 6553, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
Sponsored by
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
ID: B001282
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6553, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "22" section, p. 724-726 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 457.
February 24, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose its true intentions.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The TIER Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to "index statutory thresholds" and make periodic adjustments to account for increases in the United States' gross domestic product (GDP). In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to further deregulate the financial industry, allowing banks and other financial institutions to take on more risk and increase their profits.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill makes several key changes to existing law:
1. Increases the threshold for bank holding companies from $100 billion to $150 billion in assets. 2. Raises the threshold for systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) from $250 billion to $370 billion in assets. 3. Requires periodic adjustments to these thresholds every five years, based on GDP growth.
These changes will allow larger banks and financial institutions to operate with less regulatory oversight, increasing their ability to engage in reckless behavior and putting the entire financial system at risk.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The affected parties include:
1. Large banks and financial institutions: They'll benefit from reduced regulatory requirements and increased flexibility to take on more risk. 2. Regulators: They'll have less authority to oversee and regulate these institutions, making it harder to prevent another financial crisis. 3. Taxpayers: They'll be left holding the bag if (when) these institutions fail, requiring massive bailouts to prop up the system.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
The TIER Act of 2025 is a recipe for disaster. By reducing regulatory oversight and allowing larger banks to take on more risk, we're increasing the likelihood of another financial crisis. The consequences will be severe:
1. Increased systemic risk: Larger banks will be able to engage in more reckless behavior, putting the entire financial system at risk. 2. Reduced consumer protection: With less regulatory oversight, consumers will be more vulnerable to predatory lending practices and other forms of exploitation. 3. Greater inequality: The benefits of deregulation will primarily accrue to large banks and their shareholders, widening the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
In conclusion, the TIER Act of 2025 is a cynical attempt to further enrich the financial elite at the expense of the American people. It's a bill that should be rejected outright, but I'm sure it'll sail through Congress with ease, given the industry's stranglehold on our politicians.
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: M001204
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000816
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001236
Top Contributors
10
ID: S000168
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000491
Top Contributors
10
ID: S000250
Top Contributors
10
ID: N000193
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 64 nodes and 37 connections (48 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $150,804
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 2(a)(1)-(2) raises the asset thresholds for assessments under the Federal Reserve Act from $100B to $150B and the range from $100B-$250B to $150B-$370B, reducing the number of banks subject to higher assessments. Section 2(b) raises the threshold in the Bank Holding Company Act from $10B to $15B, reducing regulatory burden on mid-sized banks. Section 2(c) and (d) similarly raise thresholds in the Financial Stability Act of 2010 and related acts, decreasing regulatory costs for banks.
The bill amends the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) to raise asset thresholds that determine which financial institutions are subject to enhanced prudential standards and stress testing (e.g., Sections 2(c)(1)-(5), 3). These thresholds apply to bank holding companies and financial companies, which include major investment banks. Raising thresholds from $250B to $370B and $10B to $15B reduces the number of institutions subject to stringent regulations, benefiting large investment ban
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6])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.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The TIER Act’s focus on updating and periodically adjusting regulatory thresholds to reduce burden and improve efficiency directly supports Project 2025’s goals of cutting regulatory impediments and compliance costs to foster economic growth."
— 691 — 22 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton INTRODUCTION The U.S. Treasury Department has a broad regulatory and policy reach. The next Administration should make major policy changes to: (1) reduce regulatory impediments to economic growth that reduce living standards and endanger pros- perity; (2) reduce regulatory compliance costs that increase prices and cost jobs; (3) promote fiscal responsibility; (4) promote the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses; and (5) better respect the American people’s due process and privacy rights. These goals should be accomplished through: executive action (primar- ily treasury orders and treasury directives) and departmental reorganization; rulemakings; promoting constructive policies in Congress; actions in international organizations; and treaties. The primary subject matter focus of the incoming Administration’s Treasury Department should be: l Tax policy and tax administration; l Fiscal responsibility; l Improved financial regulation; l Addressing the economic and financial aspects of the geopolitical threat posed by China and other hostile countries;
AI Analysis:
"The TIER Act’s focus on adjusting and periodically updating financial regulatory thresholds to reduce burden on smaller institutions aligns with Project 2025’s goal of streamlining SEC regulations to reduce impediments to capital formation and create a more efficient, tailored regulatory framework."
— 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:
AI Analysis:
"The TIER Act focuses on adjusting financial regulatory thresholds based on GDP to reduce burden on smaller institutions, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of reducing regulatory burdens in capital markets, though it does not directly address the specific securities exemptions or accredited investor reforms outlined in the policy."
— 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.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.