After years of regulatory overreach under former Director Rohit Chopra, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is shifting course. New Acting Director Russell Vought has begun rolling back directives that wasted resources and alienated both consumers and financial institutions. Chopra, ousted in February following mounting criticism of his tenure, left behind a bureau widely seen as authoritarian and prone to excess. Vought’s early actions suggest a willingness to restore balance and proportionality.
From attacking comparison shopping tools to aggressive oversight of financial institutions, the Chopra-led CFPB wasted government resources and stifled innovation. However, Acting Director Vought is showing a willingness early in his tenure to reverse many of these egregious departmental failures.
One of Vought’s first steps has been to scale back unnecessary consent orders. This week, the bureau lifted longstanding oversight on Washington Federal, US Bank, and Apple years earlier than expected. These institutions had already paid fines and taken corrective measures: Washington Federal for violations of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Apple for failing to meet Consumer Financial Protection Act standards, and US Bank for mishandling unemployment benefit accounts.
The CFPB negated consent orders on both US Bank and Apple years before they were expected. Apple paid a $15 million fine for not upholding the standards outlined in the 2010 Consumer Financial Protection Act while US Bank was fined $15 million for failing to adhere to consumer protection laws related to unemployment benefits.
While penalties and compliance plans were appropriate at the time, Chopra’s decision to extend monitoring for half a decade wasted resources and undermined confidence in fair regulation. By ending these orders once their purpose was fulfilled, Vought has signaled that compliance should not become a pretext for endless government supervision.
The CFPB also announced it would halt amendments made between 2022 and 2024 related to supervisory designation proceedings. This effectively restores the 2013 framework governing the length and scope of supervision. Returning to a proven standard removes confusion created during the Chopra years and aligns the bureau with a more measured approach.
Some observers suggest that these moves reflect not only philosophy but also fiscal necessity. In July, Congress cut the CFPB’s budget in half, raising the prospect of staffing reductions. Whether motivated by efficiency or financial reality, the bureau’s shift underscores its declining role under the Trump administration.
The overreach of Chopra’s CFPB showed how easily the bureau’s authority can be stretched far beyond its intended mandate. Vought’s early reforms are encouraging, but they should be seen as a first step. Lasting change will require structural safeguards to prevent future directors from weaponizing the bureau for political or ideological ends.
The CFPB was created to protect consumers. That mission is best served not by punishing compliance or micromanaging innovation, but by ensuring that rules are fair, proportionate, and transparent. If Vought can continue down this path, the CFPB may yet rebuild its credibility and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.