Congress moves to handcuff the CFPB's power to investigate financial misconduct

What it does

This bill restricts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) power to issue civil investigative demands—subpoena-like orders requiring companies to produce documents and answer questions during investigations. It imposes a 6-year statute of limitations on investigations, requires the CFPB to respond to attorney questions about demand scope within 20 days, allows companies to petition the CFPB to narrow or dismiss demands on grounds of burden or duplication, and makes the CFPB's denial of such petitions subject to judicial review. The bill also protects the confidentiality of companies' petitions challenging demands.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is to restrict the CFPB's investigative tools—narrowing demand scope, imposing response deadlines, and creating new procedural defenses for regulated entities. While framed as 'reform,' it systematically reduces the agency's enforcement capacity.

What the text implies

• A 6-year statute of limitations may be insufficient for complex financial schemes (e.g., mortgage fraud, predatory lending) that take years to surface and investigate; investigations initiated near the 6-year mark may be cut short before evidence is fully gathered.
• The 20-day response deadline for the Bureau to answer attorney questions about demand scope, combined with the ability to extend the return date, creates a procedural loop that can delay investigations while companies litigate the scope of demands.
• Confidential treatment of petitions means the public and Congress cannot see what companies are arguing to avoid disclosure, obscuring patterns of resistance and potentially shielding evidence of misconduct from public view.
• Judicial review of petition denials invites federal courts into CFPB investigative decisions, potentially creating inconsistent standards across circuits and giving companies a second bite at blocking demands through litigation.
• The 'unduly burdensome' and 'disproportionately expensive' grounds for dismissal are subjective and favor large firms with resources to argue burden; smaller companies may face the same demands but lack the legal firepower to challenge them.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill weakens the CFPB's investigative authority by raising procedural barriers, imposing tight timelines, and creating new grounds for companies to block or delay investigations. Citizens lose enforcement capacity: a 6-year statute of limitations may expire before complex financial misconduct is fully investigated, and judicial review of petition denials creates litigation leverage for regulated firms. The confidentiality of petitions shields companies' legal strategies from public scrutiny,

Who stands to gain

• insurance companies (AIG, PRU, PFG)
• financial services firms (FBK, FMAO)
• any regulated entity subject to CFPB investigative demands

Named in the bill

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Federal consumer financial law, AIG, FBK, FMAO, PFG, PRU, House Committee on Financial Services

Where it stands

6 cosponsors: 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats.

• Feb 27, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 27, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services”
• Sep 16, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Sep 16, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 20”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 6 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $5,630,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 12 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Andy Barr, the sponsor, reported $2,160,072 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Bankers Association — $5,210,000 on 2 filings
• Aca International — $300,000 on 2 filings
• Infin a Financial Services Alliance — $120,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.