FDIC gets new power to spend more to block mega-bank takeovers
H.R. 6547 — Least Cost Exception Act · Filed by Mike Flood (R-NE) · 4 cosponsors · Introduced Dec 10, 2025 · Reported out
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends federal banking law to allow the FDIC to resolve a failing bank using a method that costs more than the cheapest option, if doing so prevents the bank from being sold to a giant global bank and thus avoids further concentration of the U.S. banking system. The FDIC must get Federal Reserve approval, report to Congress within 30 days, and the extra cost to the insurance fund cannot exceed a threshold the FDIC will set by rule.
Why we flagged it
The bill creates a discretionary exception to the FDIC's least-cost resolution mandate, allowing regulators to spend more taxpayer money to prevent a failing bank from being acquired by a systemically important global bank. It is framed as anti-concentration policy but operates as a cost-shifting mechanism.
What the text implies
- The FDIC's cost threshold is not specified in the bill—it will be set by rule after enactment, meaning the actual fiscal exposure to the deposit insurance fund is unknown at passage.
- The exception applies only when the alternative is a sale to a 'global systemically important banking organization,' creating a carve-out that may benefit mid-sized or regional acquirers while blocking mega-bank consolidation.
- Acquirers who purchase assets under this exception must pay an assessment to the FDIC over at least 5 years, but the formula is discretionary and will be set by rule, creating uncertainty for potential bidders.
- The bill requires a 30-day post-hoc report to Congress but does not require pre-approval or legislative veto, meaning Congress learns of the decision after the FDIC has already committed taxpayer funds.
- By allowing non-least-cost resolutions, the bill may incentivize riskier bank behavior if institutions believe they will be rescued via this mechanism rather than forced into a cheaper liquidation or sale.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill addresses a genuine public concern—preventing excessive concentration of banking power—by giving regulators flexibility to avoid consolidation into mega-banks. However, the mechanism shifts costs from large acquirers to the deposit insurance fund (ultimately taxpayers), and the discretionary standard and undefined cost thresholds create opacity about when and how often this exception will be used.
Who stands to gain
- Regional and mid-sized banks (potential acquirers not classified as global systemically important)
- Deposit insurance fund (deferred costs via assessment payments from acquirers)
- Failing banks (alternative to liquidation or forced sale to mega-bank)
Named in the bill
FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), Federal Reserve Board of Governors, U.S. Treasury Secretary, Global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs), House Committee on Financial Services, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Where it stands
4 cosponsors: 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
- Dec 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Dec 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services”
- Dec 16, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
- Dec 17, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 50 - 0”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,235,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 26 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 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Mike Flood, the sponsor, reported $1,190,756 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Independent Community Bankers of America — $2,170,000 on 1 filing
- Community Bankers Association of Illinois — $65,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 16, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (4,783 characters) on Apr 3, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 16, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“FDIC gets new power to spend more to block mega-bank takeovers” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr6547 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.