Congress demands veto power over international banking rules
H.R. 6550 — American FIRST Act of 2025 · Filed by Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) · 6 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 requires the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to file detailed annual reports to Congress describing their participation in global financial regulatory forums (like the Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board). The reports must list which forums each agency participates in, explain the forums' purposes and funding sources, detail the positions the U.S. took at those forums, and describe any anticipated changes to U.S. banking rules needed to implement international agreements. The bill also requires the Federal Reserve Chair to testify to Congress biannually about these international interactions.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is mandatory disclosure of U.S. banking agencies' international regulatory participation and positions, paired with a requirement to justify the costs of implementing international standards. While framed as transparency, the emphasis on cost-benefit justification and the title's 'Sovereignty' language suggest an intent to constrain or scrutinize international regulatory harmonization.
What the text implies
- The requirement that agencies justify why 'expected costs of implementing actions are at least offset by expected benefits' may create a political veto point over international banking standards, allowing Congress to block or delay adoption of prudential rules (e.g., capital requirements, liquidity standards) that protect financial stability but impose compliance costs on banks.
- Detailed disclosure of U.S. negotiating positions, rationales, and internal organizational structures at international forums may weaken the U.S. negotiating posture in future standard-setting discussions and expose strategic vulnerabilities to foreign regulators.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
large financial institutions subject to international regulatory standards (banks, insurers, asset m; financial services firms that benefit from lighter regulatory requirements