If you’re a regular reader of this column, you’ve heard me talk about reforming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) a time or two. But now that Republicans have the House majority and the United States Supreme Court is going to decide whether its funding mechanism is constitutional, we’re in a position to actually make some changes. And I’ve got several bills in the works to bring reform to arguably the most unaccountable agency in Washington.

The Bureau’s actions over the last couple of years have been concerning — to put it mildly. This agency and its current director operate as if they’ve been given carte blanche over the American financial system. The most glaring example of this took place in December of 2021 with Director Chopra’s attempt to usurp then-FDIC Chairwoman Jelena McWilliams’ authority, which I’ve spoken about before. Not long after this stunt, I introduced the FDIC Board Accountability Act to remove the CFPB Director from the FDIC Board and put term limits in place for the FDIC Board of Directors. This would ensure the FDIC remains independent from the extremely political CFPB and prevents career bureaucrats like Martin Gruenberg from sitting at the corporation indefinitely.

But no matter my views on the director and his actions during his tenure, there is a larger issue here. The CFPB as an agency has far too much autonomy, authority, and unaccountable federal funding, which allows it to operate in the manner it does. In 2018, the then-CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney — who later went on to become acting White House Chief of Staff — said something very profound in a written testimony. He said the CFPB’s, “lack of accountability to any representative branch of government should be a warning sign that a lapse in democratic structure and republican principles has occurred.” Keep in mind, this was the person leading the Bureau at the time. He experienced firsthand the excessive, unchecked power he was given and sounded the alarms, which doesn’t often happen in Washington, D.C. Fortunately, the Bureau’s legitimacy is so legally questionable that the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the CFPB’s funding mechanism is even constitutional in October. I’m hopeful it will rule that the manner in which it’s been allowed to operate is unacceptable and confirm what CFPB critics have been saying all along.

Recently, the House Financial Services Committee passed a package of oversight bills aimed directly at the Bureau. Two of my bills were in that package. The Consumer Financial Protection Commission Act that would replace the CFPB Director position with a bipartisan, five-person commission and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection-Inspector General Reform Act of 2023 to establish an independent Inspector General specifically for the CFPB. Most people don’t know this but the CFPB — the agency most in need of an independent Inspector General — doesn’t have one. Both of these bills would minimize politically motivated actions and drastically improve transparency at the Bureau.

While getting those bills through the Senate and signed by the President would be extremely difficult, the House is making our intentions clear. And should the Supreme Court rule that the funding mechanism is unconstitutional, legislation will need to be passed to authorize any sort of funding for the Bureau. You can be sure that massive reforms will be required for the House to allow the Bureau to receive any funding at all, and these two bills are only the start.