Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02: Deceptive Marketing Practices About the Speed or Cost of Sending a Remittance Transfer".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 4, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution seeks to reverse a CFPB decision to withdraw guidance on deceptive remittance transfer marketing, aiming to reinstate consumer protections regarding international money transfers.
What it actually does
This joint resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). The rule in question is the CFPB's withdrawal of its previous guidance, "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02," which addressed deceptive marketing practices concerning the speed or cost of sending international money transfers (remittance transfers). By disapproving this withdrawal, the resolution aims to nullify the CFPB's action and effectively reinstate the original Circular 2024-02.
Proponents argue
Supporters of H.J. Res. 175 would argue that the CFPB's withdrawal of Circular 2024-02 undermines critical consumer protections, particularly for vulnerable populations who rely on remittance transfers to send money internationally. They would contend that deceptive marketing practices regarding transfer speed and cost can lead to significant financial harm for consumers, and that the original circular was essential for ensuring transparency and fairness in this market. Reinstating the circular is seen as a necessary step to protect consumers from predatory practices and ensure they receive accurate information.
Opponents contend
Opponents of H.J. Res. 175 (and by extension, supporters of the CFPB's withdrawal) might argue that Circular 2024-02 imposed undue regulatory burdens on remittance transfer providers, potentially stifling innovation or increasing operational costs, which could ultimately be passed on to consumers. They might contend that existing regulations are sufficient or that the circular was overly prescriptive, creating compliance challenges without a commensurate benefit to consumers. Some might also argue that the CFPB overstepped its authority or that the withdrawal was a necessary step to streamline regulations.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, allowing ample time for readers to understand its direct implications.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves...
Congressional Disapproval of CFPB Rule Withdrawal
This provision states that Congress disapproves of a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). The disapproved rule is the CFPB's action to withdraw its previous guidance, "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02," which concerned deceptive marketing practices related to the speed or cost of sending international money transfers (remittance transfers). If this joint resolution passes both chambers of Congress and is signed into law (or enacted over a presidential veto), the CFPB's withdrawal rule would be nullified, effectively reinstating the original Circular 2024-02.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for protecting consumers, especially those who rely on international money transfers, from misleading information about fees and delivery times. They believe that the original CFPB circular provided necessary clarity and enforcement tools to prevent financial harm caused by deceptive marketing, ensuring fair and transparent transactions.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this provision interferes with the CFPB's administrative discretion to manage its regulatory guidance. They could also contend that reinstating the circular imposes unnecessary burdens on businesses, potentially increasing operational costs or limiting service options, without significantly improving consumer outcomes beyond existing protections already in place.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between enhancing consumer protection through specific regulatory guidance and allowing administrative flexibility for regulatory agencies. There is also a tradeoff between the potential benefits of increased transparency for consumers and the potential for increased compliance costs for remittance service providers.