4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (May 12, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The v4 version of H.R. 4478 reflects its procedural status, indicating it was received and referred to a Senate committee after passing the House, and includes the name of the House Clerk. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text between v3 and v4.

H.R. 4478119th CongressIntroduced Jul 17, 2025

TRUST Act of 2025

Passed HouseFinance and Financial SectorSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14]
Committees: Financial Services Committee (primary)
Last action: May 13, 2026

Bottom line

This bill reduces the frequency of federal examinations for a larger segment of smaller, well-managed banks, aiming to ease regulatory burden.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to raise the asset threshold for certain well-managed insured depository institutions to qualify for an extended 18-month examination cycle. It increases this threshold from $3 billion to $6 billion, meaning more banks will be subject to less frequent, though still regular, examinations by federal banking agencies.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue this change reduces unnecessary regulatory burden on smaller, well-managed banks, allowing them to focus more resources on serving their communities and fostering economic growth without compromising safety and soundness. They contend that less frequent examinations for these institutions are justified by their strong performance and management, and that regulators can reallocate resources to higher-risk areas.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that increasing the examination threshold could introduce systemic risk by reducing oversight of a larger pool of banks, potentially allowing problems to fester undetected for longer periods. They may contend that robust oversight, even for well-managed institutions, is crucial for financial stability and consumer protection, and that the current threshold provides adequate scrutiny.

The bill text is extremely short and easy to read, allowing ample time for thorough evaluation.

Section 2

Increase in Examination Cycle Threshold for Well-Managed Institutions

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends Section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to increase the asset threshold for certain insured depository institutions to qualify for an 18-month examination cycle. Currently, banks with less than $3 billion in total assets can be examined every 18 months if they meet specific criteria (e.g., well-capitalized, well-managed). This bill raises that threshold to $6 billion, making more banks eligible for less frequent examinations.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupInsured depository institutions with assets between $3 billion and $6 billionImpactReduced regulatory burden and potentially lower compliance costs.MechanismExtended examination cycle from a maximum of 12-18 months to a guaranteed 18 months (if they qualify as well-managed).ScaleAffects a specific segment of mid-sized banks.

GroupFederal banking agencies (FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC)ImpactPotential shift in examination workload and resource allocation.MechanismFewer mandatory on-site examinations for a larger number of institutions, allowing for reallocation of examiner resources.ScaleModerate impact on agency resource allocation and supervisory strategy.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that extending the examination cycle for well-managed institutions up to $6 billion in assets recognizes their sound financial health and management practices. This change would free up resources for these banks, allowing them to better serve their communities and stimulate local economies, while also enabling regulators to focus more intensely on higher-risk institutions.

Critics contend

Critics might contend that while well-managed, these institutions still pose a risk to the financial system, and reducing examination frequency could lead to a delay in identifying emerging issues. They argue that consistent, regular oversight is a cornerstone of financial stability, and expanding the threshold could weaken this crucial safeguard, especially given the dynamic nature of financial markets.

Tradeoffs

The bill balances the desire to reduce regulatory burden on community banks and mid-sized institutions against the need for robust oversight to maintain financial stability and protect depositors. It seeks to find an optimal frequency for examinations that is efficient for banks without compromising supervisory effectiveness, acknowledging that less frequent examinations inherently carry a trade-off in terms of real-time oversight.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.