The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
S. 3830·119th Congress·Introduced Feb 11, 2026

TRUST Act of 2026

IntroducedFinance and Financial SectorSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]
Committees
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
Last action
Feb 11, 2026

Bottom line

The TRUST Act of 2026 aims to reduce regulatory burden on a larger segment of smaller, well-managed banks by extending their examination cycle, potentially freeing up resources for these institutions.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to increase the asset threshold for certain well-managed insured depository institutions to qualify for an extended 18-month examination cycle. It raises the threshold from $3 billion to $6 billion, allowing a larger segment of small and mid-sized banks to undergo less frequent regulatory examinations by federal banking agencies.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that increasing the examination threshold for well-managed institutions will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and compliance costs for community banks and smaller regional banks. They contend that these institutions, when well-capitalized and well-managed, pose less systemic risk and can benefit from more tailored supervision, allowing them to focus more on serving their local communities and lending activities. This change is seen as a way to right-size regulation without compromising safety and soundness.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that extending examination cycles, even for well-managed institutions, could increase systemic risk by reducing oversight frequency, potentially allowing issues to fester undetected for longer periods. They may contend that a higher threshold could inadvertently capture institutions that, while currently well-managed, could quickly develop problems, and that more frequent examinations are a crucial tool for early detection and intervention, especially in a dynamic financial environment.

The bill text is extremely short and easy to read, making it highly accessible for anyone to understand its direct legislative change.

Section 2, paragraphs (1) and (2)

Increase in Asset Threshold for Extended Examination Cycle

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision modifies the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to raise the total asset limit for certain qualifying insured depository institutions from $3 billion to $6 billion. This change means that banks with total assets between $3 billion and $6 billion, which meet specific criteria for being well-managed and well-capitalized, will now be eligible for an examination cycle of not less than once every 18 months, rather than the more frequent 12-month cycle typically applied to larger institutions.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupInsured Depository Institutions (banks) with $3 billion to $6 billion in assetsImpactReduced regulatory burden and compliance costsMechanismLess frequent on-site examinations by federal banking agenciesScaleAffects a specific segment of mid-sized banks
GroupFederal banking agencies (FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC)ImpactPotential shift in resource allocation for examinationsMechanismFewer examinations for a larger pool of institutionsScaleModest operational adjustment

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this adjustment recognizes the strong performance and lower risk profile of many institutions in the $3-6 billion asset range. They believe it will allow these banks to reallocate resources from compliance activities to core banking functions, fostering economic growth and better service to communities, without compromising financial stability due to the 'well-managed' criteria.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that while these banks are currently well-managed, increasing the threshold could create a regulatory blind spot. They may contend that even well-managed institutions can face unforeseen challenges, and less frequent examinations could delay the detection of emerging risks, potentially leading to larger problems down the line.

Tradeoffs

The bill balances the desire to reduce regulatory burden on smaller institutions against the need to maintain robust oversight to ensure financial stability and protect depositors. It seeks to find an optimal frequency for examinations that is efficient for banks while still effective for regulators.

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.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this