Originally published at X.com.

​Imagine you're at the grocery store, using your rewards credit card to earn points for a future flight or cash back. But behind the scenes, lawmakers are pushing policies that could render that card obsolete, along with your access to credit.
Credit is not a luxury. It’s often a lifeline. Whether covering a surprise car repair, bridging the gap between paychecks, or financing groceries during tough times, credit cards play a crucial role in financial resilience for millions of Americans. Yet lawmakers in states like Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, and Florida are considering—or have considered—proposals that would gut this system from within, all under the banner of “consumer protection.”

Bills targeting interchange fees—such as Texas HB 4124 , Louisiana HB 417, Alaska HB 171, and Florida SB 564—seek to prohibit banks and credit unions from collecting interchange fees on the tax and tip portions of credit and debit card transactions. Though Florida’s bill ultimately died in the Senate calendar in 2023, its mere introduction reflects a troubling willingness among some lawmakers to undermine competitive markets with government price controls.

At the same time, federal efforts like the Credit Card Competition Act and proposals to cap credit card interest rates—most notably by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—seek to limit what banks and credit unions can charge for lending. The economic term for this is price control. And history is clear: price controls don’t work. They distort markets, shrink supply, and hurt the very people they claim to help.

Interchange fees are a core component of the payment ecosystem. These small charges fund fraud prevention, support the infrastructure of global payment networks, and help make rewards programs possible. More importantly, they balance a two-sided market: merchants gain customers, and consumers gain access to credit, security, and convenience.

When states legislate the portion of a transaction that is exempt from fees, they are effectively capping the price banks can charge for providing these services. That’s not just economic micromanagement—it’s market sabotage. Smaller banks and credit unions, in particular, are unable to absorb these losses. With thinner margins and higher compliance costs, they’ll be forced to scale back rewards or tighten lending standards. For consumers, that means fewer credit options and reduced access, especially for those who need it most.

On the federal stage, proposals to cap credit card interest rates at 10% may seem like a favor to consumers, but in practice, they would eliminate credit options for millions. Risk-adjusted pricing is a method that helps lenders to serve a diverse range of borrowers. Remove the ability to price for risk, and lenders retreat to serving only the safest customers. The unbanked and underbanked—already 22% of Americans—will be pushed further to the margins.

These rate caps are a rerun of Regulation Q, which once capped interest on bank deposits. It was phased out in the 1980s for good reason: it distorted savings markets, reduced access for small savers, and discouraged capital formation. Applying similar caps to credit markets will yield similar results—less availability, less flexibility, and more people turning to costly payday loans or unregulated lenders.

Credit access enables individuals to navigate emergencies, invest in themselves, and mitigate financial volatility. It’s the freedom to act in the moment, to make choices based on needs rather than constraints. Limiting access through regulatory price caps doesn't make credit more affordable—it makes it vanish.

And that’s the heart of the issue. These bills and proposals claim to protect consumers, but in reality, they serve to protect political optics while harming working families. A parent trying to buy back-to-school supplies or pay an unexpected medical bill doesn’t benefit from these rules. They suffer when their card is declined or their account is closed.

If lawmakers want to help consumers, they should start by encouraging competition and reducing federal regulatory barriers that prevent smaller banks and fintech companies from entering and innovating. Let institutions compete on pricing, service, and value, rather than limiting them by legislative fiat.

Consumers don’t need protection from their own financial choices. They need access, transparency, and the freedom to choose the tools that best suit their needs.

Milton Friedman once said that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” The intention to “protect consumers” is noble, but the result of these policies is clear: reduced access, fewer options, and a step backward in financial inclusion.

​Legislators must reject the temptation to impose price controls on financial services. Instead, they should protect consumer choice and promote access to credit. The future of financial empowerment depends on freedom, not fiat.

Originally published at X.com.​

When the government crosses the line from protecting consumers to controlling markets, bad things happen. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—a rogue agency that never should’ve been created—is doing precisely that with its new Section 1033 data-sharing rule. This time, it’s setting the price of private property at zero and pretending that’s good for consumers.

Let’s call this what it is: central planning disguised as consumer protection. The CFPB wants to force banks and credit unions to hand over your private financial data to third-party tech firms, mostly Fintech startups, without compensation. You read that right. The government is mandating that private institutions provide "free" access to their infrastructure, systems, and customers’ data. And while unelected bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for “consumer empowerment,” regular Americans end up footing the bill.

The CFPB claims it’s about giving you control of your data. But consumers already have access to their bank information. This allows unregulated companies—often with lower security standards—to integrate with secure financial systems developed by banks with decades of experience and billions of dollars in investment. In 2022 alone, banks spent over $200 billion on technology, with a significant portion allocated to cybersecurity and digital infrastructure to protect families, retirees, and entrepreneurs. That investment doesn’t come cheap, and it certainly shouldn’t be handed over for “free” because Washington says so.

Imagine spending years building a secure home, only to have the government show up and tell you to leave the door open for competitors. That’s exactly what Section 1033 would do. Financial institutions are being told: let outsiders access your systems, maintain the costs, accept the risks, and charge nothing for it.

This is theft by regulation. The price is set at zero, but the real cost will be borne by consumers like Maria, a single mother in Texas who uses her bank’s mobile app to pay bills and save for her kids’ future. Under this rule, her data could be funneled to an unknown Fintech company without explicit consent, adequate oversight, or strong accountability. And when something goes wrong—when her data is stolen, misused, or sold—she won’t be calling the CFPB for help. She’ll be stuck.

To make matters worse, the CFPB recently issued a legal memo saying it “shall not engage in attempts to create price controls.” But this rule is exactly that. It requires financial institutions to provide access to valuable infrastructure and data. No price negotiation, no contract, just a government mandate. That’s not a free market. That’s central planning.

Thankfully, there’s still time to fix this. Russ Vought, my former boss and current director of the Office of Management and Budget, who oversees the CFPB in the second Trump administration, should shut this down immediately. He knows better than anyone that agencies like the CFPB are not designed to improve markets—they’re designed to control them. And Americans are worse off because of it.

The right approach is simple. If consumers wish to share their data with a third party, they should be given the option to do so. But access to bank-built infrastructure should be based on voluntary agreements. If a Fintech wants in, it should negotiate and pay for it, just like any other business operating in a free economy. That’s how innovation happens. That’s how investment gets rewarded. That’s how people are protected.

Nothing is free. Not your bank’s cybersecurity. Not your personal financial information. And indeed not the right to access someone else’s property. When the government pretends otherwise, markets break, risks rise, and the people left paying for it are the very consumers politicians claim to protect.

Section 1033 is a government-mandated data grab that undermines the rule of law, property rights, and economic freedom. It should be scrapped, along with the CFPB.

Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former chief economist of the first Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget (June 2019 to May 2020). Follow him on X at @vanceginn.

Originally published on X.

President Biden’s tenure left a legacy of regulatory overreach and heavy-handed policies that stifled economic growth, distorted markets, and limited opportunities for individuals and businesses. From blocking domestic energy production to expanding government control over financial markets, these actions prioritized central planning over innovation and prosperity. Now, the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress have an opportunity to reverse these harmful policies and unleash Americans’ full potential.

A glaring example of Biden’s missteps was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) regulation barring
medical debt from factoring into credit scores. While framed as consumer protection, the policy undermined the reliability of credit scores, making it harder for lenders to assess risk and potentially restricting access to credit for those who need it most.

This approach mirrored the broader pattern of fiscal irresponsibility under Biden, including costly handouts like student loan forgiveness and expanded Social Security payments for many government workers. These measures exacerbated the nation’s debt crisis while failing to address systemic challenges, creating moral hazards and rewarding select groups at taxpayers’ expense.

Could Washington help chart a different course by prioritizing free enterprise and limited government?

A key starting point is repealing or revising harmful regulations, particularly those enacted under Dodd-Frank. While intended to stabilize the financial system after the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC), Dodd-Frank entrenched “too big to fail” institutions, burdened small banks and credit unions with costly compliance requirements, and reduced competition. Tailoring regulations to reflect financial institutions' size and risk profiles would empower community banks to serve local businesses and families better. Revisiting restrictive provisions like the Volcker Rule could also enhance liquidity and investment without compromising stability.

Reforms to monetary policy are equally urgent. During the pandemic, the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented balance sheet expansion injected uncertainty into markets and raised questions about its role in the economy. Adopting a rules-based monetary policy, such as limiting the Fed’s balance sheet to no more than 6% of GDP as before the GFC, would restore transparency and market confidence.

Congress should also limit the Fed’s emergency powers, ensure it remains a true lender of last resort, and conduct a full audit to promote accountability. Such steps would provide a stable foundation for less malinvestments until we can end the Fed.

The financial technology (fintech) sector offers tremendous promise for expanding access to financial services, reducing costs, and driving innovation. Yet regulatory uncertainty surrounding blockchain and digital assets continues to stifle progress.

Congress should take a hands-off approach to fintech and focus regulation on fraud prevention rather than impeding innovation. Removing barriers to peer-to-peer lending, digital payments, and crowdfunding platforms will empower consumers, foster competition, and unlock economic opportunities.

Housing finance reform is another critical priority. More than a decade after the GFC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain under government conservatorship, perpetuating a system of implicit taxpayer guarantees incentivizing risky lending. Privatizing these entities would reduce taxpayer exposure and restore discipline to housing markets.

Additionally, federal housing programs through the Housing and Urban Development program that encourage over-leveraged homeownership must be reevaluated to prevent future instability and ensure a sustainable market driven by supply and demand, not government distortions.

The Trump administration must also end the harmful practice of government bailouts. Propping up failing institutions creates a moral hazard, signaling to firms that they can take excessive risks without facing the consequences. Instead, Congress should establish clear, market-oriented bankruptcy procedures that ensure no institution is “too big to fail.” This approach would protect taxpayers, promote accountability, and maintain financial stability.

Washington could help restore financial freedom and create a dynamic, inclusive economy by reversing Biden's interventionist agenda and implementing these reforms. Rolling back harmful regulations, adopting a rules-based monetary policy, fostering fintech innovation, privatizing housing finance, and ending bailouts will empower individuals and businesses to innovate, compete, and prosper.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s report, Free to Prosper: A Pro-Growth Agenda for the 119th Congress, provides actionable strategies for achieving these goals. America’s financial system thrives when markets are free, incentives are aligned, and individuals have the opportunity to prosper. It’s time to embrace these principles and put the U.S. back on a path to lasting economic success.

Originally posted on X. 
​
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently finalized its Section 1033 rule, requiring financial institutions to share consumer data with third-party entities, such as fintech companies, whenever authorized by consumers.
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra has framed the rule as a tool to “boost competition” and increase consumer choice. Yet, this mandate raises significant concerns about privacy, costs, and its interference with market-driven innovation.
Instead of empowering consumers, the rule threatens to undermine their financial security and limit their options.

Market Solutions Already Address Consumer Needs
The financial services industry has developed secure, voluntary solutions for sharing consumer data. Banks and fintech companies have created Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that allow consumers to share their financial data safely and on their terms. These innovations were driven by competition and consumer demand, not government mandates.

However, the CFPB’s Section 1033 rule disrupts this progress by forcing banks and fintechs to comply with a one-size-fits-all approach. The Bureau’s regulatory intervention is unnecessary and risks diverting resources from innovation. As the Bank Policy Institute aptly noted, the rule appears to be a "solution in search of a problem," addressing an issue already resolved by the private market.

Privacy Risks and the Burden on Consumers
The CFPB’s rule mandates that financial institutions share sensitive consumer data—such as transaction histories and account balances—with third-party entities. Yet, it fails to impose strong and uniform security standards for data protection. Once a consumer authorizes the release of their information, the bank relinquishes its ability to safeguard that data.

By shifting the burden of security onto consumers, the CFPB increases the likelihood of data breaches and misuse. In its push to expand data access, the Bureau has overlooked the importance of protecting consumers' privacy. As Forbes  highlighted, the rule introduces privacy risks that could erode trust in the financial system—a trust built through years of market-driven improvements.

Increased Costs and Reduced Competition
The compliance costs associated with Section 1033 will disproportionately affect smaller financial institutions, which are less equipped to absorb these expenses. Larger banks and fintech may gain a competitive advantage, as they can more easily manage the regulatory burden. However, this unintended consequence could stifle competition, harming the consumers the rule purports to help.

Consumers will also bear these costs through higher fees or reduced service quality. Instead of fostering innovation and lowering costs, the CFPB’s rule forces institutions to redirect resources from developing better products to meeting regulatory requirements.

Legal and Legislative Pushback
The Section 1033 rule has already sparked legal challenges. When the rule was finalized, several trade associations filed lawsuits questioning the CFPB’s authority to impose such sweeping mandates. These legal battles reflect widespread concerns about the Bureau’s overreach and the potential for regulatory overkill.

The CFPB’s funding structure adds to the controversy. By drawing its budget directly from the Federal Reserve, the Bureau bypasses congressional oversight and acts with little accountability, raising broader concerns about its governance and the appropriateness of its regulatory agenda.

A Free-Market Alternative
Consumer empowerment does not require government mandates. The financial services sector has proven capable of addressing consumer demands for data portability through voluntary, competitive solutions. The best path forward is a dynamic market driven by consumer choice, not regulatory coercion.

History shows that innovation flourishes in environments free from unnecessary government intervention. Allowing banks and fintechs to compete on security, efficiency, and user experience will better serve consumers than top-down mandates prioritizing regulation over real progress.

Conclusion
While the CFPB’s Section 1033 rule is marketed as a tool to increase competition and consumer choice, it risks leaving consumers with fewer protections, higher costs, and reduced privacy. Real consumer empowerment comes from the competitive forces of the free market; not government mandates that disrupt innovation and impose unnecessary burdens on the financial sector. Congress and the courts should resist this overreach, ensuring that consumers can benefit from a financial system guided by market principles rather than bureaucratic directives.