‘Open banking’ rule empowers regulators who undermined religious freedom

Originally published at The Washington Examiner.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the bureaucratic brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has become a textbook example of how government overreach hides behind feel-good slogans. Now, its supporters are trying to use religious freedom as cover for one of its worst ideas yet: Section 1033, the so-called “open banking” rule.

Let’s be clear: Section 1033 isn’t about consumer empowerment. It’s about expanding federal control over America’s financial system by forcing banks and credit unions to hand over access to their infrastructure to third-party financial technology firms — at no charge.

That’s not innovation. That’s theft.

Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears recently argued that the rule is necessary to help faith-based groups and nonprofit organizations denied service by major banks. He’s not wrong that religious and conservative organizations have been victims of debanking.

But here’s the real story: These weren’t just corporate decisions. They were done under pressure from the Biden administration, which spent years coercing banks to drop politically disfavored clients. Through environmental, social, and governance mandates, regulatory intimidation, and informal guidance, Washington weaponized the financial system against those with whom it disagreed. The problem wasn’t market failure; it was government pressure.

So why are we now being told the solution is to give the government even more control?

Finalized under former President Joe Biden’s CFPB and now under review by the Trump administration, Section 1033 compels banks to give fintechs access to consumer financial data — without compensation. In 2022 alone, banks spent over $200 billion on digital infrastructure and cybersecurity. These aren’t spreadsheets; they’re secure networks, fraud monitoring systems, and customer platforms built to protect users and maintain trust.

​Section 1033 treats all that like a public utility — mandating free access for any third-party app or data aggregator that a consumer approves. No negotiation. No security guarantees. Just a federal edict.

This is a price control, and like all price controls, it will backfire. When the government mandates free access, banks have fewer incentives to invest in cybersecurity or innovate. Fintechs, meanwhile, are encouraged to ride for free rather than compete or create. Over time, this means less innovation, more risk, and fewer real choices for consumers.

Some claim the rule is needed to prevent discrimination. But we already know where that discrimination originated: from Washington itself. The best way to stop financial deplatforming isn’t to build a federally mandated data-sharing pipeline. It’s to get the government out of the way.

If consumers want to leave a politically biased bank for a community bank or fintech alternative, that’s great. But those companies should have to negotiate access, just like any other industry. They should also be held to the same standards for privacy and security. Section 1033 does neither.

As David McGarry of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance rightly pointed out, Section 1033 is a ticking time bomb. It’s pitched as “pro-consumer,” but it creates a centralized system ripe for abuse by the next administration that decides your beliefs are “too risky.”

To its credit, the Trump administration has paused the rule and reopened the rulemaking process. Now it should finish the job and scrap the rule entirely. If the goal is to empower consumers and protect liberty, the answer is not more federal mandates; it’s voluntary exchange, private contracts, and a free market where consumers and innovators thrive without bureaucratic interference.

If consumers want to leave a politically biased bank for a community bank or fintech alternative, that’s great. But those companies should have to negotiate access, just like any other industry. They should also be held to the same standards for privacy and security. Section 1033 does neither.

As David McGarry of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance rightly pointed out, Section 1033 is a ticking time bomb. It’s pitched as “pro-consumer,” but it creates a centralized system ripe for abuse by the next administration that decides your beliefs are “too risky.”

To its credit, the Trump administration has paused the rule and reopened the rulemaking process. Now it should finish the job and scrap the rule entirely. If the goal is to empower consumers and protect liberty, the answer is not more federal mandates; it’s voluntary exchange, private contracts, and a free market where consumers and innovators thrive without bureaucratic interference.

​Religious liberty should never be used as a fig leaf for central planning. We don’t need more power handed to the same regulators who helped push people out of the banking system in the first place. We need less.

Section 1033 is the wrong solution to a real problem. It should be repealed, not retooled.