Hillary Clinton is raising the alarm about a Trump administration proposal that could turn back the clock on lending protections that took decades to establish. The former Secretary of State took to X on Monday to warn that changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could resurrect discriminatory practices that many Americans assumed were long dead.
When Women Needed Permission to Borrow Money
Clinton reminded people of a not-so-distant past when "women were forced to have a male co-signer to get a credit card or a home loan." This wasn't ancient history—it was standard practice until laws changed just a few decades ago. Now, she says, the Trump administration wants to roll back the protections that ended those practices.
The controversy centers on proposed changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) at the CFPB. The most significant change would eliminate what's called "disparate impact" liability. That's a legal principle that allows people to challenge lending policies that harm women or minorities disproportionately, even when there's no smoking gun proving intentional discrimination. It's the difference between proving someone meant to discriminate versus showing that their policies have discriminatory effects in practice.
Clinton urged her followers to submit comments opposing the changes through the National Fair Housing Alliance's public comment page, framing it as a "No Way" moment for anyone who cares about fair lending.
The Broader War on the CFPB
This proposed rule change is just one piece of a much larger effort to reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Since returning to office this year, President Donald Trump has gone after the agency aggressively, including laying off a huge chunk of its workforce. The stated goal is to refocus the agency on fighting financial fraud rather than enforcing consumer protections.
But advocacy groups say the cost has been steep. The Student Borrower Protection Center and the Consumer Federation of America estimate that Trump's CFPB makeover has already hit consumers for $18 billion in higher bank fees and canceled restitution payments. That figure comes from 22 enforcement cases that the revamped CFPB either dropped or settled on terms favorable to the banks.
Among the institutions that benefited from those dropped or settled cases: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), and Capital One Financial Corp. (COF), along with several others.
The message from the administration seems clear: the CFPB is moving away from aggressive enforcement against financial institutions and toward a lighter regulatory touch. Whether you think that's good policy or a dangerous retreat from consumer protection probably depends on where you sit—but Clinton is firmly in the latter camp, and she's not being quiet about it.