The CFPB Must Be Dismantled: The Hidden Hand of Progressive Funding

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was heralded as a safeguard for consumers in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, a benevolent overseer ensuring that the excesses of Wall Street would no longer harm ordinary Americans. However, reality has diverged sharply from this narrative. Beneath its noble rhetoric, the CFPB has functioned less as a neutral regulator and more as a financial engine for progressive causes, deploying its vast resources to sustain activist organizations that operate in lockstep with Democratic electoral goals. If Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) audit uncovers what many have long suspected, the CFPB’s credibility as a consumer watchdog will be irreparably damaged, and its dissolution will become an inevitability.

From the outset, the CFPB was structured to evade traditional checks and balances. Russell Vought's appointment as interim Director of CFPB, signals a shift toward increased scrutiny and much needed reform. Unlike most federal agencies, it is funded not through congressional appropriations but directly through the Federal Reserve, a mechanism explicitly designed to insulate it from accountability. The Supreme Court has already intervened once to curb its power, ruling in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) that the bureau’s single-director structure was unconstitutional. Yet, even after this decision, the CFPB remains a bureaucratic juggernaut with immense regulatory power and little oversight. Its financial autonomy has allowed it to operate without meaningful constraints, creating a perfect environment for ideological mission creep.

This mission creep is most evident in the CFPB’s promotion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives—both hallmarks of progressive orthodoxy. Rather than focusing solely on preventing fraud or predatory lending, the CFPB has expanded its scope to enforce ideological compliance among financial institutions. Banks and lenders now face heightened scrutiny not merely for their treatment of consumers but for their adherence to progressive social policies. The bureau has threatened enforcement actions against institutions that fail to meet its evolving DEI expectations, effectively coercing them into funding left-wing initiatives under the guise of fair lending practices. This regulatory leverage allows the CFPB to exert influence over private financial decisions in ways that have little to do with consumer protection and everything to do with advancing a broader political agenda.

Moreover, allegations persist that the CFPB has funneled vast sums to activist organizations rather than returning penalty revenues to the U.S. Treasury. Under the guise of consumer relief, the bureau has reportedly directed settlement funds to groups that engage in voter registration drives, legal activism, and progressive advocacy—activities that, while couched in neutral language, overwhelmingly benefit Democratic electoral efforts. For example, records indicate that the CFPB allocated $10 million to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), an organization that has been involved in financial activism and policy lobbying. Similarly, $5 million was directed to UnidosUS, formerly known as the National Council of La Raza, a group actively engaged in voter outreach and immigration policy efforts. Another $3 million reportedly flowed to the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit that has pushed progressive financial policies that align with Democratic legislative goals. The financial pipeline sustaining many of these organizations has been largely opaque, shielded by the CFPB’s autonomy from traditional budgetary scrutiny. If the DOGE audit substantiates these claims, it will confirm the CFPB’s transformation into a de facto political funding mechanism. Further complicating matters, the CFPB routinely refuses FOIA requests, effectively shielding its activities from public oversight and making Musk’s audit more crucial than ever.

The implications of such financial entanglements extend beyond regulatory overreach. If the CFPB has indeed been subsidizing organizations involved in electioneering, this would represent a profound abuse of government power. Recent reports suggest that, along with USAID, the CFPB’s financial streams have underwritten the operational costs of progressive groups that function as quasi-political operatives. Some allegations even point to indirect funding routes that funnel money through nonprofit intermediaries into ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s primary fundraising platform. While direct evidence remains elusive, the patterns emerging from financial disclosures warrant serious investigation. If confirmed, such practices would constitute an unprecedented misuse of public funds to influence electoral outcomes.

Given these revelations, the conservative roadmap for addressing the CFPB’s excesses must be bold and uncompromising. The first step is the immediate removal of 90% of its staff, a drastic but necessary measure to neutralize the agency’s entrenched bureaucratic influence. As of its last workforce report, the CFPB employs approximately 1,758 people, a number that has steadily grown under Democratic administrations. A workforce reduction would not only cripple the CFPB’s ability to continue its ideological enforcement but also serve as a broader message about reining in the administrative state.

In tandem with staffing cuts, the CFPB’s financial autonomy must be eliminated. Congress must pass legislation stripping the bureau of its ability to draw funds from the Federal Reserve, forcing it into the annual appropriations process like every other government agency. Such a move would introduce long-overdue accountability, ensuring that the CFPB’s budget reflects public priorities rather than partisan objectives. Even if outright abolition proves politically infeasible in the short term, reducing the bureau’s funding to a bare minimum would achieve a similar effect, rendering it an impotent shell rather than an active agent of progressive influence.

Finally, conservatives must push for structural reforms to ensure that no future administration can reweaponize the CFPB for partisan gain. This includes transferring its core consumer protection functions to existing regulatory bodies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), institutions that already oversee financial fairness and market integrity. By dismantling the CFPB’s unique enforcement mechanisms and redistributing its responsibilities, conservatives can prevent a future Democratic administration from resurrecting it as a progressive enforcement arm.

Musk’s audit represents a historic opportunity to expose and dismantle one of the most unaccountable entities in the federal bureaucracy. To effect the audit, DOGE staffers Chris Young, Nikhil Rajpal, and Gavin Kliger have joined the CFPB as senior advisers, embedding watchdogs within the agency to ensure transparency and reform. The CFPB was never merely a consumer protection agency; it has functioned as a financial patron for the progressive movement, leveraging its regulatory powers to coerce banks, fund ideological initiatives, and influence electoral dynamics. The time to act is now. The longer the CFPB remains intact, the more entrenched its abuses become. Gutting it over the next four years—through staff reductions, financial constraints, and regulatory dismantling—is not just a policy objective; it is an imperative for restoring transparency, accountability, and integrity to the American financial system.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.