The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has become one of Washington’s most powerful—and least accountable—agencies. Created under Dodd-Frank in 2010, it was Elizabeth Warren’s pet project, a progressive financial watchdog designed to operate beyond the reach of voters and elected officials. Unlike most agencies, the CFPB isn’t funded by Congress but instead pulls money directly from the Federal Reserve, shielding it from normal budgetary oversight. For years, it was led by a single director who could not even be removed by the president—a blatantly unconstitutional structure that the Supreme Court struck down in 2020.

After USAID it’s the most important source of untraceable funds for Democrats and Progressives. 

Under Rohit Chopra, the CFPB wasn’t just a regulator—it was a weaponized arm of progressive financial activism. Instead of issuing clear, predictable rules, Chopra governed by fear, using media pressure, lawsuits, and vague legal interpretations to force compliance with his ideological agenda. The financial sector didn’t know what the rules were, only that the CFPB might come after them if they guessed wrong.

One of Chopra’s most controversial tactics was his habit of bypassing formal rulemaking entirely and instead announcing policy changes through press releases and enforcement actions. By avoiding the legal process of writing new regulations—which requires public input and legal justification—he made it impossible for banks, lenders, and fintech companies to comply in advance. The result was a regulatory environment driven more by intimidation than by law.

…

One of the most glaring abuses of CFPB power has been its Civil Penalty Fund, a self-sustaining slush fund that allows the agency to bypass Congress entirely. Instead of relying on appropriations, the CFPB funds itself by extracting fines from financial institutions and redistributing the money however it sees fit.

This creates an obvious conflict of interest. The more penalties the CFPB hands out, the more money it controls—giving the agency a perverse incentive to escalate enforcement regardless of whether it actually benefits consumers. The fund is supposed to compensate victims of financial wrongdoing; but in practice, it has been used to bankroll progressive financial activism, directing money toward politically connected organizations rather than the individuals who were supposedly harmed.