CFPB Proposes Major Rollback of Existing Guidance

By Hunter Bruton, Michael Anderson and Andrew Benton

On May 12, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and acting CFPB Director Russell Vought announced in a Federal Register filing that it is withdrawing dozens of its existing guidance materials—including policy statements, advisory opinions, and interpretive rules—dating back to the agency’s founding following the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.

While Vought described the withdrawals as “not necessarily final,” the CFPB will no longer enforce or rely upon any of the nearly 70 pieces of guidance listed in the filing, which cover a variety of topics ranging from buy now, pay later loans to medical debt collection. Most of the withdrawn guidance dates from the Biden administration.

The withdrawal follows Vought’s call for an internal review of all agency’s guidance earlier this month. In the May 12 filing, Vought justified the withdrawal of what he has called “weaponized” sub-regulatory guidance by emphasizing that the CFPB has repeatedly exceeded the scope of its proper authority by adopting positions “outside of the strictures of notice-and-comment rulemaking.” Moving forward, Vought wrote that the CFPB will issue guidance “only where necessary,” and when guidance “would reduce compliance burdens rather than increase them.” 

While Vought’s critique of sub-regulatory guidance marks a stark tonal shift from his predecessor, Rohit Chopra, his rhetoric reflects a larger trend among agencies under the Trump administration. For example, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has broadly disavowed sub-regulatory guidance. In February 2025, United States Attorney General Pam Bondi announced DOJ’s position that guidance documents “purport[ing] to have a direct effect on the rights and obligations of private parties governed by [an] agency” but bypassing the federal rulemaking process “violate the law.” Bondi prohibited DOJ from issuing such guidance documents, marking a return to DOJ’s pre-2021 restrictive approach. In that same memorandum, Bondi directed DOJ to identify strategies it could use to “eliminate the illegal or improper use of guidance documents” more broadly. The DOJ took a similar approach during the first Trump administration, culminating in a broad prohibition on the use of sub-regulatory guidance to create liability . Be aware, however, that even that broad prohibition still permitted DOJ attorneys to use sub-regulatory guidance for other enforcement purposes (e.g., to prove knowledge).

The CFPB’s withdrawal filing did not announce a timeline for further review of agency guidance or specify which, if any, prior guidance materials will remain available for online or other access. Since the CFPB’s guidance withdrawal does not change other federal or state regulators’ authority to enforce the underlying statutes at issue, regulated financial entities and their counsel should continue to monitor the CFPB’s (and DOJ’s) actions and public statements on this topic to ensure they remain in compliance and are prepared for any enforcement actions. 

Smith Anderson’s Banking and Finance and Litigation teams are well-positioned to help clients navigate shifting standards and respond proactively to both federal and state scrutiny. Please contact Hunter Bruton, Michael Anderson, Andrew Benton or others at Smith Anderson for assistance with preparing for supervisory examinations or responding to regulatory or enforcement developments.