The bill
Financial Privacy Act of 2025
HR. 1602, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
Sponsored by
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]
ID: D000626
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1602, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 869-871 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 14.
March 20, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and uncover the real disease beneath.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Financial Privacy Act of 2025 claims to provide greater transparency and protections for Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reports. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, attempting to address the symptoms rather than the underlying disease: the government's insatiable appetite for surveillance and control.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit annual reports to Congress detailing the number of BSA reports filed, retained, and accessed by national security, law enforcement, or intelligence agencies. It also mandates a review of protocols for agency access to these reports. Oh, how noble. In reality, this is just a PR stunt to placate the gullible public while allowing the government to continue its data collection frenzy.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: FinCEN, national security agencies, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the American people, whose private financial information is being collected, stored, and potentially misused by these agencies.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have a negligible impact on protecting Americans' financial privacy. Instead, it will:
1. Provide a false sense of security for citizens who believe their government is actually working to protect their rights. 2. Allow the government to continue collecting and storing sensitive financial data under the guise of "national security" or "law enforcement." 3. Enable agencies to refine their protocols for accessing and disseminating this information, potentially leading to further abuses of power.
In short, this bill is a masterclass in legislative misdirection. It's a cleverly crafted illusion designed to distract from the real issue: the government's addiction to surveillance and control. The Financial Privacy Act of 2025 is nothing more than a placebo for the gullible, a temporary fix that will only serve to further erode our civil liberties.
Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Lip Service Syndrome" (LLSS), characterized by empty promises, vague language, and a complete disregard for the underlying disease. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the truth, and a willingness to call out the politicians on their blatant hypocrisy.
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: H001047
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 50 nodes and 23 connections (44 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $115,300
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 3(a)(1) amends Chapter 53 of title 31, U.S.C., to require the Secretary of the Treasury to submit reports to Congress on Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reports filed with FinCEN, including the number of reports by type, total retained, and protocols for agency access. This increases transparency and oversight of BSA reporting, which benefits commercial banks by providing clearer guidelines and potential reductions in unnecessary reporting burdens, aligning with the bill's goal of greater transpa
The bill's focus on Bank Secrecy Act reports and beneficial ownership information (BOI) collection under Section 2 findings and Section 3 reporting requirements directly impacts cryptocurrency exchanges and fintech platforms (e.g., Coinbase, Ripple) that are subject to BSA reporting obligations. Increased transparency and review of agency access protocols may reduce regulatory uncertainty and compliance costs, providing a benefit to these industries.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 837 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Require the SEC and the CFTC to publish a detailed annual report on SRO supervision. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Paul Atkins, C. Wallace DeWitt, Christopher Iacovella, Brian Knight, Chelsea Pizzola, and Andrew Vollmer deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Robert Bowes The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was authorized in 2010 by the Dodd–Frank Act.32 Since the Bureau’s inception, its status as an “inde- pendent” agency with no congressional oversight has been questioned in multiple court cases, and the agency has been assailed by critics33 as a shakedown mecha- nism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation. In 2015, for example, Investor’s Business Daily accused the CFPB of “diverting potentially millions of dollars in settlement payments for alleged victims of lending bias to a slush fund for poverty groups tied to the Democratic Party” and plan- ning “to create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions” that would use “ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations” to “bankroll some 60 liberal non- profits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups.”34 The CFPB has a fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $653.2 million35 and 1,635 full- time equivalent (FTE) employees.36 From FY 2012 through FY 2020, it imposed approximately $1.25 billion in civil money penalties;37 in FY 2022, it imposed approximately $172.5 million in civil money penalties.38 These penalties are imposed by the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, described as “a victims relief fund, into which the CFPB deposits civil penalties it collects in judicial and administrative actions under Federal consumer financial laws.”39 The CFPB is headed by a single Director who is appointed by the President to a five-year term.40 Its organizational structure includes five divisions: Operations; Consumer Education and External Affairs; Legal; Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending; and Research, Monitoring and Regulations.41 Each of these divisions reports to the Office of the Director, except for the Operations Division, which reports to the Deputy Director. Passage of Title X of Dodd–Frank was a bid to placate concern over a series of regulatory failures identified in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The law imported a new superstructure of federal regulation over consumer finance and — 838 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise mortgage lending and servicing industries traditionally regulated by state bank- ing regulators. Consumer protection responsibilities previously handled by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Admin- istration, and Federal Trade Commission were transferred to and consolidated in the CFPB, which issues rules, orders, and guidance to implement federal consumer financial law. The CFPB collects fines from the private sector that are put into the Civil Pen- alty Fund.42 The fund serves two ostensible purposes: to compensate the victims whom the CFPB perceives to be harmed and to underwrite “consumer education” and “financial literacy” programs.43 How the Civil Penalty Fund is spent is at the discretion of the CFPB Director. The CFPB has been unclear as to how it decides what “consumer education” or “financial literacy programs” to fund.44 As noted, critics have charged that money from the Civil Penalty Fund has ended up in the pockets of leftist activist organizations. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,45 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the CFPB’s leadership by a single individual remov- able only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violated constitutional separation of powers requirements because “[t]he Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.”46 The CFPB Director is thus subject to removal by the President. The CFPB is not subject to congressional oversight, and its funding is not determined by elected lawmakers in Congress as part of the typical congressional appropriations process. It receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, which is itself funded outside the appropriations process through bank assessments. CFPB funding represents 12 percent of the total operating expenses of the Fed- eral Reserve and is disbursed by the unelected Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.47 This is not the case with respect to any other federal agency. On October 19, 2022, in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPB’s “perpetual insulation from Congress’s appropriations power, including the express exemption from congressional review of its funding, renders the Bureau ‘no longer dependent and, as a result, no longer accountable’ to Congress and, ultimately, to the people”48 and that “[b]y abandoning its ‘most complete and effectual’ check on ‘the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government’—indeed, by enabling them in the Bureau’s case—Congress ran afoul of the separation of powers embodied in the Appropriations Clause.”49 The Court further remarked that the CFPB’s “capacious portfolio of authority acts ‘as a mini legislature, prosecutor, and court, responsible for creating substantive rules for a wide swath of industries, prosecuting violations, and levying knee-buckling penalties against private citizens.’”50
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.