Connect with us

Personal Finance

How Trump’s second term could mean the downfall of the FDIC, CFPB

Published

on

Here's what to expect from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE

Sweeping changes may be in store once President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Among them could be the closure of numerous federal agencies and regulators.

Trump will be sworn in for a second nonconsecutive term in the White House on Jan. 20. Already, he has suggested major cuts to federal spending.

To that end, Trump named Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy co-chairs of a new outside advisory board dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. 

As part of its agenda, advisors to the government-efficiency group reportedly inquired about the possibility of shrinking or dismantling the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, according to a December report in The Wall Street Journal. In a Nov. 27 post on X, Musk also suggested the White House should “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another independent agency. “There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies,” he wrote in the post.

Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

The future of the FDIC

Most bank account holders take for granted the fact that their deposits are insured.

Since its creation during the Great Depression, the FDIC has secured up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, in each account ownership category. And over nearly a century, no depositor has lost FDIC-insured funds due to a bank failure

“That’s one of its legacies,” said William Isaac, who was named chairman of the FDIC by former President Ronald Reagan and headed the agency during the banking crisis of the 1980s.

Former FDIC chair Sheila Bair: Eliminating the FDIC would be a mistake

In place of the independent agency, the Trump administration could task the Treasury Department with overseeing deposit insurance, according to reports.

“There may be great value in downsizing or eliminating overlapping agencies while still keeping key underlying functions they serve,” said Tomas Philipson, a professor of public policy studies at the University of Chicago and former acting chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. “For example, one proposal is to have Treasury insure bank-deposits rather than an additional agency such as FDIC.”

“It’s important to separate what government activities are being performed from who or how many agencies are in charge,” Philipson said. “Holding constant the activities being regulated, the fewer agencies the better.”

More from Personal Finance:
30 million people may qualify for IRS free Direct File program
Biden forgives student loans for 150,000 more borrowers
How much you can save by not drinking during ‘dry January’

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” Isaac said of abolishing the agency. “The FDIC has brought about stability like we’ve never seen before.”

Others also argue that eliminating the FDIC would undermine the consumer lending system and leave some savers vulnerable.

“Getting rid of the FDIC would be a disaster for the U.S. economy and its preeminent status as a financial center,” said Brett House, economics professor at Columbia Business School. “Deposits are an abundant, cheap source of capital for American financial institutions.”

“Large banks may do fine without FDIC protections on their clients. But an end to federal insurance on them would be a serious drag on regional financial institutions that provide a major source of consumer lending and small-business financing,” House said.

Ultimately, because Congress controls the appropriation of federal funds, any proposal to eliminate the FDIC or any other agency would require congressional action.

The future of the CFPB

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a much shorter track record than the FDIC. The watchdog group was created by Congress on the heels of the 2008 financial crisis to enforce consumer protection laws. 

Since then, the CFPB has issued roughly 35 regulatory reports, including a 2024 effort to insulate Americans from credit card late fees.

“The CFPB is a recent creation and U.S. markets clearly functioned well for decades without it,” said Columbia’s House. “But recent increases in market concentration and power for a handful of firms in several major economic sectors makes the CFPB a critical force in balancing business and consumer interests.”

Unlike the FDIC, the CFPB draws its funding from the Federal Reserve system. Because it does not rely on an annual appropriation from Congress, it is somewhat insulated from political pressure.

However, the Consumer Bankers Association says the agency has increasingly “advanced ideologically-driven policies,” particularly over the last four years.

“The incoming administration and Congress have a unique and important opportunity to institute meaningful reforms to the CFPB, in both the immediate and long-term, that can help transform the agency into the credible and durable regulator Americans deserve,” CBA President and CEO Lindsey Johnson said in an email.

The CBA also released a white paper Tuesday outlining recommended changes to the CFPB, which include repealing or rescinding recent rules and guidance.

Consumers, however, are largely in favor of the CFPB’s actions, according to advocates. The agency protects “hard-working people from predatory practices and discrimination in financial services,” Richard Dubois, executive director of the National Consumer Law Center, said in a statement.

If the CFPB is dismantled, that could mean consumers would see some of those protections overturned — and it’s unclear what government entity, if any, might pick up the agency’s efforts for new or emerging issues. The CFPB has been investigating digital payment apps and buy now, pay later services, for example.

But there may still be room for streamlining, Isaac said.

“Surely we are wasting a lot of money. Anything we can cut out that’s not necessary — that’s fat — needs to be cut,” he said.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Summer Fridays are increasingly rare as hybrid schedules gain steam

Published

on

People enjoy an unusually warm day in New York City as temperatures reach the low 80s on June 4, 2025 in New York City.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Summer Fridays may be considered the most desirable perk of the season, but fewer employers are on board with the shortened workweek.

Companies have steadily phased out summer Fridays — a policy that allows workers to take Friday afternoon off over the summer months — as work-from-home Fridays became more common, experts say.

“Pre-pandemic, summer Fridays were thing, but hybrid overall has taken over,” said Bill Driscoll, technology workplace trends expert at staffing and consulting firm Robert Half.

As more commuters settle into flexible working arrangements, fewer workers are making Friday trips at all compared to mid-week traffic patterns, according to the 2024 Global Traffic Scorecard released in January by INRIX Inc., a traffic-data analysis firm.

More from Personal Finance:
Job market is ‘trash’ right now, career coach says
Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabill
Average 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatility

Among employees, however, summer Fridays are the most valued summer benefit, followed by summer hours and flextime, according to a new survey by job site Monster, which polled more than 400 U.S. workers in June. 

“Summer Fridays are highly valued among workers because, for many, they represent more than just a few extra hours off,” said Scott Blumsack, Monster’s chief strategy and marketing officer. This perk “can go a long way in showing employees they’re valued, which can help prevent burnout, boost morale, and improve retention during a season when disengagement can run high.”

Still, 84% of workers are not offered any summer-specific benefits, even though 55% also said those benefits improve productivity, Monster found.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon blasts call for hybrid work, tells employees not to waste time on petition

Instead, hybrid — and to a lesser extent fully remote — job postings have increased in the last year as employers compete for talented job seekers who prioritize flexibility, according to research by Robert Half.

“Hybrid is a highly desirable situation right now and one that all levels of employees are looking for,” said Robert Half’s Driscoll.

More than five years after the pandemic, 72% of organizations also have return-to-office mandates, according to a separate hybrid work study by Cisco.

But, even with the mandates, employees are less likely to work in the office on Fridays, and much more likely to commute Monday to Thursday, Cisco found.

Employees value flexibility

As employee burnout and disengagement grows amid the wave of in-office mandates, work-life balance and flexible hours have become increasingly important, other studies show.

Corporate wellness company Exos, which works with large organizations such as JetBlue and Adobe, says burnout has gone down significantly among employees at firms that have made Fridays more flexible. Exos also tested out “You Do You Fridays” — and found significant benefits.

The more adaptable the schedule, the more positively employees view their company’s policies, the Cisco report also found.

With hybrid arrangements now common, workers put a high value on that flexibility — and 63% of all workers would even accept a pay cut for the option to work remotely more often, according to Cisco’s global survey of more than 21,500 employers and employees working full-time.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

How House Republicans’ ‘big beautiful’ bill may affect children

Published

on

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., pictured at a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda on May 22 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family’s finances.

Those proposals — including $1,000 investment “Trump Accounts” for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents.

Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate.

“What we’re trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News’ “This Week.”

Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance.

Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to “reductions in in-kind transfers,” it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

20 million children won’t get full $2,500 child tax credit

A member of MomsRising holds a sign on Capitol Hill to urge lawmakers to reject tax breaks for billionaires and protest cuts to Medicaid and child care on Capitol Hill on May 8 in Washington, D.C.

Brian Stukes | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

House Republicans have proposed increasing the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, a change that would go into effect starting with tax year 2025 and expire after 2028.

The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents’ income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can’t claim it if they don’t have a tax obligation.

Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family’s income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans’ plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said.

“It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,” Ruben said. “And that’s not a pro-family policy.”

Expect the reconciliation bill to be done 'at some point this summer': Punchbowl's Jake Sherman

A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans’ plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben.

In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said.

The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said.

New red tape for a low-income tax credit

House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify.

When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said.

More than 2 million children’s food assistance at risk

Momo Productions | Digitalvision | Getty Images

House Republican lawmakers’ plan includes almost $300 billion in proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, through 2034.

SNAP currently helps more than 42 million people in low-income families afford groceries, according to Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Children represent roughly 40% of SNAP participants, she said.

More than 7 million people may see their food assistance either substantially reduced or ended entirely due to the proposed cuts in the House reconciliation bill, estimates CBPP. Notably, that total includes more than 2 million children.

“We’re talking about the deepest cut to food assistance ever, potentially, if this bill becomes law,” Bergh said.

More from Personal Finance:
Experts weigh pros and cons of $1,000 Trump baby bonus
How Trump spending bill may curb low-income tax credit
Why millions would lose health insurance under House spending bill

Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week.

Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program’s history, Bergh said.

States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said.

While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children’s eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said.

Health coverage losses would adversely impact families

A protestor holds a sign on May 7, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

Leigh Vogel | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Families with children may face higher health care costs and reduced access to health care depending on how states react to federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute.

Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP.

In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

‘White collar’ jobs are down — but don’t blame AI yet, economists say

Published

on

Artificial intelligence makes people more valuable, according to PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer report.

Pixdeluxe | E+ | Getty Images

While there hasn’t been much hiring for so-called “white collar” jobs, the contraction is not because of artificial intelligence, economists say. At least, not yet.

Professional and business services, the industry that represents white-collar roles and middle and upper-class, educated workers, hasn’t experienced much hiring activity over the past two years.

In May, job growth in professional and business services declined to -0.4%, slightly down from -0.2% in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In other words, the sector has been losing job opportunities, according to Cory Stahle, an economist at job search site Indeed.

Meanwhile, industries like health care, construction and manufacturing have seen more job creation. In May, nearly half of the job growth came from health care, which added 62,000 jobs, the bureau found.

More from Personal Finance:
Here’s what’s happening with unemployed Americans — in five charts
The pros and cons of a $1,000 baby bonus in ‘Trump Accounts’
Social Security cost-of-living adjustment may be 2.5% in 2026

However, economists have said that the decline in white-collar job openings is more driven by structural issues in the economy rather than artificial intelligence technology taking people’s jobs. 

“We know for a fact that it’s not AI,” said Alí Bustamante, an economist and director at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank.

Indeed’s Stahle agreed: “This is more of an economic story and less of an AI disruption story, at least so far.”

Artificial intelligence is still in early stages

There are a few reasons AI is not behind the declining job creation in white-collar sectors, according to economists.

For one, the decline in job creation has been happening for years, Bustamante said. In that timeframe, AI technology “was pretty awful,” he said.

What’s more, the technology is even now still in early stages, to the point where the software cannot execute key skills without human intervention, said Stahle.

Amazon's big bet on 'physical AI'

A 2024 report by Indeed researchers found that of the more than 2,800 unique work skills identified, none are “very likely” to be replaced by generative artificial intelligence. GenAI creates content like text or images based on existing data.

Across five scenarios — “very unlikely,” “unlikely,” “possible,” “likely” and “very likely” — about 68.7% of skills were either “very unlikely” or “unlikely” to be replaced by GenAI technology, the site found. 

“We might get to a point where they do, but right now, that’s not necessarily looking like it’s a big factor,” Stahle said. 

‘Jobs are going to transform’

A separate report by the World Economic Forum in January forecasts that by 2030, the new technology will create 170 million new jobs, or 14% of the current total employment.

However, that growth could be offset by the decline in existing roles. The report cites that about 92 million jobs, or 8% of the current total employment, could be displaced by AI technology.

For knowledge-based workers whose skills may overlap with AI, consider investing in developing skills on how to use AI technology to stay ahead, Stahle said.

Continue Reading

Trending