JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon gestures as he speaks during the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee oversight hearing on Wall Street firms, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 6, 2023.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
Buried in a roughly 200-page quarterly filing from JPMorgan Chase last month were eight words that underscore how contentious the bank’s relationship with the government has become.
The lender disclosed that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could punish JPMorgan for its role in Zelle, the giant peer-to-peer digital payments network. The bank is accused of failing to kick criminal accounts off its platform and failing to compensate some scam victims, according to people who declined to be identified speaking about an ongoing investigation.
In response, JPMorgan issued a thinly veiled threat: “The firm is evaluating next steps, including litigation.”
The prospect of a bank suing its regulator would’ve been unheard of in an earlier era, according to policy experts, mostly because corporations used to fear provoking their overseers. That was especially the case for the American banking industry, which needed hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts to survive after irresponsible lending and trading activities caused the 2008 financial crisis, those experts say.
But a combination of factors in the intervening years has created an environment where banks and their regulators have never been farther apart.
Trade groups say that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, banks became easy targets for populist attacks from Democrat-led regulatory agencies. Those on the side of regulators point out that banks and their lobbyists increasingly lean on courts in Republican-dominated districts to fend off reform and protect billions of dollars in fees at the expense of consumers.
“If you go back 15 or 20 years, the view was it’s not particularly smart to antagonize your regulator, that litigating all this stuff is just kicking the hornet’s nest,” said Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy at Wolfe Research.
“The disparity between how ambitious [President Joe] Biden’s regulators have been and how conservative the courts are, at least a subset of the courts, is historically wide,” Marcus said. “That’s created so many opportunities for successful industry litigation against regulatory proposals.”
Assault on fees
Those forces collided this year, which started out as one of the most consequential for bank regulation since the post-2008 reforms that curbed Wall Street risk-taking, introduced annual stress tests and created the industry’s lead antagonist, the CFPB.
In the final months of the Biden administration, efforts from a half-dozen government agencies were meant to slash fees on credit card late payments, debit transactions and overdrafts. The industry’s biggest threat was the Basel Endgame, a sweeping proposal to force big banks to hold tens of billions of dollars more in capital for activities like trading and lending.
“The industry is facing an onslaught of regulatory and potential legislative change,” Marianne Lake, head of JPMorgan’s consumer bank, warned investors in May.
JPMorgan’s disclosure about the CFPB probe into Zelle comes after years of grilling by Democrat lawmakers over financial crimes on the platform. Zelle was launched in 2017 by a bank-owned firm called Early Warning Services in response to the threat from peer-to-peer networks including PayPal.
The vast majority of Zelle activity is uneventful; of the $806 billion that flowed across the network last year, only $166 million in transactions was disputed as fraud by customers of JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, the three biggest players on the platform.
But the three banks collectively reimbursed just 38% of those claims, according to a July Senate report that looked at disputed unauthorized transactions.
Banks are typically on the hook to reimburse fraudulent Zelle payments that the customer didn’t give permission for, but usually don’t refund losses if the customer is duped into authorizing the payment by a scammer, according to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
A JPMorgan payments executive told lawmakers in July that the bank actually reimburses 100% of unauthorized transactions; the discrepancy in the Senate report’s findings is because bank personnel often determine that customers have authorized the transactions.
Amid the scrutiny, the bank began warning Zelle users on the Chase app to “Stay safe from scams” and added disclosures that customers won’t likely be refunded for bogus transactions.
JPMorgan declined to comment for this article.
Dimon in front
The company, which has grown to become the largest and most profitable American bank in history under CEO Jamie Dimon, is at the fore of several other skirmishes with regulators.
Thanks to his reputation guiding JPMorgan through the 2008 crisis and last year’s regional banking upheaval, Dimon may be one of few CEOs with the standing to openly criticize regulators. That was highlighted this year when Dimon led a campaign, both public and behind closed doors, to weaken the Basel proposal.
In May, at JPMorgan’s investor day, Dimon’s deputies made the case that Basel and other regulations would end up harming consumers instead of protecting them.
The cumulative effect of pending regulation would boost the cost of mortgages by at least $500 a year and credit card rates by 2%; it would also force banks to charge two-thirds of consumers for checking accounts, according to JPMorgan.
The message: banks won’t just eat the extra costs from regulation, but instead pass them on to consumers.
While all of these battles are ongoing, the financial industry has racked up several victories so far.
Some contend the threat of litigation helped convince the Federal Reserve to offer a new Basel Endgame proposal this month that roughly cuts in half the extra capital that the largest institutions would be forced to hold, among other industry-friendly changes.
It’s not even clear if the watered-down version of the proposal, a long-in-the-making response to the 2008 crisis, will ever be implemented because it won’t be finalized until well after U.S. elections.
If Republican candidate Donald Trump wins, the rules might be further weakened or killed outright, and even under a Kamala Harris administration, the industry could fight the regulation in court.
That’s been banks’ approach to the CFPB credit card rule, which aimed to cap late fees at $8 per incident and was set to go into effect in May.
A last-ditch effort from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and bank trade groups successfully delayed its implementation when Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas sided with the industry, granting a freeze of the rule.
‘Venue shopping’
A key playbook for banks has been to file cases in conservative jurisdictions where they are likely to prevail, according to Lori Yue, a Columbia Business School associate professor who has studied the interplay between corporations and the judicial system.
The Northern District of Texas feeds into the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is “well-known for its friendliness to industry lawsuits against regulators,” Yue said.
“Venue-shopping like this has become well-established corporate strategy,” Yue said. “The financial industry has been particularly active this year in suing regulators.”
Since 2017, nearly two-thirds of the lawsuits filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging federal regulations have been in courts under the 5th Circuit, according to an analysis by Accountable US.
Industries dominated by a few large players — from banks to airlines, pharmaceutical companies and energy firms — tend to have well-funded trade organizations that are more likely to resist regulators, Yue added.
The polarized environment, where weakened federal agencies are undermined by conservative courts, ultimately preserves the advantages of the largest corporations, according to Brian Graham, co-founder of bank consulting firm Klaros.
“It’s really bad in the long run, because it locks in place whatever the regulations have been, while the reality is that the world is changing,” Graham said. “It’s what happens when you can’t adopt new regulations because you’re terrified that you’ll get sued.”
— With data visualizations by CNBC’s Gabriel Cortes.
US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell holds a press conference after the Monetary Policy Committee meeting, at the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC on March 19, 2025.
Roberto Schmidt | Afp | Getty Images
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Friday that he expects President Donald Trump’s tariffs to raise inflation and lower growth, and indicated that the central bank won’t move on interest rates until it gets a clearer picture on the ultimate impacts.
In a speech delivered before business journalists in Arlington, Va., Powell said the Fed faces a “highly uncertain outlook” because of the new reciprocal levies the president announced Wednesday.
Though he said the economy currently looks strong, he stressed the threat that tariffs pose and indicated that the Fed will be focused on keeping inflation in check.
“Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem,” Powell said in prepared remarks. “We are well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance. It is too soon to say what will be the appropriate path for monetary policy.”
The remarks came shortly after Trump called on Powell to “stop playing politics” and cut interest rates because inflation is down.
There’s been a torrent of selling on Wall Street following the Trump announcement of 10% across-the-board tariffs, along with a menu of reciprocal charges that are much higher for many key trading partners.
Powell noted that the announced tariffs were “significantly larger than expected.”
“The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth,” he said. “The size and duration of these effects remain uncertain.”
Focused on inflation
While Powell was circumspect about how the Fed will react to the changes, markets are pricing in an aggressive set of interest rate cuts starting in June, with a rising likelihood that the central bank will slice at least a full percentage point off its key borrowing rate by the end of the year, according to CME Group data.
However, the Fed is charged with keeping inflation anchored with full employment.
Powell stressed that meeting the inflation side of its mandate will require keeping inflation expectations in check, something that might not be easy to do with Trump lobbing tariffs at U.S. trading partners, some of whom already have announced retaliatory measures.
A greater focus on inflation also would be likely to deter the Fed from easing policy until it assesses what longer-term impact tariffs will have on prices. Typically, policymakers view tariffs as just a temporary rise in prices and not a fundamental inflation driver, but the broad nature of Trump’s move could change that perspective.
“While tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent,” Powell said. “Avoiding that outcome would depend on keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored, on the size of the effects, and on how long it takes for them to pass through fully to prices.”
Core inflation ran at a 2.8% annual rate in February, part of a general moderating pattern that is nonetheless still well above the Fed’s 2% target.
In spite of the elevated anxiety over tariffs, Powell said the economy for now “is still in a good place,” with a solid labor market. However, he mentioned recent consumer surveys showing rising concerns about inflation and dimming expectations for future growth, pointing out that longer-term inflation expectations are still in line with the Fed’s objectives.
Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE
Join us at the New York Stock Exchange! Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.
In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.
Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!
[The stream is slated to start at 11:25 p.m. ET. Please refresh the page if you do not see a player above at that time.]
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks Friday to the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing conference in Arlington, Va.
The central bank leader’s appearance, including prepared remarks and a question and answer session after, comes at a time of heightened market uncertainty regarding President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs against U.S. trading partners.
In March, the Fed voted to hold its benchmark interest rate steady while noting the issues over trade policy. Other Fed officials in recent days have expressed support for staying in a holding pattern until policy issues become clearer, though markets are pricing in four or five cuts this year.
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during morning trading on April 03, 2025 in New York City.
Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images
Traders are now betting the Federal Reserve will cut at least four times this year, amid fears Trump’s tariffs could tip the U.S. into a recession.
Odds of five quarter-point cuts coming this year jumped to 37.9%, up from 18.3% one day prior, according to data from the CME Group on Friday morning. That would put the federal funds rate to 3.00% to 3.25%, down from 4.25% to 4.50% where it has been since December.
Markets are also pricing in a roughly 32% chance the federal funds rate will fall to 3.25% to 3.50%, which would mean four quarter-point cuts from the Fed.
At the same time, the likelihood of a half-percentage point cut coming in June also jumped, to 43.8% from 15.9% previously.
The implied odds the Federal Reserve will cut aggressively rose, after Trump’s tariffs raised fears of a global trade war, and hurt economists’ forecasts for both growth and inflation. Investors are expecting that a slowdown in economic growth could spur the Fed to lower rates in a bid to avoid a recession.
However, many worry the Fed has a tough road ahead of them, as the central bank would have to cut rates in an environment where inflation has yet to go down to its 2% target. If implemented, the tariffs are expected to drive core inflation north of 3%, possibly even as high as 5% according to some forecasts.
On Friday, Roger W. Ferguson, economist and former Fed vice chair, told CNBC the Fed may not cut at all this year, saying the central bank has to worry about the inflation part of its mandate.
— CNBC’s Jeff Cox contributed to this report.
Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE
Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!|
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange. In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.
Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!