New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for being highly critical of former President Trump, has joined forces with 23 other state attorneys general to submit a legal document supporting a lawsuit to oppose the Trump administration’s efforts to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Letitia James and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong were part of a group of 23 attorneys general who filed a brief in U.S. District Court in Maryland to challenge the actions of the Trump Administration and Elon Musk in dismantling the CFPB. In their joint amicus brief, James and her counterparts argued that disbanding the CFPB would harm consumers and disrupt the enforcement of federal consumer protection laws.
The brief was filed in support of a lawsuit by the mayor and City of Baltimore to keep the CFPB open.
The rhetoric from Letitia James comes straight from the Bernie Sanders playbook:
In a statement, Letitia James expressed her concerns: “Closing down the CFPB would negatively impact ordinary individuals while benefiting wealthy individuals like Elon Musk and his associates. The sole purpose of abolishing this oversight agency seems to be shielding wrongdoers. Given the current economic challenges faced by working families, who are struggling to cope with increasing prices, the role of the CFPB in safeguarding consumer interests is crucial. My office, along with other states, is leading this effort to safeguard an agency that has played a vital role in ensuring our protection.”
It’s belaboring the obvious that the nation managed to survive until 2011 with no CFPB in place. That bureau, which we might note has zero constitutional authorization to even exist, has a history of rather arbitrary decisions. Last November, shortly after President Trump won his historic re-election, Tech entrepreneur Marc Andreesen appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and described some of CFPBs actions:
Marc Andreesen on Elizabeth Warrens agency CFPB which has spent the last 4 years terrorizing people via debanking. This is going to be a 3 part thread. pic.twitter.com/M8lpCLxsk5
— Paul (@WomanDefiner) November 26, 2024
Like they did to Kanye, my partner Ben’s father has been debanked. (Really?) We had an employee. (For what?) For having the wrong politics, for saying unacceptable things. Under current banking regulations… Okay, here’s a great thing. Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there’s now a category called a politically exposed person, PEP. If you are a PEP, you are required by financial regulators to kick them out of your bank. (What?) You’re not allowed to have them.
Designating someone a “politically exposed person” in banking regulations, you have to admit, has an almost Soviet ring to it.
