Small Businesses Get More Rule Transparency

Summary#

The Making the CFPB Accountable to Small Businesses Act of 2025 is a bill that would amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Its stated goal is to impose additional requirements on agencies when they analyze how proposed rules affect small entities. The bill is introduced and is not law; whether it will pass is uncertain.

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) would have to consider proposed rules’ impact on small entities as part of its rulemaking analysis.
  • When a covered agency does not adopt specified alternatives in its initial analysis, it would have to give a detailed, fact-based, policy-based and legal explanation for why small entities’ size and resources should not affect the rule.
  • A covered agency’s final analysis would have to describe steps it took to minimize any additional cost of credit for small entities.
  • If the agency adopts no significant alternatives for small entities, its final analysis would also have to give a detailed explanation of why their size and resources should not affect the rule.

What it means for you#

  • Small businesses and other small entities: Agencies would have to address effects on small entities in the analyses described in the bill. The bill does not require an agency to adopt an alternative or change its rule.
  • CFPB: It would have to include small-entity impact in its rulemaking considerations. The bill does not set out a new application, review or appeals process.
  • Other covered agencies: They would face the added analysis and explanation duties in the bill. Which agencies qualify depends on a definition in the Regulatory Flexibility Act; that Act was not supplied, so I could not verify its scope against current law.
  • Consumers and the public: The bill does not directly change consumer rights, create a benefit, or set a fee or fine.

Money#

No cost estimate or funding figure appears in the supplied material. No publicly available information.

  • The bill adds analysis and documentation duties for agencies, but does not provide money for staff or other costs.
  • The bill does not set fees, fines, or a direct payment to small entities.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “small entities” or “significant alternatives”; the existing legal definitions and rules were not supplied, so I could not verify them.
  • The bill does not say what evidence or standard an agency must use to decide that small entities’ size and resources should have no bearing on a rule.
  • It does not require agencies to choose an alternative, or say how the new duties interact with other rulemaking requirements.
  • The text gives no effective date or estimate of the cost of the added work.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make agencies explain more clearly how proposed rules affect small entities.
  • Requiring agencies to give detailed reasons when they reject specified alternatives could make those decisions easier to examine.
  • Requiring a description of steps taken to minimize added credit costs could make those steps more visible, without requiring a particular rule outcome.

Case against#

  • The bill adds analysis and documentation work, but provides no estimate of the resulting public cost.
  • It requires explanations when alternatives are not adopted, but does not require agencies to adopt an alternative or otherwise change a rule.
  • The bill does not explain how agencies should measure added credit costs or decide when small entities’ size and resources should matter.