CFPB’s Enforcement Chief Resigns

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s current top enforcement official, Michael G. Salemi, has resigned, saying there is “no path” to an effective enforcement program under the Trump administration’s current approach to the agency.​

What happened

Michael Salemi, the CFPB’s principal deputy enforcement director and de facto enforcement chief, announced his resignation on December 4, 2025 in a meeting with the bureau’s enforcement division. He is at least the third person to lead CFPB enforcement to step down this year, following earlier departures including acting enforcement director Cara Petersen.​

Why he resigned

Salemi has indicated that recent decisions by CFPB leadership and the Trump administration have effectively frozen most enforcement and investigative work at the agency. He wrote to staff that, given the current plans for the bureau’s structure and funding, he sees “no path to an effective future enforcement program at the Bureau.”​

Role of Trump administration and CFPB leadership

Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought has sharply curtailed new investigations and lawsuits, with the bureau bringing almost no new enforcement cases in 2025. Vought has also advanced a controversial funding theory that would stop the CFPB from requesting money from the Federal Reserve, raising the prospect of shutting down much of the bureau’s operations and shifting remaining litigation to the Justice Department.​

Broader pattern of resignations

Salemi’s departure continues a series of enforcement-related resignations at the CFPB this year, including those of former enforcement chief Eric Halperin and acting director Cara Petersen, who also cited the dismantling of the agency’s enforcement capabilities. These exits reflect deep internal concern that large staff cuts, dropped cases, and canceled settlements are leaving consumers with significantly weaker protections.​

Implications for consumers and industry

With the enforcement division in flux and many cases paused or transferred, financial firms may face less risk of CFPB-led enforcement actions in the near term. Consumer advocates and some legal analysts warn that this could reduce accountability for abusive practices, while industry groups may view the shift as easing regulatory pressure.​

How will this resignation affect ongoing CFPB investigations

Ongoing CFPB enforcement work is expected to slow further, with most active court cases shifting to the Justice Department while many open investigations remain in limbo or move forward more selectively.​

Active lawsuits and court cases

• The CFPB has already decided that its remaining enforcement lawsuits and other pending litigation will be transferred to the Department of Justice as it anticipates running out of funds in 2026. DOJ attorneys will take over the small portfolio of active enforcement actions and regulatory challenges, including appellate matters.​

• This transfer means companies in active litigation should expect new government lawyers and potentially different negotiation strategies, timelines, and settlement postures.​

Open and future investigations

• Internal guidance indicates that open investigations will technically stay with the CFPB for now, but the division is already much smaller, with more than 100 enforcement staff told to expect furloughs. With Salemi gone and no clear replacement, decisions about which probes to advance, pause, or close will likely become slower and more inconsistent.​

• Some previously dormant matters were recently cleared to restart, but experts view that as limited and overshadowed by the broader funding and staffing cuts, suggesting fewer new cases and narrower scopes going forward.​

Practical impact for firms and consumers

• For financial institutions under investigation, the resignation adds uncertainty: timelines may stretch, and there is an increased chance matters are delayed, closed quietly, or handed off piecemeal to DOJ or state regulators. At the same time, the risk of aggressive, CFPB-led enforcement actions in the near term appears lower than in prior years.​

• Consumer advocates warn that the combination of leadership churn, litigation transfers, and an anticipated shutdown of normal operations will weaken federal oversight of abusive practices unless DOJ, state attorneys general, or private class actions step in to fill the gap.