White House Says CFPB’s ‘Regulatory Burden’ Cost Consumers Billions

The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report from the Trump White House claiming CFPB regulation has raised borrowing costs and reduced credit access, with an estimated consumer cost of $237–$369 billion since 2011.

What the White House is claiming

• The CEA estimates that CFPB rules have increased borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards by a combined $222–$350 billion from 2011–2024, or roughly $\$160–\$253$ per borrower over the period.

• By product, they estimate higher costs of:

  • Mortgages: $116–$183 billion total, about $1,100–$1,700 per originated loan.

  • Auto loans: $32–$51 billion, about $91–$143 per loan.

  • Credit cards: $74–$116 billion, about $80–$126 per loan.

• The report argues that higher compliance and liability costs from CFPB rules are passed through to consumers in pricing and product availability.

• It also assigns:

  • About $21 billion in cumulative paperwork/compliance “burden” costs to businesses (29 million hours annually, roughly 14,100 FTEs).

  • About $13+ billion in fiscal costs, combining $8.9 billion in Fed transfers to CFPB and a modeled $4.4 billion in “marginal excess tax burden.”

• Adding these components, the CEA states that “since 2011, the CFPB has cost consumers between $237 billion to $369 billion, including fiscal costs, increased borrowing expenses, and reduced originations.”

Key figures at a glance

Methodology and assumptions

• The analysis is built around an econometric estimate of how certain CFPB rules affected mortgage pricing and originations, then extrapolates that effect to auto and credit cards using complaint data as a proxy for “regulatory intensity.”

• It treats increased interest costs and reduced originations as welfare losses to consumers (deadweight loss of $1.5–$5.7 billion from fewer loans originated).

• Paperwork burden is valued by multiplying estimated hours spent on CFPB-related reporting (29+ million hours annually) by a labor cost rate.

• Fiscal costs are framed as the opportunity cost of CFPB’s Fed funding: transfers that could have gone to Treasury and thus supposedly required less tax revenue (hence the “marginal excess tax burden”).

Criticism and counter-claims

• Democrats and consumer advocates argue the CEA paper ignores consumer restitution and deterrence benefits, and relies on contestable modeling choices.

• A report from Senate Banking Committee Democrats and allies estimates that weakening the CFPB under Trump – including overturning Biden-era rules and dropping enforcement actions – has itself cost consumers up to $19 billion, e.g., from higher overdraft and late fees and foregone relief in enforcement cases.

• They emphasize the CFPB’s own reporting that it has delivered around $21 billion in relief to consumers through enforcement and supervisory actions, and argue the CEA’s focus on gross cost omits these benefits and broader market-discipline effects.

• National Consumer Law Center and others call the report an ideologically driven attack aimed at justifying efforts to gut or shut down the Bureau, particularly given ongoing efforts by Acting Director Russell Vought to dismantle it.

How to read this as a practitioner

• The “CFPB cost consumers billions” line is not an audited fiscal tally; it is an economic model with strong assumptions about pass-through, counterfactual product supply, and the valuation of regulatory frictions.

• It will, however, be a useful talking point for industry and CFPB critics in litigation, rulemaking comment letters, and Hill oversight hearings; you should expect to see the $237–$369 billion range and per-loan figures quoted heavily.

• On the other side, expect continued emphasis from CFPB defenders on:

  • The $21B+ in direct relief plus unquantified deterrence benefits.

  • The Warren/GAO-aligned estimate that Trump-era rollbacks themselves cost consumers roughly $19B by weakening protections.

If you tell me whether you want to dig into the technical underpinnings (e.g., how they scaled mortgage estimates to autos/credit cards, or implications for specific product lines), I can walk through the modeling choices in more detail.