Connect with us

Business

36 Hours After Russell Vought Took Over Consumer Bureau, He Shut Its Operations

Published

on

36 Hours After Russell Vought Took Over Consumer Bureau, He Shut Its Operations

The day before Linda Wetzel closed on her retirement home in Southport, N.C., in 2012 — a cozy place where she could open the windows at night and catch an ocean breeze — the bank making the loan surprised her with a fee she hadn’t expected. Ms. Wetzel scoured her mortgage paperwork and couldn’t find the charge disclosed anywhere.

Ms. Wetzel made the payment and then filed an online complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bank quickly opened an investigation, and a month later, it sent her a $5,600 check.

“My first thought was ‘thank you.’ I was in tears,” she recalled. “That money was a year or two of savings on my mortgage. It was my little nest egg.”

Ms. Wetzel’s refund is a tiny piece of the work the bureau has done since it was created in 2011. It has clawed back $21 billion for consumers. It slashed overdraft fees, reformed the student loan servicing market, transformed mortgage lending rules and forced banks and money transmitters to compensate fraud victims.

It may no longer be able to carry out that work.

Advertisement

President Trump on Friday appointed Russell Vought, who was confirmed a day earlier to lead the Office of Management and Budget, as the agency’s acting director. Mr. Vought was an author of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for upending the federal government that called for significant changes, including abolishing the consumer bureau.

In less than 36 hours, Mr. Vought threw the agency into chaos. On Saturday, he ordered the bureau’s 1,700 employees to stop nearly all their work and announced plans to cut off the agency’s funding. Then on Sunday, he closed the bureau’s headquarters for the coming week. Workers who tried to retrieve their laptops from the office were turned away, employees said.

The bureau “has been a woke & weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals for a long time,” Mr. Vought wrote Sunday on X. “This must end.”

Created by Congress in the aftermath of the housing crisis that set off the Great Recession, the consumer bureau became one of Wall Street’s most feared regulators, with the power to issue new rules — and penalize companies for breaking them — around mortgages, credit cards, student loans, credit reporting and other areas that affect the financial lives of millions of Americans.

The bureau’s actions made it a lightning rod for criticism from banks and Republican lawmakers — and put it squarely in the Trump administration’s cross hairs.

Advertisement

The agency’s foes have long called for its elimination, which only Congress has the power to do. Elon Musk, the billionaire leader of a government efficiency team that has created havoc throughout the federal government, posted “CFPB RIP” on his social media platform X on Friday. A few hours earlier, his associates had gained access to the consumer bureau’s headquarters and computer systems.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the bureau’s employees, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Vought on Sunday night. Granting Mr. Musk’s team access to employee records violated the Privacy Act, the 1974 law regulating how the government handles individuals’ personal information, the union said in its complaint, which was filed in federal court in Washington.

Agency workers fear their employment data could be used for online harassment or “to blackmail, threaten or intimidate them,” the complaint said. Workers are also concerned about disclosure of their personal health or financial details, the union added.

The union filed a second lawsuit against the acting director over his efforts to freeze the agency’s work. Mr. Vought’s orders illegally infringe, the union said, on “Congress’s authority to set and fund the missions” of the consumer bureau.

Representatives of the consumer bureau and the budget office did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

During the first Trump administration, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, lawmakers failed to amass enough votes to abolish the agency. Some have indicated that they would like to try again. Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, called the bureau a “rogue agency” on Sunday on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

“It’s been basically a reckless agency that’s been allowed to go way beyond any mandate that I think was originally intended,” Mr. Hagerty said. “It’s time to rein it in.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who fought for the agency’s creation and who describes herself as its “mom” on her X biography, has spent the last decade battling attempts to dismantle the consumer bureau.

“President Trump campaigned on helping working families, but Russ Vought just told Wall Street that it’s open season to scam families,” she said Sunday in a written statement. “What Vought is doing is illegal and dangerous, and we will fight back.”

Many of the agency’s actions have directly affected Americans’ pocketbooks. Its rules overhauled the mortgage market, curbing the kinds of subprime loans that set off the housing crisis. Pressure from the bureau led major banks to reduce or eliminate their overdraft fees, and a recently finalized rule would cap most of those fees at $5.

Advertisement

The agency recently adopted rules to eliminate medical debt from credit reports and limit most credit card late fees to $8 or less per month, but lawsuits have delayed those rules from taking effect.

“It’s striking to me that people’s economic dissatisfaction created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and people’s economic dissatisfaction created Trump,” said Shayak Sarkar, a law professor at University of California, Davis.

Mr. Trump’s team has given priority to attacks on specific agencies — like U.S. Agency for International Development and the consumer bureau — that serve vulnerable populations, Mr. Sarkar said, while throwing “a lot of federal support and cheering” at agencies like Immigration Customs and Enforcement, which has intensified its immigration crackdowns.

While the bureau cannot be shuttered without congressional action, its director has the power to radically alter its approach. During Mr. Trump’s first term, he appointed Mick Mulvaney — then the director of the budget office Mr. Vought now leads — as the bureau’s acting director. Mr. Mulvaney called the agency a “joke” in “a sick, sad kind of way” and sharply curtailed its enforcement actions and rule making work.

The agency’s powers have swung like a pendulum. It moved aggressively when Democrats held the White House but pulled back during Mr. Trump’s first term. Mr. Mulvaney and his Trump-appointed successor, Kathleen Kraninger, put the bureau into a kind of hibernation, gutting rules that would have wiped out much of the payday lending market and slashing the bureau’s enforcement actions.

Advertisement

But several current agency employees, who spoke confidentially for fear of retribution, said Mr. Vought’s order on Saturday stretched beyond what occurred during the last Trump administration.

His instruction to “cease all supervision and examination activity” caused particular alarm. While other federal agencies — including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — also oversee banks, the consumer bureau is the sole regulator for nonbank lenders. Those companies hold a large share of the $13 trillion mortgage market.

Mr. Vought also said he intended to cut off the consumer bureau’s funding, which comes directly from the Federal Reserve, outside the usual congressional appropriations process. The agency’s budget for the 2025 fiscal year calls for around $800 million in annual spending, and the Fed transferred $245 million to the bureau in January to fulfill its latest request.

Mr. Vought wrote on X that he had told the Fed that the bureau would not be taking its next funding draw “because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties.”

Adam Levitin, a professor at Georgetown Law who specializes in financial regulation, said on Sunday that Mr. Vought’s orders might be illegal. Some of the federal laws that govern the consumer bureau order it to supervise specific entities, and that work does not appear to be discretionary, he said.

Advertisement

The acting director “has the ability to seriously hobble the C.F.P.B. through a bunch of slow bleeds, but he’s trying to skip all the necessary steps and just go for an immediate death blow,” Mr. Levitin said. “He may not have the legal ability to actually do that, but I’m not sure how much that’s going to matter. A lot of the way the Trump administration has been dealing with regulatory agencies is just kind of a blitzkrieg tactic, where a key component is creating fear, uncertainty and chaos.”

A rally on Saturday outside the bureau’s headquarters, organized by its staff union, drew a few hundred participants. A Maryland resident, who asked that her name be withheld for fear of retribution from Mr. Trump’s allies, attended with her husband, a federal worker, to support the agency’s employees.

“I don’t think people understand what the C.F.P.B. does,” she said. “The administration said they’re closing it because of fraud, but the bureau’s literal job is to protect people from fraud and junk fees and predatory lenders.”

Ms. Wetzel, the retiree who used her $5,600 refund to replace the floors in her new home, said the quick action on her complaint made her feel empowered.

“It was such a relief to have the government saying what the bank did was wrong, that this is not the rule of law,” she said.

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending