Nonprofit organizations say the Trump administration has dramatically scaled back fair lending oversight — and they’re stepping in to fill the void.
In its latest move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) this week announced the rescission of disparate-impact liability from its Title VI regulations, while other parts of the federal government have reduced enforcement of fair lending issues.
But according to Jesse Van Tol, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), “federal abdication of oversight does not mean nobody is watching.”
The NCRC announced on Wednesday a tip line for anyone who believes fair lending laws have been violated, saying it has the expertise to investigate and the resources to take action when warranted.
Individuals can submit confidential complaints regarding potential violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Housing Act, redlining, or unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices.
“Advocacy organizations have a key role to play in filling the gaps this administration is creating,” Van Tol said. “Industry actors need to understand that while public servants are being prevented from fulfilling their duty, there are plenty of researchers and civil rights champions keeping close tabs.”
Van Tol said in a statement that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has reportedly stopped fair lending examinations, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has reversed enforcement actions related to discrimination and deceptive practices.
He also cited staffing cuts and political interference affecting professional practices at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Enforcement analysis
Wolters Kluwer’s regulatory violations intelligence index shows that total enforcement actions against financial services firms fell 37% between the final six months of 2024 and the first six months of 2025.
Across the index’s categories — competition, consumer protection and financial — there were 99 enforcement actions in the first half of 2025 under the Trump administration compared to 158 in the prior six-month period under the Biden administration.
In consumer protection–related violations, actions declined to 60 in the first half of 2025, down from 77 in the second half of 2024.
“We’re witnessing a fundamental transformation in federal enforcement priorities,” Chuck Ross, leader of Wolters Kluwer’s compliance management program, said in a statement. “While deregulation was anticipated under the new administration, the velocity and magnitude of this enforcement pullback exceeds even the most aggressive predictions.”
The report cites efforts to roll back parts of the 2010 Dodd–Frank Act and dismantle the CFPB. It also notes streamlined enforcement activity across federal agencies — most notably at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFPB — where officials have focused on select high-profile misconduct cases rather than broader regulatory actions.
At the DOJ, Attorney General Pamela Bondi said the move to eliminate disparate-impact liability under Title VI corrects a decades-long practice that “undermined the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law.”
“No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon added that the prior disparate-impact regulations “encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination.”
“Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.”
Critics say the shift weakens protections against discriminatory outcomes, even without explicit intent. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, called the move “profoundly misguided,” saying it increases compliance uncertainty and litigation risk.
“Few actors openly declare discriminatory intent. In most circumstances, the only reliable way to detect and prevent discrimination is to examine outcomes and patterns. Rolling back disparate impact tools does not end discrimination — it obscures it. We have made enormous progress over the past 50 years, but discrimination persists, and enforcement matters,” Dworkin said.
English