Bank customers who overdraw their accounts at the largest U.S. financial institutions will keep paying fees far above $5 after Congress and the White House nullified the only federal rule that would have imposed such a cap. President Trump signed the resolution on May 9, 2025, turning it into Public Law 119-10 and ending a regulatory effort the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had framed as a way to save Americans billions of dollars a year in overdraft charges.
What the repeal means for millions of checking-account holders
The CFPB finalized its overdraft rule in December 2024, requiring banks with more than $10 billion in assets to treat most overdraft credit like other lending products unless the fee met a “small amount” standard, widely described as a $5 cap. That rule, published as the agency’s final overdraft regulation for very large institutions, now has no force or effect, according to the CFPB’s own compliance page. Existing fee structures at the country’s biggest banks remain unchanged, and no federal ceiling on overdraft charges is in place.
The practical question is whether large banks will treat the repeal as a green light to raise overdraft revenue. One testable expectation: if overdraft-fee income at institutions above the $10 billion threshold climbs by 15 percent or more within 18 months without a matching rise in account closures or formal complaints, the repeal will have delivered a measurable windfall. Quarterly call-report filings and the CFPB’s complaint database would show the trend. No primary-source data on post-repeal fee changes or bank revenue projections exists yet, so that signal will take time to emerge.
In the meantime, individual customers face the same pricing environment they did before the rule was finalized. Banks can generally continue charging flat overdraft fees that often exceed the size of the underlying transaction, so a $7 coffee can still trigger a $30 or $35 charge if the account balance is slightly negative. The CFPB’s now-voided framework would have pushed those institutions either to treat overdrafts as regulated credit lines with transparent pricing or to keep any flat fee within the narrow “small amount” safe harbor.
How the Congressional Review Act blocked a second chance
Congress used the Congressional Review Act to pass S.J.Res. 18, a joint resolution disapproving the CFPB’s overdraft lending rule. The resolution cleared both chambers and reached the president’s desk, where it was signed into law. A companion version of the measure, detailed in the official legislative text, set out the statutory language that ultimately rescinded the rule.
The Government Accountability Office had classified the underlying CFPB rule as a “major rule” under report B-337003, a designation that triggered the CRA review window and ensured Congress had a formal opportunity to overturn it before it fully took effect. Lawmakers used that process to move quickly once the rule was finalized, scheduling votes before banks were required to reprogram systems, rewrite disclosures, or redesign overdraft products.
Senate Banking Committee leaders Tim Scott and French Hill introduced the CRA resolutions and argued the cap would have restricted access to overdraft services that account holders rely on for short-term liquidity. Supporters of the repeal framed the CFPB’s approach as heavy-handed price control that could lead banks to drop overdraft coverage altogether, pushing some customers toward costlier alternatives such as payday loans or check-cashing outlets.
The CRA carries a lasting consequence beyond the immediate repeal: according to a Congressional Research Service analysis, the CFPB generally cannot reissue a “substantially the same” rule unless Congress passes new legislation authorizing it. That prohibition makes a future administrative fix extremely unlikely under any president without fresh statutory authority, effectively locking in the current regulatory landscape for large-bank overdraft fees.
Open questions after the overdraft cap’s defeat
Several gaps in the public record leave the full impact of this repeal uncertain. No updated analysis from the Congressional Budget Office or GAO quantifies how much additional revenue large banks stand to collect now that the cap is off the table. No major bank or industry trade group has publicly disclosed plans to adjust overdraft pricing in response. And no recent consumer survey data measures how overdraft incidence or complaint volumes have shifted since the signing.
Those unknowns will shape the policy debate going forward. If data show overdraft revenues rising sharply while complaint rates remain flat, opponents of the CFPB’s rule are likely to argue that consumers are tolerating higher fees in exchange for continued access to instant overdraft coverage. If, instead, complaints spike or low-balance customers migrate away from large banks, consumer advocates may press Congress for a statutory cap to replace the voided regulation.
For checking-account holders at large banks, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: there is no new federal protection limiting how much a bank can charge when an account goes negative, and the agency that tried to impose such a limit is effectively barred from trying again on its own. Until Congress acts, any relief from high overdraft fees will have to come from market pressure, voluntary bank policy changes, or state-level measures rather than from a nationwide regulatory cap.
Free tool for readers: You check your blood pressure — when did you last check your retirement? You can get your free Retirement Safety Score in about five minutes, with no sign-up to see it.
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
