American FIRST Act of 2025
Introduced December 10, 2025 · Last action February 25, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill requires the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to publish detailed annual reports on their participation in global financial regulatory forums like the Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board, including the positions they take, funding sources, and anticipated changes to U.S. banking regulations. It also requires semi-annual congressional testimony on these international interactions.
Who benefits
Congressional committees (Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in Senate; Financial Services in House) gain transparency into regulatory decision-making. Domestic banking industry competitors who oppose international regulatory standards gain visibility into agency positions. Conservative and nationalist policymakers gain oversight tools to scrutinize alignment of U.S. banking regulations with global norms. Small and community banks that fear harmonized standards may gain information to lobby against particular agreements.
Who pays / loses
The Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation bear compliance costs in preparing detailed annual reports and organizing information systems to track international interactions. U.S. banking regulators lose flexibility in international negotiations if detailed position disclosures create domestic political constraints. Large multinational banks may lose benefits if transparency into regulatory positions enables domestic opposition to international standards that would harmonize their compliance costs across jurisdictions.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The bill does not receive corporate or foundation funding context as it is a government transparency and oversight measure. However, financial interests that benefit include: conservative and nationalist think tanks that oppose international regulatory coordination; smaller regional and community banks (represented by groups like the Independent Community Bankers of America) that perceive international standards as favoring large multinational competitors; and Congressional Republicans skeptical of multilateral institutions. The sponsors—Loudermilk, Barr, and Flood—represent districts and voting bases skeptical of international governance arrangements and prioritize national regulatory sovereignty.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Federal banking regulators (Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC staff) face increased reporting and documentation burdens. Large multinational U.S. banks that rely on international regulatory coordination for operational efficiency across multiple jurisdictions may face increased domestic political scrutiny. Members of Congress gain detailed information on regulatory decision-making (estimated 535 members of Senate and House). The general banking industry faces potential politicization of technical regulatory standards historically negotiated among expert agencies.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill increases democratic accountability by requiring transparency into how unelected Federal Reserve and banking regulators adopt international standards without explicit congressional approval, and that it protects U.S. regulatory sovereignty from foreign influence. Critics contend the bill impedes technical regulatory coordination necessary for financial stability, forces disclosure that politicizes expert decisions, and reflects unfounded skepticism of international cooperation on banking standards that the U.S. helped design. Non-partisan analysis from policy experts on financial regulation has not yet evaluated this specific bill; however, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have historically argued that participation in forums like Basel Committee represents the U.S. interest in shaping global standards rather than accepting them. Academic consensus on banking regulation emphasizes that international coordination reduces regulatory arbitrage and systemic risk, though scholars across the political spectrum debate the appropriate level of transparency for technical standard-setting.
Real-World Stakes
If this passes, Congress will receive detailed information on regulatory positions taken in forums like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, potentially enabling political pressure on technical decisions. The requirement for cost-benefit justification creates a congressional veto point over regulations implementing global agreements. Comparable laws requiring transparency into international negotiations include the Dodd-Frank Act's Section 939A (requiring SEC and CFTC independence from international standards) and various state-level restrictions on international agreements; however, those applied narrowly to specific regulations rather than broad reporting on all interactions. The real-world impact depends on whether Congress uses this information to block or modify international regulatory adoptions. If Congress frequently rejects international standards, U.S. regulators lose influence in standard-setting forums, potentially disadvantaging U.S. financial institutions in global markets and reducing the U.S. voice in determining rules affecting international financial stability. If the reporting requirements are routine and non-blocking, the bill functions primarily as a transparency tool with marginal costs to regulatory agencies.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.