New BANK Act of 2025
Introduced December 10, 2025 · Last action February 25, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill requires four federal banking regulators—the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and National Credit Union Administration—to publish annual reports on charter and holding company applications they receive and process. The reports must show approval times, denial reasons, and application volumes, with state-by-state breakdowns for state-chartered institutions.
Who benefits
Community banks and credit unions seeking to establish new institutions or holding companies (they gain transparency on regulatory timelines and approval criteria); fintech companies and non-bank financial service providers pursuing depository institution status (they obtain clarity on the application process); state banking regulators and state credit union regulators (they access benchmarking data on peer regulatory performance); and entrepreneurs and investors developing new bank and credit union applications (they can anticipate processing times and common rejection reasons).
Who pays / loses
Federal banking regulators incur administrative costs to compile, analyze, and publish annual reports; existing banks and credit unions with incumbent market positions face potential competitive pressure as transparency may reduce barriers to entry for new applicants.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Community bank trade associations (Independent Community Bankers of America, American Bankers Association) and credit union trade associations (Credit Union National Association) typically advocate for regulatory transparency and streamlined charter application processes. Fintech companies and charter applicants seeking to enter the depository institution market have financial incentives to support reduced regulatory opacity. Sponsor Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) represents a conservative district; no donor finance data was provided in the bill text, but such transparency legislation typically reflects the policy priorities of community banking and small-business lending groups.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Community banks and credit unions (particularly those with assets under $10 billion, the typical threshold for heightened regulatory scrutiny); entrepreneurs and investors pursuing de novo bank or credit union charter applications; fintech and digital banking companies seeking FDIC insurance or depository institution status; state banking regulators in all 50 states plus D.C. and U.S. territories who will be required to report their data in the joint federal reports.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill promotes regulatory transparency, reduces information asymmetries that disadvantage new entrants, and allows policymakers to identify regulatory bottlenecks and disparities across states. Critics may contend that the bill imposes unfunded administrative burdens on federal regulators and could enable bad-faith applicants or competitors to exploit approval timelines and denial data. Non-partisan evidence on regulatory efficiency in banking is limited; the Federal Reserve and OCC publish some application data already, but this bill codifies and expands mandatory disclosure. No CBO cost estimate is available in the bill text. Academic consensus suggests that regulatory transparency can reduce entry barriers, though the magnitude of effect depends on implementation.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, applicants will know mean approval times (e.g., 'Federal charter applications take 18 months on average') and the most common denial reasons (e.g., 'inadequate capital,' 'weak management'), allowing them to strengthen applications or abandon futile efforts earlier. State-by-state comparisons will reveal whether some states approve applications faster, potentially spurring regulatory competition or revealing resource disparities. No analogous federal requirement exists; however, some states (e.g., North Carolina, Texas) publish charter approval statistics voluntarily. The bill does not establish approval timelines or expedited processing—it only mandates reporting. The real-world impact depends on whether transparency leads regulators to reduce approval times (competitive pressure) or whether it simply provides data for researchers and policy advocates without changing regulatory behavior. No civil rights impact assessment is available in the bill text.
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.