Whistleblower testifies in court that plan to abolish CFPB is still on, countering administration's narrative
Source: CNN Politics
Published 6:45 PM EDT, Tue March 11, 2025
CNN An employee tasked with implementing the firings of hundreds of staffers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau testified in court Tuesday that she believed the plan to dismantle the agency was still on appearing to undermine a narrative set forth by the Justice Department a day earlier.
The employee, who testified under the pseudonym Alex Doe out of fear of retaliation, said she attended meetings last week where her team, along with officials at the Office of Personnel and Management, discussed how they would implement Phase 2 of a plan to wind down the CFPB. That step would come after a Phase 1, during which an initial 1,200 employees would be fired, Doe said, but mass terminations are on pause under a court order in the case.
The testimony comes in a case brought by a federal employee union and other groups to challenge President Donald Trumps efforts to dissemble the bureau, which was created by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis and has long been in the crosshairs of conservatives.
Does testimony countered the picture painted by CFPB Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez, who spoke as a witness for the administration Monday and Tuesday. Martinez who is Does supervisor testified that the Department of Government Efficiency had acted aggressively over one week in early February to try to dismantle the agency. But he said those efforts had been slowed down by political appointees, namely acting CFPB head Russ Vought and legal adviser Mark Paoletta, who became more engaged by mid-February.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/politics/cfpb-court-doge-testimony/index.html

Hugin
(36,034 posts)Just like shoving a pillow in SS/Medicare/Medicaids face and every other right wing bugaboo tantrum since the Civil War is still on.
Name one thing that the Retrumplicans have started or built that is a benefit to the citizens of the United States (or anyone).
BumRushDaShow
(150,876 posts)There were several things that the pre-MAGat GOP established that were beneficial and that the current psychotic GOP is attempting to dismantle, like the EPA.
By Lily Rothman March 22, 2017 9:00 AM EDT
(snip)
As 1970 dawned, with American concerns about the War in Vietnam no longer dominating headlines, concerns about the environment became a further priority for the president. It is literally now or never, Nixon said at the time. A major goal for the next ten years for this country must be to restore the cleanliness of the air, the water, the broader problem of population congestion, transport and the like.
(snip)
The cost of such clean-up action was estimated at $100 billion in the first half of the decade (though the cost to business of preventing future pollution would be much lower). One idea proposed to meet such costs, TIME reported (in an article that put the word recycle in quotes), was to charge companies by the pound for pollutants they contributed to the water system.
Nixon followed his State of the Union with a special message to Congress in which he put forth more than a dozen orders and 23 requests to address problems like automobile emission standards. (Critics noted, however, that some major problems, like enforcement, were largely ignored.) One problem, however, was that as awareness of various aspects of pollution had come to attention, different agencies and offices had popped up to address them. That separation was a mismatch with a scale of the problem and the reality of the environments interconnectedness.
And so, in the summer of 1970, Nixon issued the dryly titled Reorganization Plan 3, which provided for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, reflecting the new understanding of ecology and the environments status as a system. In doing so, he told Congress that it was clear that the piecemeal development of environmental agencies would no longer serve such a large project. Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action, he said. Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.
Hugin
(36,034 posts)Its a feature.
BumRushDaShow
(150,876 posts)
