A federal judge has temporarily stopped the Trump administration from shutting down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—a major agency that protects Americans from financial fraud.
In a detailed 112-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, keeping the agency fully operational until the case is resolved.
Judge Says Shutting Down CFPB Would Cause Irreparable Harm
Judge Jackson was clear in her order:
“The court cannot look away or the CFPB will be dissolved and dismantled completely in approximately thirty days, well before this lawsuit has come to its conclusion.”
She warned that the Trump administration’s plan would cause serious damage, especially since the agency was already in “wind-down mode.”
This injunction reinstates the CFPB’s:
- Staffing and contracts
- Access to consumer data
- Operational powers and functions
What Is the CFPB?
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis. Its role is to protect consumers from financial abuse, such as:
- Deceptive loans
- Credit card scams
- Bank misconduct
- Student loan fraud
It handles complaints and holds banks and lenders accountable when they break the law.
What Sparked the Lawsuit?
In February 2025, President Trump fired the agency’s former director, Rohit Chopra, and replaced him with a temporary appointee. That person:
- Stopped all operations
- Cancelled over $100 million in contracts
- Fired 70 employees
- Placed the agency into shutdown mode
The National Treasury Employees Union, representing over 1,000 CFPB employees, sued the government, saying the president does not have the authority to shut down a Congress-created agency.
Trump and Allies’ Criticism of CFPB
The ruling began with quotes from Trump and his advisers, showing their intent to remove the agency:
- Elon Musk, now part of the Trump administration, posted “CFPB RIP” with a tombstone emoji on X.
- Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director, called CFPB “woke and weaponized.”
- Trump himself called it something “important to get rid of.”
These comments were used in court to show that the move was not neutral policy but a political effort to dismantle the bureau.
Real-Life Impact: The Case of Eva Steege
One of the plaintiffs was 83-year-old Eva Steege, a Lutheran pastor in hospice care, who had been working with the CFPB to resolve her student loan debt.
The agency found she qualified for forgiveness and was due a $15,000 refund, but her case was cut off when operations were halted, and the official helping her was fired.
“Steege’s fear of leaving her surviving family members saddled with her student loan debt came to pass on March 15, when she died,” the judge noted in the ruling.
Government’s Defense Falls Short
Government lawyers argued that the lawsuit was trying to put the CFPB under the court’s control, calling it a “judicially managed receivership.”
But Judge Jackson rejected this, saying her decision was about stopping irreversible harm until the court could fully consider the case.
The battle over the CFPB is not just about politics — it’s about real people, like Eva Steege, who depend on agencies like this for protection and justice. Judge Jackson’s ruling means the CFPB will continue to operate — for now — but the larger legal and political fight is far from over.
As the case moves forward, it could shape how much power the President has to close down agencies that Congress created.