Post Election Politics and Payments: A Look Ahead

Welcome to another episode of Wrestling Payments.

In this episode of Wrestling Payments, Joe Casali speaks with Bill Sullivan, Associate Managing Director for Government and Industry Relations at Nacha, about the post-election political landscape and its implications for the payments industry. Bill analyzes the Republican control of the Senate, House, and Presidency, noting the unusual opportunity despite the narrow margins. He focuses on changes in the Senate Banking committee leadership, highlighting Tim Scott's likely ascension to majority leader. This creates a noteworthy dynamic with Senator Warren as the minority leader.

Bill suggests potential common ground between Scott and Warren on housing and anti-money laundering legislation. The discussion then moves to the House Financial Services Committee, where French Hill is poised to succeed the retiring Congressman McHenry. Hill's expertise on the ACH network is seen as a positive for Nacha and its members.

Finally, Bill addresses presidential appointments. He discusses the potential Treasury Secretary nominee Scott, emphasizing his focus on deficit reduction, economic growth, and support for the crypto industry. Bill also speculates about a possible "crypto czar" and other key roles. He concludes by noting the limited time for legislative action given the 2026 elections.

For show notes, transcripts, and other resources visit www.wrestlingpayments.com.

Guest: Bill Sullivan, Associate Managing Director for Government & Industry Relations, Nacha

Host: Joe Casali, EVP, NEACH

#wrestlingpayments #wrestlingpaymentspodcast #paymentspodcast

Explore the podcast

Transcript

Post-Election Politics and Payments: A Look Ahead

Wrestling Payments, season 2, episode 20

Bill Sullivan: [00:00:00] it's 99 percent sure Tim Scott will be the majority leader of the Senate Banking Committee unless President Trump convinces him to take a political appointee position. But now that Trump has already nominated all his cabinet members. That's highly unlikely. And quite honestly, the Scott people had kind of alluded to me that he wasn't that interested in serving in Trump's cabinet.

Joe Casali: Hello and welcome to Wrestling Payments. Today is going to be a really great episode. I am always interested in listening to Bill. I have Bill Sullivan here. He's the [00:01:00] Associate Managing Director for Government and Communications. Did I get that right?

Bill Sullivan: Government and industry relations.

Joe Casali: Industry Relations. It's a long title.

Sorry. but, but, Bill's a champion to us. He, he comes to our, our meetings, our conferences, and really has, load on on what's really going on in government, not just, the headlines, not just the, the TikToks. It's what's moving and what has likelihood of happening with no guarantees ever given, but, that's the way things are all, build.

I'm just going to tee it off to you. What's going on? We just had an election and lots of things are moving. What do we need to know?

Bill Sullivan: Absolutely, Joe. And it's an honor to be able to use this forum to address NEACH and NEACH's members. So thank you very much before we even start. okay. We had an election several weeks ago. And, the presidential party, the house party and the Senate party all in leadership positions is the Republican Party.

so it is a kind of a very rare [00:02:00] occurrence in politics. that we have all three of those chambers being run by the same political party. so you could argue there's a mandate, but quite honestly, the numbers are so tight. I'm not really sure how strong that mandate is, but one of the things I thought, if we kind of focus in on payments and the policy areas around payments that, may be really beneficial to know is there was a chain of events that are going to impact the Senate banking.

I think most of your, at least the folks that really follow politics are aware that Senator Brown, a long term Senator, a Democrat lost in Ohio. So, And Senator Tester, a long term senator from Montana, lost as well. So those were two of the four seats that kind of kicked control of the Senate to the Republicans.

But here's where those two seats really matter. because the Republicans have taken control of the Senate, they'll be the majority leader for the Senate will be a Republican. So normally, Sherrod [00:03:00] Brown would be The minority leader of the Senate Banking Committee as he ran the committee when the Democrats were in charge.

And if Senator Brown had lost, it would have dropped down to Senator Tester. Senator Tester also lost. So, where we stand now is on the Republican side, the, the last last session or the current session that's empty. Tim Scott, who ran for president from South Carolina, was the minority meter leader of the Senate Banking Committee.

It's, it's 99 percent sure Tim Scott will be the majority leader of the Senate Banking Committee unless President Trump convinces him to take a political appointee position. But now that Trump has already nominated all his cabinet members. That's highly unlikely. And quite honestly, the Scott people had kind of alluded to me that he wasn't that interested in serving in Trump's cabinet.

He really thought that his career path was best suited in the Senate. And the 1 thing you might see him do is he'll take charge of the Senate Banking Committee. He [00:04:00] may run the Republicans efforts. to reelect Senate candidates in the 2026 2028 election. So we'll still have sort of a prominent position within the current administration and within Congress, but running the Senate Banking Committee.if for some reason he, I'm wrong, it would be Senator Mike Rounds would take over Senate Banking. So that's pretty clean cut. Here's where it gets really interesting. You lost the 1st 2 on the Democrat side. Then the next 2 after that is Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Mark Warner of my home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both of them are already chairman of other Senate banking committees. In order to be a chairman, you can only take on 1 committee. So, Jack Reed wants to stick with his committee and Senator Warner wants to stick as the chairman of the Judiciary

Joe Casali: Mm 

Bill Sullivan: kind of go down the line a little bit.

[00:05:00] We've got somebody from your neck of the woods who is likely the minority leader, Senator Elizabeth Warren. So the interesting thing here is now you've got Senator Brown, a conservative Southern Republican. You've got Senator Warren, a very powerful, very outspoken, far more to the left than most senators from up north having to work together on this committee.

And most people listening right now are probably rolling their eyes. Like, well, that's 4 years of nothing happening actually, 2 years because of the midterms, but we'll get into that later. But I actually think that might be wrong and this is where. You know, people are gonna go like, Joe, you got, you got an idiot who's doing smoking.

I think that your common accord between Senator Warren and Senator Scott is going to be housing issues where they both are fairly passionate about it. Coming from South Carolina, Senator Scott knows how [00:06:00] difficult it is for home ownership, for people living paycheck to paycheck with rent. and it's always been A pet project for Senator Warren.

So if you think about a political circle where, you know, you've got Scott here kind of going to the right and Warren here going to the left, I think they may find a way just to walk next door to each other and connect. I also think the other one, Because it is such a great need and I think because of some of the other efforts that Congress may undertake is any money laundering.

I think that they'll both see the need for legislation and figure out a way to work together on that. I'm sure Senator Warren will probably want to go with more stringent than Senator Scott, but I think they'll find a way 1 of the reasons why I think that is so important is. The appointees that can actually impact the payments industry, and the president of the United States have a strong, kind of love [00:07:00] affair currently with the crypto industry.

And I think we could see, I don't honestly think we're going to see legislation pass in 2 years, but I think we're going to see. A continuation of all the education hearings and all the, the fact finding hearings that both the House and Senate have done on all things. Crypto digital wallets, stable coins, CBDC, et cetera.

and. I think with that, the money laundering issues will have to also take center stage. And I'm going to come back to the crypto. and a little bit when we start talking more about the president and his administration. but I also will point out that, more junior but very powerful committee of the Senate Banking Committee.

Senator Lummis of Wyoming has a stable coin bill ready to go in the next Congress. That stable coin bill. Had bipartisan support in this last Congress, and it was very similar to a bipartisan support bill that the House of Financial House Financial Services Committee had that [00:08:00] was authored by Congressman McHenry, a Republican who retired, who was the leader of the Senate House Financial Services Committee, but also had the blessing of Maxine Waters, the minority ranking member.

Of house financial services. So given the fact that those are kind of bipartisan pieces of legislation, we could see something with stable coin. And I think Senator Lummis is the 1 to probably kind of be the champion of that now that McHenry is retired. I think it's going to, it's going to switch to the other aisle and be Lummis.

Joe Casali: can I jump in on that? And I know you said you were going to talk about crypto later, but, what is the common ground? Because you have states that have, what is it? preemptively outlawed CBDC. And you have states that are looking at how do we use this in government? Where, where did Congress meet on bipartisan support?

Bill Sullivan: I think a lot of this actually gets back to the privacy issues where Congress realizes that having 50 sets of [00:09:00] laws is not as conducive to having an overarching federal policy on this, and then the states can do with it whatever they want within the groundwork of the federal policy. So I think that's probably the key.

I also will tell you, I know I mentioned CBDC. Unless Congress forces the Federal Reserve to act on CBDC, they're not going to. so I think that that's probably something way down the road, if at all. so let me, let me touch on real quick now, the House of Financial, the House Financial Services Committee, I don't know why I can't say that and the House of Representatives.

So again, we've got the Republicans still in charge. It looks like now it's going to be about a five or six seat Majority, I believe there are 3 races that are still not yet called. and, with Congressman McHenry retiring, and by the way, he was a big Fintech type champion. So that is a big loss for at least a knowledge base on that committee, for the crypto industry coming in.[00:10:00] 

That's very eager to make changes and do things the three candidates to run that committee. And I believe that's going to be decided either the week directly after the Thanksgiving break or the week after that. so we'll know before mid December, Congressman Hill from Arkansas. Congressman Heisinger from Michigan, or Congressman Barr from Kentucky.

here's the good news. I think Hill has got the inside track right now, French Hill from Arkansas.French Hill is a huge friend of the ACH network. and of what NACHA and our, members and payment associations are doing. I, without a doubt, will say the most knowledgeable member in Congress on ACH, and the benefits of ACH and is advocated for ACH.

On the Senate side, it is likely Senator Lummis, so that's a good sign too, that, the network is in, is in pretty good hands with those folks with, in Lummis case, rising up to power and, in Hill's case. [00:11:00] Perhaps taking over the chair of a very powerful committee. the other thing that makes me feel good or makes me sleep at night is, congressman is very similar.

Knows the network. Not as strong as Hill. Maybe isn't quite as passionate, but really understands the network and the value of the network, as does Congressman Barr. So, however, that shakes out, we're in pretty good hands, but, for example, with with Congressman Hill, a couple of kind of inside policy scoop things would be, is actually on his own.

reached across not only the aisle in the House of representative to Democrats, but getting bicameral support by going across the Capitol to the other side and getting bipartisan Senate support, for a letter to the Federal Reserve several months. Well, we're not a half year ago, before the S. S.

and Fed wire policies came out, advocating the Fed to at least take a look at [00:12:00] expanding it. S. S. Because of the ubiquity of the ACH network and the fact that it served a great value, for everyone, you know, payroll, small businesses and others, and wanted the Fed to at least look at it and was knowledgeable enough to then acknowledge, not in the letter, but to me that, hey, we understand that the Fed can expand it.

We have to wait on NACHA to actually decide with their members if there's a path forward and what to do. So that was just really, really, I think great. Whether anything ever comes of it, it's just the fact that we have somebody who understands us. The other great story about Congressman Hill is. They called me.

I don't know when. Let's just say a year ago. And they said, Bill, do you have any strong consumer contacts? And generally, you don't think Republican Party a southern Republican and consumers necessarily are the best bedfellows. And I said, Yeah, as a matter of fact, I've [00:13:00] got a couple. I'll do a virtual introduction or set up a call or whatever.

did the introduction. Everything went fine. I didn't know anything more of it. What I found out several months later was he had reached out to these groups. And ask them before he ever wrote the letter to the Fed is ACH and the availability of ACH beyond traditional NSS hours important to you. And emphatically they said, yes.

So, in just reaching out to not only both chambers of Congress, but also to a group that he isn't normally aligned with showed me that there's a lot of passion there, for promoting the ACH network. And I. I don't have the guts to ask. Is there Walmart behind this or something being in Arkansas? But I really do think he's just somebody who understands that payments are growing and there are a lot of fantastic payment options either currently with us or on the horizon.

But at the end of the day, sort of your quiet [00:14:00] payment network is the A. C. H. Network. So, I feel pretty good about where we could be headed with some of those people in key leadership positions. house and in the Senate. if we move on to the White House, and I think that was part of the question was just looking at the White House, President Trump has now nominated, a representative or a candidate for each member of his cabinet and has filled many, but not all.

It'll take months to fill all a sort of the internal White House positions. We this weekend, we had 1 of the final cabinet nominees come out Scott. I believe it's a percent. and Scott is really he's with key square capital management group and he, It's kind of an unknown in Washington, has supported Donald Trump since the 2016 election, but has really stayed away from Washington is just sort of quietly led the key square capital management group, which is also, I [00:15:00] don't think, overly political.

So, I had to do some digging over the weekend to prepare, not only for this podcast, but just to work with our industry or colleagues and our membership on what we can expect. from this close advisor to, now the president elect Donald Trump. a couple of things that are a little bit kind of bigger picture that I came up with is, he feels that, the deficit has to be around 3%.

So that's a serious, significant trimming of the deficit. Now, before he was nominated, he had quote and thought that the deficit of 3 percent of the gross domestic product should try to be achieved by 2028. So I don't think we're at least looking at immediate cuts or anything crazy along those lines.

And that would achieve a what he called a real economic growth. So nothing inflated, nothing doctor. a couple other things. That at least made me feel better as an older gentleman [00:16:00] who is, nearing retirement age in a couple of years. He has said repeatedly that nothing, no entitlements should be, it should be touched, that social security, Medicare should stay exact.

Well, I don't, I'm saying exactly as is, but there should not be any cuts or any significant changes to those entitlement programs. and his view, which I'm hoping is again, somebody nearing retirement, happens to be true. he is a big corporate tax cut guy though, definitely plays. To the Fortune 500 type, and I would imagine that's another thing that was appealing to the president elect.

he, also was, quoted during the election season for lack of a better term that, he thinks that the tariffs need to be gradually layered in that you can't just go all tariff. And he also suggested, and I think this has been said before by others. Maybe the tariffs are just sort of the hammer.

Needed to [00:17:00] negotiate with other countries on other solutions that might be more favorable than a tariff. So, the threat of a tariff may be really the benefit, not the tariff itself. I think that, a couple of things that, I need to do a little more digging on, but I, I found that were interesting about.

The candidate. And again, the Secretary of Treasury is going to have a very loud, large voice in our industry. that they thought that nominating a shadow chair of the Federal Reserve. That could help guide monetary policy, without actually holding a formal position within the Federal Reserve. So I was kind of looking at that.

It would be beneficial. 1st, let me finish that thought. So I'm kind of thinking of just somebody who is sort of the voice of the president. And of the Treasury, perhaps some of the other agencies. it's just there to advise Governor Powell and the other governors. but I think we need to learn a little bit more about that.

He also appears not to be a big Governor Powell fan. But just as a quick civics [00:18:00] lesson, the Federal Reserve is,they are elected to terms or they're appointed to terms. So the President can't just arbitrarily fire. It also, doing some research, doing some digging, it remains very murky whether or not he we know we can't fire Powell, if he could even ask Powell to step down as chairman.

I've read some commentary that say that's within the purview of the presidency. I've read others that say it's not. and quite honestly, I think if he tried, and it was litigated, it would, The litigation would go on past 2026 anyway, and Powell is the chairman and the previous Trump administration You know, at least according to him, and I think many of us would agree the economy was good.

I mean, so I think he sticks with J. Powell. I don't know if he really has a choice. The other thing, and this is going to kind of get into my next point that I thought was really interesting is. He is a crypto fan. He was even quoted as saying that he is a [00:19:00] big and the word I think was believer, but I'm not sure about that.

But something that told me that maybe he really didn't think Bitcoin was as great as it is, but he liked Bitcoin because it got young people involved in the market and he feels that in order to grow the market. This is a very valuable. Participant group that has largely been ignored, or is largely kind of set out in the past.

And he thinks that that's going to cultivate a strong culture in the U. S. stock market. And he believes that if they can go beyond. Kind of crypto investing and buying crypto type currencies. They'll understand that this system is the capitalism or is the centerpiece of capitalism. and, you know, helps and benefits everybody.

So I thought that was kind of an interesting take. and I, I'm kind of hoping he's asked about that whenever his confirmation. Hearing comes up and and by the way, and I'll touch on potential confirmations without getting too [00:20:00] political. I, I, I think he is pretty much a shoe in to be confirmed. I, I don't think Dems are going to necessarily love him because of, the tax cutting and the big business love affair, but think they'll see enough positives in him with Social Security and Medicare, and maybe tamping down expectations on tariffs that eventually they will, you know, You know, they will confirm him.

I don't think that's gonna be a contentious, confirmation. So that is a little bit of the very new scoop. as we're recording this, the Monday after, he was announced as the nominee by President Trump. I think that there are just as we get the confirmations, they're gonna be a couple of confirmations that are gonna be very difficult for the president to get through.

I know some have been even head scratchers within his own party. I think that, we saw already Matt Gates withdraw his name, as the potential attorney general and the former attorney general of Florida has been nominated in his place. I [00:21:00] believe her. Her name is Bondi. but I think that maybe Tulsi Gabbard, and maybe Robert Kennedy are going to have a.

and Hagsworth, I'm sorry, the Department of Defense might have tough sledding. A lot of that remains to be seen. It's very rare that,incoming president has many of their cabinet choices. But I think that, all three of these have enough red flags that at least there'll be a lot of scrutiny, and a lot of angst by not only the entire Democratic Party, but several moderate Republicans.

and I know that over the weekend, we had, I believe it was Senator Murkowski of Alaska, even say that, If the president's nominees go through the proper background checks with the FBI and not private background services hired by the incoming administration that she wouldn't approve of any of them.

Joe Casali: But I'm sure they're going to come to some sort of agreement on that. That might have been political posturing for the Sunday morning. Talk shows. can I ask a question on [00:22:00] that? And Absolutely. it's not, trying to not be political.let's take the Fox host, because I, I, I will butcher his name if I say it. let's take the Fox host for an example, and you've been through a few elections with this. Seems, seems, for me personally, seems that he hasn't been in a position where he's just managed as many people as he would have to manage in a, in the new position.

From a learning curve perspective, do they face trouble, once they're in the position, just getting up to speed or, or getting everything moving? Mm hmm. Mm

Bill Sullivan: that's a very difficult task. And yes, worked on the weekends, talking about the military, talking about all things policy related. But again, I talk about politics. I don't think I could become the chair of the Senate Banking Committee. you know, I think they're gonna be a lot of things thrown at them.

That are going to be very difficult. I don't know all of his background. I know that within the military, [00:23:00] he did not have strong leadership positions and there's a sexual assault allegation hanging out there that again, folks that he's met with on the hill JD Vance brought him up to the hill last week say that they're perfectly satisfied with his answers and they're going to move forward.

I'm just not sure all 53. Republican senators feel that way. And really all they have to do is Is it for defect the nomination is is done now again, quick civics lesson if 3 defect and it's a 5050 tie J. D. Vance's vice president breaks the tie. The nominee goes through. it will be very interesting and, I do think the lack of experience, Well, troublesome as I know, just as a citizen, it's troubling to me. The other thing I wanted to kind of get to here beyond more politics is late last week. I think it was probably Thursday, but it doesn't really matter. the White House announced that they were seriously [00:24:00] considering appointing a crypto czar.

And I think one, I think it's a great idea. I don't have a problem with the idea. And just to remind us, because I had to go back and think like, wow, has this ever been done before? You know, how's this going to work? The Obama administration, one of the first things he did, I believe, was appointed technologies are, and that was somebody who understood technology and could be a liaison for, the government regulators, members of Congress, and even the private sector to a degree.

To talk about technology, you know, better best practices and technology. So I assume as cryptos are would do the same thing. So probably be a very frequent,invited guest for Senate and house hearings, probably work with committee staff on some education, work with the treasury secretary, and maybe OCC FDIC, the fed, to kind of understand use cases for.

Potential cryptocurrency. So I think for that industry, it's a good sign. Now, let me kind of pull back the cover a little bit and [00:25:00] explain why I think this is the case. The crypto industry industry, which has had a strong lobbying presence on the hill, but hasn't been overly effective with that lobbying presence, put a ton of money into the Trump campaign.

rewarded them by doing campaign speeches at high profile, kind of crypto Bitcoin type events. And I think this is a great way for the administration to kind of pay back, is a lot of the political appointees that have been named so far were big donors of people that raised money to the crypto industry, but also something that will help advance, crypto type, legislation, policies or regulations.

So, I think that they probably will go through with it. They weren't. Totally committed to it yet, but I suspect that by just this administer or the current incoming administration has been very, they've been pretty good about being locked down on a lot of things already for them to publicly announce.

It tells me that it's well on its way. [00:26:00] I then started thinking, okay, do we know anybody in the DC policy circles that could be the cryptos are, And I, you know, I don't know personally the folks that run the few trade associations in that space, but I think that a name to look out for and Joe, you've been very supportive of not just government relations advisory group is.

at the end of the last Trump presidency, the acting director of the Office of the Comptroller of Currency was Brooks, and I think that Brian Brooks, who spoke to Greg and the NACHA board on a virtual call, several months prior to, leaving office with, when Trump left, is a smart guy. And he knows how to get around Washington. I personally think sometimes he's a little too smart of a guy and tunes people out, but he, he, he's worked with 2 different cryptic crypto organizations. I think finance is the current 1 and honestly, I don't recall the 1st since he left office at the O. C. C. [00:27:00] so he's got the knowledge base. He's got the executive kind of training and skills. And he is incredibly intelligent. So, if I had to, to, you know, like you bet on a horse, if I had to bet, I think Brian Brooks could be a good chance, to take over that position.

Joe Casali: I don't mean this in any negative way. Having joined you on the Hill Day, there are a lot of smart people on Hill. I mean, just kind of, I really, you know, I consider myself pretty smart. I felt like some of them were dumbing things down, just, just to be accommodating to me. The, the, the staffers were, you know, you introduced us to were just, just so smart.

I wonder where they are today. But, just so smart. So I, I get that comment about being, you know, too smart. I get it. Yes.

Bill Sullivan: where are they today? A lot of them in associations and think tanks, and they're probably all making more money than you and I, but, I, another just kind of, you [00:28:00] know, kind of a weird thing that I think maybe some of the listeners may appreciate is. When Joe talks about these staffers being so bright, so driven, they're all incredibly young, too.

It's unbelievable. I think probably the majority of the people we talked to or work with are under 32, many of them being under 30. So they're smart, driven folks come out of colleges and universities, get hired, work in these jobs where they learn a lot and they make so many great contacts. For five, six years and then blow out and make money in the private sector, doing very well or take a, a pretty significant government leadership position.

And with that, and I'm going to admit I'm going to look at my cheat sheet here because I'm pulling a blank on his name. I wasn't going to really talk about, who may end up running the FDIC. but it is a former, it's a longtime Senate staffer, somebody who's stuck in the Senate, but now could be having huge rewards, on it.

And [00:29:00] that is, oh, Travis Hill. And Joe, we actually met with Travis Hill years ago, but, Travis Hill is a longtime Senate aide. That knows the banking industry inside and out. and he is the only name so far. I've seen mentioned. To possibly lead the F. D. I. C. So the reverse of what I just said, the one person that really has stuck around and made a really good name for themselves and really smart could very well become the leader of F.

FDIC. And that would not be the 1st time. In the Trump playbook, that the person running FDIC was a longtime Republican Hill aide, because we might remember somebody we met with years ago was Yelena who was Trump's FDIC head in the first term. And Yelena actually, met with me before same day ACH was anything more than a concept and said, Hey, I'm fascinated by same day ACH.

Tell me more, tell me the pros [00:30:00] and the cons and tell me where this could slip up. And we had a great conversation one day. I thought it was going to be about a 15 minute meeting, get a little attaboy from her. We talked for almost an hour one point, and at one point, even she brought the democrat council, the democrat lawyer and to the meeting, you know, ask you to send somebody away to see if she was available.

And I talked with both of them together because she was more like. I want to make sure that there's nothing that could trip this up because this is really good for our economy and good for business, government and consumers. So there's just a little side story that I hardly ever talk. Yep. They're the people you need.

So we, we've talked a little bit about some of these appointments, and I talked earlier that, if I was a betting man, I would put my money on on Brian Brooks, or even a Travis Hill folks on those lines. I'm going to mention for a 2nd, because this is the 1 where if I was a betting man, I'd be broke right now.

I am. [00:31:00] I thought the entire campaign season, I said, in my mind, and I actually said it publicly a few times, but in smaller groups. The only certainty to me was Trump won reelection and became president in 2024. The director of CFPB would be Brian Johnson and Joe, you probably remember Brian spoke to our group.

Within the last year, Brian was the number two or the number three at CFPB in the first Trump term. He worked on the Hill for Jeb Hensarling, who was the Texas majority leader. The last time the Republicans had control of the house. I think going up from like 2012 to 2016 was the chairman of the house financial services committee.

And Brian, was basically tasked when he worked on the Hill to try to undo everything that Director Cordray was doing with CFPB. So, it is a fan of consumer protection, but not as a fan of over,overregulating such. And Brian was the only name throughout the [00:32:00] campaign I ever heard. all, all, I shouldn't say all like it's thousands, the dozen or so kind of industry insiders I talked to thought that, and I'm not going to name names, two people currently at the CFPB and senior positions both said they expect Brian Johnson to take over CFPB.

Well, right after the election and a brief conversation, we were told that, bye Brian. That he doesn't have any interest in going back to the government, and he is going to stay in the private sector. so Brian Johnson will not be running the CFPB and, I think as a result of that.I don't know who's going to be nominated, and I haven't even heard a name yet, which is really surprising because I would think one of the first people that Trump would like to see replaced is Director Chopra, and I'm not, I'm not trying to besmirch Director Chopra, but just Director Chopra sort of stands for everything that this reelection of the President [00:33:00] Trump, you know, was against.

so I, I've got two names here that I've heard, or three names that I've heard before. One is Jonathan Gould. but Jonathan Gould has also been mentioned is perhaps somebody that will take OCC on. Jonathan Cole, I believe, is a lawyer from Jones day, I think, which is based out of the Midwest, but offices everywhere, probably even up north.

But I know big presence in D. C. or a Todd's a wiki or Jonathan McKernan and I don't know Todd or Jonathan. so we'll have to kind of stay tuned on CFPB. But I haven't heard a peep yet on what may happen there. So we'll stay tuned on that. The only other thing I was going to touch on before we talked a little bit about how long in reality the president has to enact all these things that he'd like to enact is something that is, is not [00:34:00] really well known and has been seldom used by most incoming administrations except For the 2016 Trump administration, and that's called the Congressional Review Act.

And the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to look at any regulation that was promulgated within 60 legislative days of the election. And the key there is legislative day. So if Congress breaks, adjourns for a recess for, let's just say for reelection season or for the July 4th holiday.

For Thanksgiving, whatever those aren't considered legislative days. So it's a kind of a tough calendar to go back and figure out. But the best I can tell it goes back to at least August because there was so much time off for the house to run their elections and 1 3rd of the Senate to run for reelection.

So, there are a lot of regulations that could be undone. Now, I don't think a lot of them will be financial related, so we don't need to hark on this too [00:35:00] much. I think if I had to pick one again, let's just get back to the, had to throw money one way or the other. I think the CFPB, credit card late rule could potentially be undone.

And for those of you out there that are, are screaming at the computer right now saying. 33. Can they read? Can they undo? but don't undo the larger participant rule that CFPB put out last week. I think a couple of twists and turns there. One, within seconds of 10 33 coming out, two of the larger industry trades,fought a lawsuit in Texas. I don't think that I think they'd rather wait for that litigation to take place. And I can almost guarantee no matter what side loses that litigation. The other side, they will appeal. So this thing isn't going to be resolved for a long time. And people that are much smarter than me, seem to think there's an excellent chance that the industry might win that,court case.

What 

Joe Casali: is the objection? I mean, this is [00:36:00] open banking or no? No.

Bill Sullivan: Yeah. It's open banking and the objection. A lot of it has to do with CFPB expanding beyond their scope, beyond what they're actually allowed to do. I think some of the other arguments, but I'm not sure they're legal arguments. Would be, who, you know, who's who's assuring the consumers whose data is being accessed that that that data is safe, that that data won't be used for, you know, ill gain.

I think those are some of the other things, but I really think the, the crux of the lawsuit revolves around CFPB overstepping their regulatory boundaries. and I don't think most of your financial institution, members. on the call, what the larger participant rule, overturned. I also think at some point, we'll see a lawsuit on that.

And it could be very similar to 1033. so I don't think I don't think the new administration is going to touch either 1 of those. I think you're going to touch a lot of more energy related things, environmental related things, things that [00:37:00] don't really pertain specifically. To our, industry, but it will be interesting to see, what the Republican led House and Senate do on that, to undo some of the things of the previous four year in the Biden administration.

Joe Casali: hmm. question on that. And I probably barely remember this correctly. But, last administration for Trump, I thought there was a rule or a policy that for every new piece of legislation they needed to delete or, or, expire two pieces of legislation. Or regs or something.

Bill Sullivan: Joe, I recall it. I don't think it was a hard and fast rule because I don't ever recall, like, specific scenarios on it. I do think though, again, if you look at the, the platform, particularly kind of the MAGA platform, it was to reduce. Government influence on companies and individuals. So I think that is that is possible.

I think we'll see a lot more, though, in the environmental energy [00:38:00] space, that we will. Maybe financial policies because in some cases, as much as banks were upset about certain regulations, they've now paid for them and implemented them. So I'm not sure if it really is that beneficial for banks to have to undo them.

But I'm not inside bank boardrooms.

Joe Casali: Sure.

Bill Sullivan: Where I was going to end with this is, particularly out there for those of you that might have been disappointed in the election results. keep in mind a couple of things. One, the House of Representatives is up for re election every two years. So the entire 435 members of Congress will be up for reelection in 2026.

Over the history, current presidential party in the White House. So as of January 20th, the Republicans lose seats in the midterm election. So you'll probably see the House flip and the House will flip Democrats, which will remove at least the three chamber control and the legislative [00:39:00] process. and the Senate with a 53 to 47 majority, it might be hard for the Democrats to flip the Senate, but here's what I will tell you.

This past election, and it was just a weird thing. More of the senators up for reelection were Democrats and they were Democrats that were in states that supported Trump in the 2016 election. Well, the pendulum is now swung in 2026, two thirds of the senators that are up for reelection are Republican, and about half of those are in states that either supported Biden or what I would call purple states, states that have gone either way, or they might still be Republican or red states.

But they're trending more and more blue every election cycle. So it is possible the Democrats could take back the Senate. I don't think they will, but I think they'll close the margin on the Senate. which makes it very interesting. And then you have, then you could even go two years further out. Then the senators that are running in [00:40:00] 2028 with a closer margin have to then start appealing to their base.

And if their base is a little bit more moderate or Democrat, you might see some Republican side. With Democrats, like we saw Senator Manchin of West Virginia, side with Republicans many times during the Biden administration. So the final thing on that is not only is there an election in 2026, but you've got the inauguration on January 20th.

You have to have all the hearings. To get the cabinet members in place. You've got to get the White House, personnel in place, which should be a little faster, but still they need to get up to speed. They need to kind of formulate a game plan. We know almost for a fact that the 1st thing the president is going to work on is immigration and then tax reform and last, we still don't a 2025 budget.

So there's going to have to be a budget passed. right now we're acting under a continuing budget resolution. and likely. They will pass another 1, because I think the Republicans would rather have [00:41:00] all their people in place to 2025 than trying to come up with a budget. In the lame duck session of this Congress, so there'll be a continuing budget resolution likely to, like, March 30th or something.

And they have to come up with a budget, and I'm sure the president wants his fingerprint on that budget. So three Herculean tasks that are the top priorities for the administration probably have to be done before they really start considering or pushing for anything else. Then, then, usually about nine months, six to nine months before, the reelection season, Congress really starts to kind of shut down.

Because all those members need to get back to their districts and run for re election. So I haven't really done the math, but it's probably about 16 months of, you know, kind of pure joy of having Republicans in the House, the Senate, your full staff in the White House, your cabinet people there, and the president accomplishing the top three priorities in the first hundred days or whatever, and then moving forward with other priorities.

so [00:42:00] I don't think that some of these things that, folks have been fearful of will come to fruition. I just don't have a crystal ball. And I can't tell you which 1 of those things,

Joe Casali: Sure, but I did notice that none of those were new regulations or in new enforcement on existing regulations. So

Bill Sullivan: right? Unless they off. Yeah. Unless they kill off a regulation and then have a, a thin layered regulation to replace it or something. Yes. The good thing for me is I'm not going to be filing a lot of comment letters to Treasury, the Federal Reserve, OCC, or FDIC, supporting or not supporting whatever reg they propose.

So, that'll take, that'll take the pressure off of me, having to write, lots of comment letters. so we'll see. But, I know those are the three things you wanted to cover today, Joe, but are there any other questions while, while we're having this conversation?

Joe Casali: No, I mean, the only other things is, I just had a comment on crypto, which is, it's really interesting. Crypto is a gigantic topic. I think it's really interesting that it started as sort of a way to [00:43:00] bypass the government. In the system. And now they're, they're trying to work it into a system. It, it just seems diametrically opposed from its roots.

and then the other thing is, what was the other thing? The other thing was, oh, it was a civics lesson. Civics 101. I know the House is up every two years. How much of the, how much of the Senate is up every two, because they have six year terms.

Bill Sullivan: Yeah. So one third of the Senate every two years. So I didn't say it because I didn't want to confuse people. But of the one third of the Senate up for reelection, two thirds of that one third is Republican. I just I that was a mouthful for me. That's why I kind of avoided saying it that way. But yeah, that's it.

And on the crypto thing, if you go back to one of the earlier comments, That's one of the reasons why I think the Senate Banking Committee is going to take anti money laundering so seriously is they've got to make sure that whatever is being promoted in the crypto space isn't going to [00:44:00] hurt, you know, with terrorism or with illicit money, going cross border or changing hands.

and they, they need to be certain that, those things are kind of clamped down, as we start growing different payment options and payment vehicles.

Joe Casali: Yeah. Fascinating. Really fascinating. that we could spend probably multiple episodes on crypto all by itself. that's all I had. I do want to thank you for what you do, not even for being on the podcast. keeping track of all the motions up on, on the hill, is pretty amazing. I can sit and listen.

This was, this podcast was pretty much me listening, which I'm happy to do. I could listen to you all day because, it's fascinating. the intricacies of government. so

Bill Sullivan: Oh, Joe, thank you. And thank you everybody for tuning in today. And whenever you'd like me back, just consider it. If it's an open invitation, it's an open except.

Joe Casali: Excellent, excellent. And it is. So thank you very much. joining me. if you have comments, let me know.

Bill Sullivan: Okay. Happy holidays guys.

Joe Casali: Thank you. You too.

Bill Sullivan: Bye [00:45:00] bye.