Corporate Accountability

Trump Has Power to Remove CFPB Director Cordray Now, Conservatives Say

By David Baumann

President Trump has the power to remove CFPB Director Richard Cordray now and does not have to wait for a federal court to rule on the whether the agency’s structure is constitutional, three conservatives told a House subcommittee Tuesday.

“Please do not wait for the courts to fix Dodd-Frank,” said Adam White, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank.

The president has the responsibility to protect the Constitution and not enforce an unconstitutional law, Theodore Olson, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher told the House Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee.

Olson represents PHH, a mortgage company that has filed suit against the CFPB challenging the constitutionality of the agency because the president can only remove the director for cause. A panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia has sided with PHH, but the full appeals court has agreed to consider the case.

Reversing positions, the Trump Administration asks the federal court to rule that the president can fire the director of the…

The Trump Administration has sided with PHH in the case.

Olson called the structure of the agency “very dangerous,” adding that “no one can control that agency.”

He said the president was stripped of the power to faithfully execute the power to faithfully execute the constitution.

Subcommittee ranking Democrat Al Green (D-Texas) blasted Republicans for allowing Olson to testify before the panel since he represents a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit. “The Congress of the United States should not be in this business of promoting litigation,” he said.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) agreed that Olson should not have testified. “I think that’s a massive conflict of interest.”

The president does not need to wait for the case to be litigated, said Saikrishna Prakash, an attorney at the University of Virginia Law School. He said there are numerous examples of presidents ignoring laws that he believes are unconstitutional.

Democrats and one witness defended the agency as the champion for victims of financial abuse.

“When financial firms rip you off, the CFPB gets your money back,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.).

Capuano said the committee has had many hearings on issues facing the CFPB, but only one that focused on its successes—a hearing dealing with the CFPB’s action against Wells Fargo.

Financial Services ranking Democrat Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) admonished the witnesses who called the agency unconstitutional.

“Are you simply the tools who would want to exploit, who would commit fraud…?” Waters asked the conservative witnesses.

Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a public interest nonprofit group, said she believes that the makeup of the agency is constitutional.

“First, the CFPB’s leadership structure—namely, the fact that it is led by a single Director removable only for cause—is consistent with the text and history of the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent,” she said.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said that while Democrats attacked Olson for testifying, they did not criticize Gorod, who has filed a brief in the PHH case on behalf of Democrats defending the agency.

He said it was hypocritical for Green to attack Olson, but not Gorod.

House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) has said he will reintroduce legislation to overhaul Dodd-Frank, which created the CFPB. In his first version of the legislation, Hensarling converted the CFPB into a commission. Financial Services Committee Republicans have indicated that a new version of Hensarling’s legislation likely will retain the current single-director structure, but with greatly diminished powers.

Credit unions have called for changes to the CFPB’s structure and funding.

“Congress should enact legislation to clarify that credit unions are exempt from CFPB rules unless the Bureau demonstrates credit unions are causing consumer harm,” CUNA President/CEO Jim Nussle told the subcommittee in a letter.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
April 24, 2026

How the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the economy this spring

CNN
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to CNN about big business at the Supreme Court. Read...
Corporate Accountability
May 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Federal Communications...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission

In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether the FCC’s two-stage civil-enforcement process violates the Seventh Amendment.
Corporate Accountability
January 15, 2026

January Newsletter: CAC Keeps Up the Fight for Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s authority to...
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes