Welcome to the Monday, June 9, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- President Donald Trump repealed 11 agency rules, two of which are Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules
- Voters in Huntington Beach, California, to decide initiatives on children’s library book review board and library ownership on June 10
- Did you know that Oregon, in 2024, became the final state to give state legislators the power to impeach the governor?
President Donald Trump repealed 11 agency rules, two of which are Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules
On May 12, the 60-day review period for agency rules promulgated during the end of President Joe Biden‘s (D) term in office ended. President Donald Trump (R) signed resolutions nullifying 11 rules from seven agencies during that period.
Today, we’ll explain where this power comes from and compare the number of rules that Trump nullified to previous presidents. We’ll also discuss two noteworthy agency rules that Trump nullified.
Let’s start with a look at the process.
In 1996, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows them to review and reject federal rules that government agencies create. Under the CRA, Congress has 60 working days after an agency submits a rule to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval. The rule is nullified if Congress approves the resolution and the president signs it.
If an agency submits a rule with less than 60 working days left in a current session of Congress, the 60-day review period starts 15 days into the next Congress. In the case of the 119th Congress, that review period ended on May 12.
On May 9, Trump nullified two Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules. According to the CFPB’s official website, the agency “implements and enforces Federal consumer financial law.” Here’s a look at those two rules.
S.J. Res. 18 nullified a rule that, according to a summary from the CFPB, “amends Regulations E and Z to update regulatory exceptions for overdraft credit provided by very large financial institutions, thereby ensuring that these extensions of overdraft credit adhere to consumer protections required of similarly situated products, unless the overdraft fee is a small amount that only recovers estimated costs and losses. The rule allows consumers to better comparison shop across credit products and provides substantive protections that apply to other consumer credit.”
On March 27, the Senate passed the resolution to nullify the rule 52-48, and the House of Representatives passed it 217-211 on April 9. All but two Republicans voted to pass the resolution, and all Democrats and Independents who caucus with them voted against it.
S.J. Res. 28 nullified a rule that, according to a summary from the CFPB, was meant “to define larger participants of a market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. Larger participants of this market will be subject to the CFPB’s supervisory authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). A nonbank covered person qualifies as a larger participant if it facilitates an annual covered consumer payment transaction volume of at least 50 million transactions as defined in the rule, and it is not a small business concern.”
On March 5, the Senate passed the resolution to nullify the rule 51-47, and the House passed it 219-211 on April 9. All but one Republican voted to pass the resolution, and all Democrats and Independents who caucus with them voted against it.
Since the CFPB was created in 2010, Congress has passed five CFPB-related resolutions. Trump signed four of them during his two administrations. Congress challenged the other CFPB rule in 2023, but Biden vetoed it in 2024.
Since 1996, Congress has repealed 31 rules using the CRA. Between 1996 and March 2025, Congress introduced more than 500 joint resolutions of disapproval. During that same period, more than 109,000 federal rules were promulgated.
Click here for a closer look at the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Also, make sure to check our video explaining the CRA here.
Voters in Huntington Beach, California, to decide initiatives on children’s library book review board and library ownership on June 10
On June 10, voters in Huntington Beach, California, will decide on two citizen initiatives—Measure A and Measure B—concerning the city’s libraries.
In 2023, the Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 along partisan lines to create the Community Parent Guardian Review Board, with Republican members in favor and Democrats opposed. The 21-member board has not yet been established. Each city council member will appoint a member to the board.
In the November 2024 election, three Republican candidates defeated three Democratic incumbents, giving the Huntington Beach City Council a 7-0 Republican majority.
In the 2024 presidential election in Orange County, California, Kamala Harris (D) defeated Donald Trump (R) 56% to 42%. Statewide, Harris defeated Trump, 59% to 38%.
Measure A would repeal a law creating the Community Parent Guardian Review Board, which was designed to review and remove children’s library materials containing sexual content or references. The initiative would transfer the review of children’s library materials to the Director of Community and Library Services. Materials could not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those who helped create them or the topics or views expressed in the materials. The initiative says the public “has the right to receive access to a range of social, political, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences.”
Measure B would require the city’s libraries to remain publicly operated. The city would be prohibited from contracting with a private entity to operate the libraries unless there is a fiscal emergency or a majority of both the city council and voters approve it.
Our Library Matters is leading the campaign in support of the initiatives. The campaign said, “Our libraries face two significant threats: censorship from the Library Book Review Board ordinance that restricts librarians from purchasing diverse and educational materials, undermining intellectual freedom; and privatization, which could outsource library management to [a] private company and risk compromising the library’s public mission and community focus. By voting YES on both pro-library ballot measures A and B, we can safeguard the library’s future and ensure it continues to serve as a place of learning, inclusion, and opportunity for all.”
Protect Our Children is leading the campaign against the measures. The campaign said, “Measure A is a direct attack on parental rights. It dissolves the community parent board — the only safeguard that stood between your children and sexually explicit material. This measure strips parents of their voice and hands power back to the system that failed to protect our youth in the first place. Measure B doesn’t protect the library — it protects the very system that allowed sexually explicit books into children’s sections. This isn’t about access. It’s about accountability. Measure B keeps the broken policies in place and removes safeguards that parents fought hard to implement.”
The chart below shows the local ballot measures voters decided in California in odd-year elections since 2015.
Click here to read more about both of these initiatives.
Did you know that Oregon, in 2024, became the final state to give state legislators the power to impeach the governor?
Oregon voters approved Measure 115 on Nov. 5 in a 64-36% vote, amending the state constitution to allow the legislature to impeach and remove the governor and other elected state executives. Up until that point, every other state but Oregon provided gubernatorial impeachment powers to the state legislature.
In most states, the process is similar to the one Congress can use to impeach the U.S. president. If the lower chamber of a state legislature votes in favor of impeachment, then the upper chamber functions as a court of impeachment and votes on whether to convict the governor. There are some exceptions. In Alaska, for example, the upper chamber votes to impeach and the lower chamber functions as the court of impeachment.
Learn more about gubernatorial impeachment procedures here.