Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
Fossil Free Finance Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill requires large bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in assets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions linked to investments and financial services. Covered banks must submit and implement plans to cut these emissions by 50 percent by January 1, 2035, and reach zero emissions by January 1, 2050. The legislation also forces banks to stop financing new or expanded fossil fuel projects and thermal coal very quickly. Additionally, the Federal Reserve must report to Congress on emissions levels and how the transition affects workers and communities. Finally, the bill gives regulators the power to penalize noncompliant banks by forcing asset sales or terminating their deposit insurance.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +8
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The bill mandates that large bank holding companies cut their financed greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2035 and reach zero by 2050.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The legislation requires enhanced due diligence on biodiversity and community impacts, and eliminates financing for deforestation risk commodities.
- Scored +6
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill grants federal regulators significant new powers to mandate emission plans, require asset divestitures, and penalize noncompliant bank holding companies.
The opposite· 3 of 7
- Scored -9
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The bill mandates the rapid discontinuation of thermal coal financing and halts all new or expanded fossil fuel project financing.
- Scored -5
Would union members be better off under this?
Union workers in coal, oil, and gas extraction face job losses and economic dislocation from the rapid phase-out of fossil fuel financing.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners in the fossil fuel sector and related industries face severe financing restrictions and potential operational burdens.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 (adding Section 15(c)(4)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956): Banks are required to prioritize withdrawing funding from companies and projects that negatively impact the health and well-being of low-income and minority communities, which could lead to cleaner local environments.
-
Section 2 (adding Section 15(c)(4)(B) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956): Banks must prioritize lending to companies that provide severance, retraining, and other benefits to workers who are impacted by the transition away from fossil fuels.
-
Section 4(b): The Federal Reserve is required to report to Congress on the equitable transition needs, economic impacts, and groups of people affected by moving to a zero-emission economy, which helps hold officials accountable for protecting everyday people.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2 (adding Section 15(e) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956): If a bank fails to follow its emission reduction plan, regulators can force the bank to sell off assets or allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to terminate the insured status of the bank's depository institution, which could cause major financial disruptions for customers.
-
Section 2 (adding Section 15(c)(1)(D) through (F) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956): Banks must completely stop financing thermal coal immediately and halt all fossil fuel financing and new projects by specified deadlines, which could create severe economic burdens and job losses for workers in fossil fuel industries and communities dependent on those jobs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill grants federal regulators significant new powers to mandate emission plans, require asset divestitures, and penalize noncompliant bank holding companies. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation mandates comprehensive reporting by the Federal Reserve to Congress regarding financial sector emissions and transition impacts.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The legislation specifically directs banks to withdraw funding from projects that have a disproportionately negative environmental impact on low-income communities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The requirement to defund projects harming minority communities helps address environmental justice disparities. Would children be better off under this? — Reduced carbon emissions and cleaner local environments will benefit the long-term health of younger generations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Targeted reductions in pollution near vulnerable communities provide health benefits to Hispanic populations. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Protections against negative impacts on indigenous communities are explicitly incorporated into the carbon technology restrictions. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas often suffer from localized pollution, which this bill aims to reduce by penalizing polluting projects. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Actions to combat climate change align with the stated priorities of many younger adults. Would union members be better off under this? — Union workers in coal, oil, and gas extraction face job losses and economic dislocation from the rapid phase-out of fossil fuel financing. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners in the fossil fuel sector and related industries face severe financing restrictions and potential operational burdens. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural communities economically dependent on fossil fuel extraction and coal production will face severe economic headwinds.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill mandates that large bank holding companies cut their financed greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2035 and reach zero by 2050. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The legislation requires enhanced due diligence on biodiversity and community impacts, and eliminates financing for deforestation risk commodities. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — By cutting off fossil fuel financing, banks will be pushed to redirect capital toward zero-emission and sustainable alternatives. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill mandates the rapid discontinuation of thermal coal financing and halts all new or expanded fossil fuel project financing. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Restricting financing for fossil fuel exploration and production could constrain supply and potentially drive up energy prices.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill requires banks to prioritize withdrawing funding from projects that disproportionately harm the health of low-income and minority communities. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Targeting reductions in pollution in low-income communities can improve public health and economic well-being.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Forcing large banks to rapidly divest from fossil fuel financing may create economic headwinds and market disruptions. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Stricter financial sector regulations and potential credit contraction for fossil fuels could indirectly impact broader business lending terms.
- 10/5/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan