Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
Bank Failure Accountability Act
A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
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
The Bank Failure Accountability Act requires large financial institutions with over $1 billion in assets to set up deferment funds for senior employee compensation. A portion of pay for these employees is held back based on how much it exceeds seven times the median employee's pay. These funds are used to pay civil or criminal fines levied against the institution. If a depository institution or credit union fails, the funds are used to ensure depositors do not lose their deposits. After a specific deferment period, any remaining funds are paid back to the employee.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill strengthens protections for depositors by ensuring bank collapse liabilities and fines are paid out of executive compensation funds first.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Protects everyday account holders from bearing the costs of financial institution collapses and corporate misconduct.
- Scored +4
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Protects middle-class deposits and savings from being lost when financial institutions fail.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -6
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Top earners and executives at large financial institutions face significant restrictions and clawbacks on their compensation.
- Scored -6
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Ultra-wealthy senior banking executives are targeted to cover corporate fines and bank failure losses.
- Scored -5
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
High-net-worth senior executives at large financial institutions are directly impacted by deferred and potentially canceled compensation.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection for Depositors: If a credit union or depository institution fails, the deferment fund is used to ensure depositors do not lose their deposits, with these funds being used before the Deposit Insurance Fund or the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Section 3(c)(2)).
-
Accountability for Misconduct: The bill requires that civil or criminal fines against a financial institution be paid first out of the senior employees' deferment funds (Section 3(c)(1)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of Compensation for Senior Employees: Senior employees may have at least 50 percent of their compensation that exceeds seven times the median employee's pay deferred (Section 3(b)(1)).
-
Cancellation of Pay: Compensation deferred in the fund may be canceled if the fund does not have enough money to repay the employee after the deferment period (Section 3(d)).
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill strengthens protections for depositors by ensuring bank collapse liabilities and fines are paid out of executive compensation funds first. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill protects federal insurance funds by requiring bank deferment funds to cover losses and fines first. Is this likely to grow the economy? — By aligning executive incentives with long-term stability and protecting deposit insurance funds, the bill promotes greater financial system resilience.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protects everyday account holders from bearing the costs of financial institution collapses and corporate misconduct. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Protects middle-class deposits and savings from being lost when financial institutions fail. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from enhanced stability and deposit protections in the banking system. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Retirees and seniors benefit from increased stability and protection of bank deposits and credit union accounts. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Ultra-wealthy senior banking executives are targeted to cover corporate fines and bank failure losses. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Top earners and executives at large financial institutions face significant restrictions and clawbacks on their compensation. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — High-net-worth senior executives at large financial institutions are directly impacted by deferred and potentially canceled compensation. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-earning senior financial employees face mandatory deferment and potential cancellation of a portion of their incentive compensation.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill grants federal regulatory agencies oversight authority regarding executive compensation deferment funds.
- 6/25/2026
- Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4251)
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Al GreenDemocrat · Texas
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania