New York Attorney General Letitia James, the infamously and reflexively anti-Trump litigator, has now joined 23 other state AGs in filing an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from closing down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB.)

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong were among 23 attorneys general filing a brief in U.S. District Court in Maryland to argue against the Trump Administration and Elon Musk’s dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). James co-led the coalition that argued in its amicus brief that dismantling the CFPB would hurt consumers and interfere with the enforcement of federal consumer protection laws.

The brief was filed in support of a lawsuit by the mayor and City of Baltimore to keep the CFPB open.

The rhetoric from Letitia James comes straight from the Bernie Sanders playbook:

“Eliminating the CFPB will hurt everyday people and benefit billionaires like Elon Musk and his friends,” James said. “The only reason to get rid of this watchdog agency is to protect bad actors. Working families need the CFPB, especially as rising prices are making it hard to make ends meet and put food on the table. My office is leading this coalition to help protect the agency that has protected all of us.”

It’s belaboring the obvious that the nation managed to survive until 2011 with no CFPB in place. That bureau, which we might note has zero constitutional authorization to even exist, has a history of rather arbitrary decisions. Last November, shortly after President Trump won his historic re-election, Tech entrepreneur Marc Andreesen appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and described some of CFPBs actions:

Marc Andreesen on Elizabeth Warrens agency CFPB which has spent the last 4 years terrorizing people via debanking. This is going to be a 3 part thread. pic.twitter.com/M8lpCLxsk5

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) November 26, 2024

Like they did to Kanye, my partner Ben’s father has been debanked. (Really?) We had an employee. (For what?) For having the wrong politics, for saying unacceptable things. Under current banking regulations… Okay, here’s a great thing. Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there’s now a category called a politically exposed person, PEP. If you are a PEP, you are required by financial regulators to kick them out of your bank. (What?) You’re not allowed to have them.

Designating someone a “politically exposed person” in banking regulations, you have to admit, has an almost Soviet ring to it.