83-year-old retired pastor, who sued the Trump admin over DOGE, passed away before the verdict — but a judge just temporarily reversed all cuts. How her fight affects every American

Why she sued

Steege was an 83-year-old retired Lutheran pastor whose doctors told her she had less than six months to live due to her cancer. She was ordained in 2005 and her past sermons can still be viewed on the Saint Stephen Lutheran Church's YouTube channel.

She had taken on student loans to pursue higher education at a seminary and had struggled to enroll in Public Service Loan Forgiveness. She had recently begun working with the CFPB to resolve issues with her application. If approved, she would have had her loans forgiven and been in line for roughly $15,000 in refunds from previously made loan payments.

But on Feb. 9, DOGE moved to severely limit CFPB operations. That forced the agency to cancel Steege's follow-up meeting, and without the agency’s help, she did not get her money and have her debt matter settled prior to her passing. If her family pursues a death discharge for her loans, that would not provide them the refund that Steege said they are counting on for basic needs.

She was part of a lawsuit filed against the CFPB and CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought challenging its “unlawful dismantling.” Other plaintiffs include the CFPB Employee Association, the NAACP, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Virginia Poverty Law Center.

She has been replaced as a plaintiff by her husband Martin Theodore Steege.

Subscribe to our free newsletter

Get top stories & exclusive content.
Join our 200k+ community.

By signing up, you accept Moneywise Terms of Use, Subscription Agreement,
and Privacy Policy.

CFPB ordered to get back to work

When President Trump announced plans to form DOGE, many Americans worried that it would result in key agencies and programs losing funding. Those fears weren't unfounded.

Since getting going, DOGE has implemented substantial cuts that have impacted a number of key government agencies, from the Defense Department to the Education Department to the IRS. The administration claimed it intends to retain some version of the CFPB. But if its scope is severely narrowed and its power limited, it may not do consumers much good.

On March 28, a federal judge said Steege suffered "irreparable harm" and issued a preliminary injunction, reversing the Trump administration's actions to dismantle the agency until the case has been resolved. All terminated employees will be reinstated and data and records cannot be deleted.

Of course, it begs the question: Why is the CFPB, a relatively small agency, being targeted?

Rohit Chopra, who was the director of the CFPB until Feb. 1 when he was fired by President Trump, has some thoughts. He told CBS, "The companies that the CFPB oversees are actually some of the biggest and most powerful … They would want a situation where the agency is a lapdog rather than a watchdog."

The agency has recently dropped five lawsuits filed against financial institutions, including one against Capital One.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the brains behind the CFPB, isn't ready to let the agency go down without a fight. During a recent protest, she said, "For every person who wants to buy a home without getting scammed, this fight is your fight. For every student who wants to borrow money to go to school without getting defrauded, for every member of our military who doesn't want to get trapped by some sleazy payday lender, say it with me? This is your fight."

Why shuttering the CFPB hurts Americans

If the agency's ability to enforce rules or initiate actions is limited, a number of key consumer protections would be at risk.

For example, the agency recently finalized a rule banning the inclusion of medical debt on consumer credit reports and barring lenders from using medical data to make loan decisions. That rule was set to go into effect in mid-March, but it's now at risk of disappearing.

The CFPB also worked tirelessly to limit credit card late fees. The agency finalized a rule last year to cap most of those fees at $8, down from an average of $32 — a rule that could save consumers $10 billion per year. But that cap was blocked from taking effect by a federal judge, and is now at risk of going away if the CFPB doesn't have the resources to fight back.

Along these lines, in December, the CFPB had finalized a rule capping most bank overdraft fees at $5, down from an average of $35. The rule was set to take effect in October, and it has the potential to save consumers up to $5 billion per year.

Not surprisingly, banks and credit unions sued the CFPB over that rule. But the CFPB under Trump may let this rule, like its junk fee rule, fall by the wayside.

And these are just a few examples. All told, stripping the CFPB of power means there’s no government agency to advocate for consumers and look out for their best financial interests. So while cutting the CFPB might help DOGE achieve its goal of reducing government spending, Americans stand to suffer both collectively and individually.