The Trump administration notched a victory when a Kentucky federal judge temporarily blocked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from implementing a rule critics say puts Americans’ financial data at risk.

The 1033 Rule, proposed under President Joe Biden’s CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, requires banks to “make available to consumers, upon request, transaction data and other information concerning a consumer financial product or service that the consumer obtained from the covered entity.”

Forcht Bank, the Kentucky Bankers Association, and the Bank Policy Institute sued to block the rule, saying it exceeded the CFPB’s authority and would force the institutions to hand over large amounts of sensitive data, creating security and liability risks. Judge Danny C. Reeves of the United States District Court for Kentucky concluded the rule could cause more harm than good.

“The public could arguably lose some benefit from the Rule not being enforced at the set compliance deadlines,” said the judge. “However, the plaintiffs also contend that enforcement of the current Rule puts consumers at risk due to security risk as to their banking information.”

The Bank Policy Institute issued a statement saying the organization was grateful for the court’s decision.

“This is a common-sense procedural step,” said the Bank Policy Institute. It “doesn’t interfere with the rulemaking process but ensures banks won’t be forced to invest time and resources preparing for a rule that is currently being rewritten.”

“This preliminary injunction marks a pivotal moment for those who value consumer privacy and limited-government issues,” a source familiar with the matter told The Daily Wire. “The Trump administration now has a unique opportunity to advance a new 1033 rule that gets the government out of the way and unleashes innovation.”

Under Vought’s leadership, the CFPB issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, inviting the public to give input to form the basis of the final rule. Once input has been provided, the CFPB will share a draft of the rule.

The CFPB will now solicit comments and data around four key issues related to the implementation of the 1033 rule: who should be allowed to access financial data on a customer’s behalf, whether companies should be allowed to charge data sharing fees, how big are the security risks of sharing financial data, and how big are the privacy risks.

The Bank Policy Institute writes that the current rule “unlawfully mandated banks to share sensitive consumer data with third-party fintechs and aggregators; it required no oversight of third parties using bank customer data,” among other issues.

Earlier this year, Chopra was notified that he had been fired by the president via an email from the White House. President Trump appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to lead the agency in interim before handing the reins over to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought.

Rethinking the CFPB has been a priority of the Trump administration’s since the start of his term. In February, the White House issued a statement stating that the agency “has long functioned as another woke, weaponized arm of the bureaucracy that leverages its power against certain industries and individuals disfavored by so-called elites.”

The Trump administration accused the CFPB of “supporting radical advocacy groups, threatening banks for refusing to lend to illegal immigrants, targeting a Chicago small business after it complained about the city’s rampant crime, and mining American citizens’ personal financial information.”

On The Charlie Kirk Show, Vought discussed the importance of putting a stop to the agency’s ability to weaponize “the tools of financial laws against small mom and pop lenders and other small financial institutions.”

On Thursday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled about 800 points. As of Friday morning, the Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were also tumbling.

What the hell is going on?

It may be that many people are beginning to realize that a lot of these big tech companies, which are investing in each other, are betting on a payoff from AI that may not actually accrue to those companies.

For example, Oracle has become a heavy investor in OpenAI, which is the parent company of ChatGPT. OpenAI is not publicly traded, but you have a bunch of publicly traded companies that are basically doing circular cash deals with OpenAI. Thus, if you’re investing in Oracle, you’re partially investing in OpenAI. Or if you are investing in Nvidia, you are partially investing in OpenAI. A lot of money is being passed between all of these companies at the top end of the market, because some provide services to other members of that particular crew.

The question is: Are the gains from AI going to accrue to OpenAI? To Meta? Who will actually benefit from the productivity increases we’re going to see from AI?

AI is going to be transformative for the economy. You will be using AI in your job if you’re not already. AI is going to increase productivity.

Does that mean those companies are then reaping the benefits in terms of profits for them? What keeps the wheels spinning for those companies? That’s the question a lot of investors are beginning to ask.

I’m highly skeptical that the Fed will cut rates, given the current state of the economy. Inflation has not been put to bed, and liquidity actually is not all that hard to get for businesses right now. Inflating the economy by lowering those interest rates again and pumping more money into the economy could be a mistake.

The S&P 500 fell 1.7% on Thursday. The Dow dropped 1.7%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite sank 2.3%. Those are the biggest declines for all three major indices since October 10.

What does it show? If the economy is this responsive to the possibility of a Fed rate cut or a Fed rate increase, that is not a strong economy.

If what you’re worried about is whether there’s going to be incrementally lower interest rates for businesses to artificially spice things up in terms of liquidity, to inject more money into the economy, and that’s what you’re waiting on, that does not bode well. It does not mean that the fundamentals seem particularly strong.

Why? Because so much of what is happening at the top end of the market and the vast majority of the gains in the stock market are located in the Magnificent Seven. The rest of the stock market over the past couple of years has been essentially flat, with perhaps a slight increase, while the top end of the market has exploded. That’s what’s driven the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to 48,000.

It’s everybody betting on the same horses over and over and over and over again. And if you keep betting on the same horses over and over and over and those horses don’t come in, things get ugly. What happens if OpenAI does not deliver the gains it may have promised?

People are starting to divest a little bit from the top of the market. That’s why you’re seeing the market start to drop a little bit right now. You could see that turned into a wave if, for example, Open AI ever reports any bad news or if one of these other major AI companies starts to report decreased profit share or people start to think, generally speaking, that it’ll take longer than they thought it would for AI to filter into every aspect of the market and then down to the original companies.

I’m not saying that a stock market crash is imminent. I am saying that there is a bubble. In real estate, there’s a bubble; in tech, there’s a bubble.

And so the market is reflecting that.