Financial regulatory relief has been identified as a policy priority by President Donald Trump—who has reportedly called for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( P.L. 111-203 ) to be "dismantled" —and by some Members of the 115 th Congress. This report does not discuss the content of current financial regulatory policy or proposals to provide relief from those policies. Instead, it provides a framework for understanding how relief might be pursued, which could be useful to proponents and opponents of such relief. It discusses the sources of policy changes following the 2007-2009 financial crisis that have been the focus of recent relief efforts and outlines the different legislative strategies available to Congress. In addition, the report addresses what regulators and the Administration could do to provide relief without statutory change, to clarify where legislative action would or would not be necessary. Many financial reforms were adopted in response to the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Reforms aimed to address problems that emerged during the crisis, such as financial instability and inadequate protection for consumers and investors. Critics argue that these reforms went too far and that the burden of financial regulation now exceeds the benefits. The financial reforms at the center of the current debate primarily stem from legislation enacted since 2008, international agreements, and preexisting authority of the financial regulators. The largest source of postcrisis reform was the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, wide-ranging legislation that made regulatory changes across the financial system, including to the regulation of derivatives, banks, consumer and investor protection, systemic risk, and mortgages. Hundreds of regulations promulgated by regulators since the Dodd-Frank Act's passage are pursuant to new authority granted by the act. According to the Government Accountability Office, regulators had issued final rules for about 75% of rulemaking requirements in the act as of the end of 2016. Recent Congresses have debated legislation to amend the Dodd-Frank Act. Several bills have been enacted in past Congresses that make minor changes to the act, but no bills that make more fundamental changes have been enacted to date. Other, more narrowly targeted, postcrisis regulatory changes stem from various acts, including the following: The Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA; P.L. 110-289 ), which created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) with enhanced powers to regulate the housing government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have remained in FHFA conservatorship since September 2008 under the powers provided by HERA. HERA also set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act ( P.L. 111-24 ), which required new consumer protections for credit card users. Other recent regulatory changes implemented by U.S. regulators stem from principles agreed to multilaterally through international fora. The overall agenda-setting for international financial cooperation and coordination is most associated with the Group of 20 (G-20) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). The G-20 is an informal grouping of 19 major economies (including the United States) and the European Union; since 2009, the G-20 has been the primary political steering forum for international economic cooperation. The FSB is a technical body, which was established by the G-20 to coordinate the G-20 agenda and set the priorities for the international financial standard-setting process. FSB members include the regulators from the G-20 countries (and others), as well as several international financial institutions and international standard-setting bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). As illustrated in Figure 1 , national financial authorities are the primary actors responsible for devising rules and providing oversight and supervision of financial institutions operating under their jurisdiction. National financial authorities also are responsible for participating in the international standard-setting bodies. The international agenda and standard-setting bodies operate on a consensual basis and have no legally binding authority. Because national regulators (or other authorities) cannot enter into treaties with other countries, agreements made at international fora or by regulators at standard-setting bodies require domestic legislative or regulatory changes before they are implemented. Many of the primary postcrisis reform initiatives of the FSB closely match parts of the Dodd-Frank Act. International financial institutions, primarily the International Monetary Fund, provide overall monitoring of national compliance with the agreed-upon international financial standards, among other functions. For banks, an important source of new and revised prudential regulatory standards is the multilateral Basel III accords, a nonbinding international agreement to harmonize banking regulation, such as capital requirements. U.S. banking regulators promulgated new regulations to comply with the standards set out in Basel III. For globally active financial institutions, the FSB, in coordination with the Basel Committee and IAIS, respectively, designates firms as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and global systemically important insurers. U.S. bank regulators have tailored some heightened regulatory standards to apply only to G-SIBs. Some regulatory changes for securities, derivatives, and insurance markets have implemented international attempts to set standards and harmonize policies through IOSCO and IAIS. Financial regulators have broad discretionary standing authority to achieve their mandated objectives, such as ensuring the safety and soundness of regulated financial institutions or providing consumer and investor protection. In some cases, postcrisis reforms stem from this authority rather than from recent statutory changes. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) used its long-standing authority to regulate money market mutual funds to set new regulatory standards for those funds in response to a money market run in 2008. Regulatory relief in financial services refers to policy changes to reduce or eliminate regulatory requirements or the costs of complying with those requirements. This report does not discuss the content of current financial regulatory policy or proposals to provide relief from those policies. Instead, it discusses different approaches to implementing regulatory relief. Nevertheless, the following framework for evaluating relief proposals may be useful to consider before choosing between different approaches. In determining whether to provide regulatory relief, a central question is whether an appropriate trade-off has been struck between the benefits and costs of regulation. Benefits. Financial regulation has different objectives and potential benefits, including enhancing the safety and soundness of certain institutions; protecting consumers and investors from fraud, manipulation, and discrimination; and promoting financial stability while reducing systemic risk. A financial regulatory system that delivers a baseline level of stability and trust between financial agents is a precondition to a healthy financial system that can generate robust economic growth. Regulators employ different tools to achieve these goals. Regulators issue rules; supervise and examine institutions to verify that the rules are followed; and take enforcement actions, such as imposing fines, when the regulations are not followed. In other cases, regulators require companies or individuals to meet certain standards and receive a license before engaging in a particular business practice. The specific goals regulators attempt to achieve and the tools they use vary by market. For example, risk management is emphasized for banking regulation and disclosure is a priority in securities regulation. Costs. The costs associated with government regulation—rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement—are frequently referred to as regulatory burden . Regulatory requirements often are imposed on providers of financial services, so financial institutions frequently are the focus of discussions about regulatory burden. But costs associated with regulation can flow through the providers and ultimately be borne, in part, by different entities, including consumers, the government, and the economy at large. For example, a provider may respond to increased regulatory burden by raising the prices it charges to customers. If regulatory burden reduces the long-term availability of credit, it would have a negative effect on business investment and economic growth. Regulatory burden may manifest itself in different forms. Operating costs are the costs the company must bear to adhere to the regulation, such as employee training. Some regulations create one-time operating costs borne up front, whereas other regulations create recurring costs that exist as long as the requirement is in effect. Opportunity costs are the costs associated with foregone business opportunities because of additional regulation. For example, a lender may make fewer mortgages because new regulations make mortgage lending more expensive, and that lender may instead perform a different type of lending that is now more profitable. Trade -O ffs. Regulatory relief may face trade-offs between reducing regulatory burden and potentially reducing the benefits of regulation. The trade-offs are not limited to the effects on the direct recipients of relief—usually the providers of financial services—but may extend to the effects on consumers, investors, particular markets, and market stability more broadly. The presence of regulatory burden does not necessarily mean that a regulation is undesirable or should be repealed. A regulation can have benefits that could outweigh its costs, but the presence of costs means, tautologically, that the regulation causes regulatory burden. The concept of regulatory burden can be contrasted with the phrase unduly burdensome . Whereas regulatory burden is about the costs associated with a regulation, unduly burdensome refers to the balance between benefits and costs. For example, some would consider a regulation to be unduly burdensome if costs are in excess of benefits or the same benefits could be achieved at a lower cost. However, the presence of regulatory burden does not mean that all regulations are unduly burdensome. Policymakers consider these trade-offs and evaluate the broader effects of regulation that could be either positive or negative, such as how a requirement would impact innovation, the price of credit, and the availability of credit. For example, efforts to protect consumers against potential actions taken by banks may drive up the cost for a bank to provide certain services and may result in that activity migrating to a less regulated part of the financial system or to foreign jurisdictions with lower regulatory standards. However, trade-offs are not always present.