The bill edits the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to let federal banking agencies place a larger group of insured depository institutions on an 18‑month examination cadence, provided those institutions meet the statute’s existing qualifying criteria. It does this by changing numeric thresholds in the law that determine which institutions are eligible for the extended exam interval.
For professionals tracking supervisory policy, the practical effect is straightforward: a cohort of mid‑sized institutions that previously faced more frequent exams would become eligible for less‑frequent on‑site examinations if they remain “qualifying” under Section 10(d). That could lower near‑term compliance and operational costs for those institutions while shifting some supervisory workload and risk monitoring considerations onto regulators and internal bank risk functions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 12 U.S.C. 1820(d) — Section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act — by replacing the current asset threshold with a higher one in two statutory subsections (paragraphs (4)(A) and (10)). The amendment expands the pool of institutions agencies may place on an 18‑month exam cycle.
Who It Affects
Federal banking agencies (the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve) and insured depository institutions that fall between the old and new asset thresholds and meet Section 10(d)’s other eligibility requirements. Examiners, bank compliance and risk teams, and third‑party vendors that support exams will feel the operational impact.
Why It Matters
It reallocates supervisory attention by making a larger set of institutions eligible for less‑frequent on‑site exams without changing substantive supervisory standards. That can reduce recurring examination costs for banks but raises questions about detection timing for emerging risks and how agencies will reassign examiner resources.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act already gives federal banking agencies discretion to examine certain well‑run, qualifying insured depository institutions on an extended schedule — specifically allowing an exam cadence of not less than once every 18 months instead of the traditional annual cycle. This bill leaves that basic framework intact but widens which banks can be considered for that treatment by modifying the statute’s asset‑size cutoff.
Practically, the change means a set of institutions that previously sat above the statutory ceiling for the extended‑cycle option can now be evaluated for it. Agencies still rely on the statutory and supervisory criteria embedded elsewhere in Section 10(d) — such as ongoing supervisory ratings and safety‑and‑soundness metrics — when deciding whether to exercise the extended interval.
The amendment does not itself alter those eligibility tests or the agencies’ authority to increase exam frequency if supervisory concerns arise.Implementation will be administrative: agencies will update internal policies and examiner guidance to reflect the new asset size, adjust scheduling systems, and communicate with affected institutions. Banks that gain eligibility will still need to maintain the performance and risk metrics that made them “qualifying” in the first place; gaining the option to move to 18‑month exams is not automatic and remains contingent on supervisory judgment.Because the bill changes only the numeric threshold in two statutory paragraphs, it is a narrow amendment on its face.
Its system‑level effect depends on how many institutions in the newly eligible band meet the qualifying criteria and how agencies reassign examiner capacity and prioritize off‑site surveillance between on‑site visits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends two specific statutory locations: 12 U.S.C. 1820(d), paragraphs (4)(A) and (10).
It increases the statutory asset size ceiling used to determine eligibility for the 18‑month exam option to $6,000,000,000 (from the current statutory figure).
The 18‑month interval remains a permissive minimum — agencies may still schedule examinations more frequently based on supervisory judgment or concerns.
The amendment only changes numeric thresholds; it does not modify the other eligibility criteria or supervisory standards housed in Section 10(d).
The bill directs no new reporting, funding, or examination procedures — implementation will occur through agency policy and exam‑scheduling updates rather than fresh statutory duties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'TRUST Act of 2026'
This brief provision gives the bill its public name. It carries no operative changes to law but frames the package for reference in agency guidance and downstream rulemaking citations.
Raises the asset ceiling in paragraph (4)(A)
This clause swaps the numeric asset threshold used in paragraph (4)(A) of Section 10(d). That paragraph is one of the statutory hooks that determines which insured depository institutions may be considered "qualifying" for an extended examination interval. Practically, this change immediately expands the population of banks that agencies can elect to place on an 18‑month on‑site exam cadence, subject to existing qualifying conditions and supervisory discretion.
Raises the asset ceiling in paragraph (10)
Paragraph (10) contains a parallel asset‑size reference used elsewhere in the Section 10(d) framework. Altering the same dollar figure here ensures consistency across the statute so that related eligibility references align with the higher ceiling. Because the bill only replaces the number, agencies retain the same legal authorities and constraints to require more frequent exams when risk indicators warrant earlier intervention.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Mid‑sized insured depository institutions (previously above the old cutoff but below the new $6B ceiling) — they gain eligibility for an 18‑month exam cadence, which can lower direct examination disruption and associated internal resource costs if agencies agree they qualify.
- Bank compliance, treasury and operations teams at newly eligible institutions — fewer on‑site exams can free staff time for other compliance and business priorities and reduce third‑party exam support expenses.
- Holding companies and investors in affected banks — predictable, lower frequency exams can reduce near‑term operational cost volatility and support planning assumptions for capital and staffing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal banking agencies (FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve) — expanding eligibility can shift examiner scheduling, require reallocation of examiner headcount, and increase reliance on off‑site monitoring to cover more institutions between visits.
- Exam workforce and contractor firms focused on on‑site exam services — demand for frequent on‑site work may decline in the affected cohort, disrupting business models tied to annual exams.
- Depositors and counterparties of newly eligible banks — while not direct payers, they bear the indirect risk of less frequent in‑person supervisory scrutiny, which could delay identification of emerging safety‑and‑soundness problems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades supervisory intensity for regulatory relief: it reduces the frequency of on‑site exams for a larger group of mid‑sized banks—lowering costs and examiner disruption—but does so at the potential expense of timelier, in‑person detection of risks; the central dilemma is whether expanded eligibility and continued reliance on off‑site surveillance will preserve safety‑and‑soundness objectives as effectively as more frequent on‑site oversight.
The bill is narrowly drafted — it changes only the numeric asset threshold in two places of Section 10(d) and leaves the rest of the supervisory framework untouched. That narrowness simplifies legal implementation but concentrates all meaningful policy choices into agency execution: how strictly to apply existing "qualifying" criteria, how to adapt off‑site surveillance, and how to reassign examiner resources.
Agencies will need to update guidance and scheduling systems, and those administrative choices will determine whether the statutory change produces substantial relief or only marginal scheduling shifts.
A predictable implementation challenge is the cliff effect created by a single dollar threshold. Institutions just below the new ceiling will be treated differently than those just above it, which can incentivize accounting, structuring, or growth decisions timed around the threshold.
The statute does not create transitional phases or staggered treatment, nor does it include safeguards (for example, mandatory off‑site reporting enhancements) that could compensate for fewer on‑site visits. That leaves open questions about how agencies will calibrate intensified off‑site monitoring, data demands, or conditional supervisory commitments for institutions that shift into the extended cycle.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.