The bill amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Federal Credit Union Act to let a State block federal interest‑rate preemption only as to loans originated by institutions chartered in that State. It achieves this by inserting a narrowly framed opt‑out trigger—either a state law or a voter certification—that strips subsection (a) (the exportation rule) of effect for loans made by those in‑state chartered lenders after the opt‑out date.
The measure also repeals Section 525 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and expressly says the new statutory text will govern the legal effect of any state laws or certifications previously adopted under that now‑repealed provision. For practitioners, the bill reassigns who can regulate cross‑border interest rates and creates new compliance, chartering, and litigation considerations for state‑chartered banks, credit unions, and state regulators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a state opt‑out that takes effect only for loans made by institutions chartered in the opting state; the opt‑out is triggered by a state statute or a voter certification and applies prospectively to loans (including commitments entered into) after the effective date.
Who It Affects
Directly affects insured depository institutions and insured credit unions chartered by states that enact such opt‑outs, as well as out‑of‑state borrowers who deal with those lenders, state banking and credit union regulators, and secondary‑market participants handling affected loans.
Why It Matters
It narrows the scope of federal interest‑rate exportation and shifts regulatory control back toward States for their own charters, altering competitive dynamics between state‑chartered lenders and out‑of‑state rivals and likely prompting chartering and compliance responses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three concrete statutory moves. First, it changes the Federal Deposit Insurance Act’s interest‑export rule so that a State can adopt a law (or certify a voter initiative) that explicitly says the federal exportation provision should not apply to loans made by institutions chartered by that State.
That carve‑out is limited: it turns off subsection (a) only for loans (and loan commitments) originated by in‑state chartered banks after the date the State law or certification takes effect.
Second, the bill inserts parallel language into the Federal Credit Union Act so the same opt‑out can be invoked with respect to insured credit unions chartered by the State. The operative trigger language requires the State to “state explicitly and by its terms” that the exportation clause should not apply; the bill thus sets a textual bar that may be relevant in later judicial review about what qualifies as a valid opt‑out.Third, the bill repeals Section 525 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980.
But it does not erase the legal status of prior state actions: the new amendments apply to any state law or certification adopted under that now‑repealed Section 525 before this bill’s enactment, effectively grandfathering existing opt‑outs into the new framework. The net effect is to confine State authority to limit interest‑rate exportation to loans by lenders chartered in the State, rather than allowing any broader statewide ban on exportation that would reach out‑of‑state‑chartered lenders.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 12 U.S.C. 1831d (Section 27 of the FDIA) to permit a State to opt out of the federal interest‑rate export rule only for loans made by institutions chartered by that State.
It adds matching opt‑out language to 12 U.S.C. 1785(g) (Section 205(g) of the Federal Credit Union Act) so insured credit unions are subject to the same limited state opt‑out mechanism.
The opt‑out can be invoked either by a State statute or by a voter certification; the statutory text requires the State to ‘state explicitly and by its terms’ that the subsection should not apply.
The opt‑out applies prospectively to loans made by (or for which a commitment to make such loan was entered into by) the State‑chartered institution after the adoption or certification date.
The bill repeals Section 525 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and explicitly applies the new amendments to any state laws or certifications enacted under that repealed provision before this Act’s enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s public name, the American Lending Fairness Act of 2026. This is purely nominal but is the reference label for the amendments that follow.
State‑limited opt‑out for insured depository institutions
Adds a new subsection (c) to Section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act establishing that a State can adopt a law or certify a voter‑backed provision explicitly opting out of the interest‑rate export rule, but only with respect to loans made by institutions chartered by that State. Practically, that confines state regulatory reach: a State may strip exportation protection from its own chartered banks but cannot, under this text, use the same mechanism to target out‑of‑state chartered banks that operate in the State.
Parallel rule for insured credit unions
Appends a new paragraph (3) to Section 205(g) of the Federal Credit Union Act mirroring the FDIA change. The symmetry matters because it places insured credit unions on the same footing as insured banks for any state that chooses to take this step, avoiding a gap in coverage between bank and credit union charters when a State seeks to regulate interest rates charged by its chartered entities.
Repeal of Section 525 and grandfathering of prior opt‑outs
Repeals Section 525 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (the historical vehicle for some state opt‑outs) and states the new amendments govern the legal effect of any state law or certification that was adopted under that now‑repealed section before this Act’s enactment. This clause is consequential: it attempts to avoid vacating prior state actions while replacing the legal basis and scope of those opt‑outs with the narrower, charter‑limited model in this bill.
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
- Out‑of‑state borrowers and consumer advocates — By allowing States to restrict exportation only for their own chartered lenders, the bill makes it easier for states to prevent high‑rate state‑chartered lenders from using that state’s permissive rules to charge elevated rates to out‑of‑state consumers, improving potential protections for those borrowers.
- State regulators and legislatures that favor local consumer protections — The statute gives those actors a clear, textually based mechanism to regulate the interest rates charged by lenders they charter, strengthening state control over locally chartered institutions without reaching into other States’ charters.
- Competing in‑state and out‑of‑state financial institutions (non‑chartered rivals) — Banks and credit unions operating under more restrictive state rules may see reduced competitive pressure from their own State’s chartered lenders when those lenders lose exportation privileges, improving local competitive balance.
Who Bears the Cost
- State‑chartered banks and credit unions in opt‑out States — These institutions would lose the ability to export their home‑state interest rules when making loans after an opt‑out takes effect, which can reduce pricing flexibility and market reach and increase compliance burdens.
- Secondary‑market participants and loan servicers — If loans from chartering states are subject to different legal regimes depending on the loan’s origination date, investors and servicers will face additional legal due diligence and potential repricing or withholding of capital for affected pools.
- State banking agencies and federal regulators — The changes create new enforcement and interpretive questions (e.g., what forms of voter certification qualify, how to treat affiliate or national‑chartered activity), likely increasing administrative workload and legal exposure as disputes migrate to courts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between restoring targeted state control over the interest rates charged by lenders they charter (a consumer‑protection and state‑sovereignty aim) and preserving a uniform, predictable national market for credit (which favors exportation rules to enable interstate lending). Reducing exportation for in‑state charters protects out‑of‑state borrowers and tightens local oversight, but it also fragments the regulatory landscape and creates strong incentives for lenders to change charters or distribution methods to avoid state limits.
The bill narrows the universe of state opt‑outs but leaves several operationally important ambiguities. It requires States to “state explicitly and by its terms” that subsection (a) should not apply, but it does not define how narrowly the text must be drafted, whether ballot language must track statutory language, or how courts should resolve close cases.
That textual threshold creates a litigation hinge: disputes over whether a prior or new state enactment satisfies the statutory standard are likely and could produce divergent circuit rulings about what counts as a valid opt‑out.
The measure also creates predictable incentives for chartering and business model adjustments. Institutions that rely on interest exportation may consider reorganizing, relocating charters, or changing distribution channels to preserve pricing advantages; conversely, States may face pressure to attract or retain charters.
The repeal of Section 525 coupled with a grandfather clause attempts to avoid retroactive invalidation of existing state actions, but that very clause may spawn legal challenges about retroactivity, vested rights, and the continued enforceability of loans originated under the prior framework. Finally, the bill affects only insured depository institutions and insured credit unions; it does not amend the National Bank Act or explicitly address national banks and federal thrifts, leaving gaps and potential forum‑shopping opportunities for certain lenders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.