Donald Trump Just Made It Way Easier for Your Financial Adviser to Rip You Off

The fiduciary rule sounds boring, but getting rid of it could cost you big-time.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Donald Trump rolled out his latest executive action Friday afternoon, and it’s a huge handout to the financial industry at the expense of consumers. Trump ordered the Department of Labor to explore overturning—or at least weakening—a dull-sounding Obama administration regulation known as the “fiduciary rule.” And while the details of that will be up to Trump’s labor secretary, his order does at least push back the start date for the rule, which was supposed to go into effect in April. “The rule is a solution in search of a problem,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday.

“This is like putting only healthy food on the menu because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger.”

The fiduciary rule is the sort of technical-sounding tweak that doesn’t whip up a ton of attention during political campaigns, but it could have a major impact on the amount of money middle-class Americans are able to save for their retirements. The essence of the rule isn’t all that complicated. It simply requires the retirement fund managers overseeing your 401(k) or IRA to actually act in your best interest—rather than sacrificing your interests for their own personal gain.

It’s an intuitive concept, but it’s one that hasn’t always been practiced by the industry. President Barack Obama’s Labor Department spent six years writing the details of how exactly the fiduciary rule would work, publishing a finalized version last year. The department estimated that retirement accounts across the country lost a total of $17 billion per year due to investment advice that clearly isn’t in the consumer’s interest. Earlier Friday, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a report detailing the rampant kickbacks that financial advisers receive when they recommend certain financial products to their clients. “It’s far too easy for an adviser to sell just one more annuity, regardless of whether it is a prudent choice for the investor, when a free vacation or an international cruise is waiting for him on the other side of the sale,” the report says. “These conflicts can result in devastating consequences for retirees.”

Trump’s directive was rolled out Thursday night by Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president who now heads Trump’s National Economic Council. Cohn offered a bizarre explanation for the move during an interview with the Wall Street Journal, arguing that the fiduciary rule limits consumers’ choices. “This is like putting only healthy food on the menu because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger.” Except unlike splurging on a Big Mac, where you know what you’re getting, consumers tend to be unaware when their financial adviser’s hidden conflicts of interest are siphoning away their retirement savings.

Around the time Trump officially signed the order Friday, Warren blasted him on Twitter:

Trump paired his fiduciary rule memorandum with a separate order instructing various federal regulators to begin exploring how they can roll back financial rules put in place by Dodd-Frank, the 2010 Wall Street reform law enacted by congressional Democrats and Obama in the wake of the financial crisis. Much like Trump’s earlier executive order attacking Obamacare, the anti-Dodd-Frank measure doesn’t offer much in the way of specifics; rather, it appears to be intended to set a general tone for how Trump’s administration will tackle financial regulation.

Trump neatly summed up the reason for his opposition to the Obama measures during a meeting with CEOs Friday morning: Financial reform made life harder for his uber-rich friends. “Frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses,” he said. “They can’t borrow money, they just can’t because the banks won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend