Information provided to members by OGR.

Washington enters the week of Jan. 12 amid a convergence of major policy debates, political tensions, and high-stakes negotiations. As appropriators work to meet a Jan 30 government funding deadline, Congress is advancing FY 2026 spending packages against a backdrop of heightened controversy around health care, war powers, digital assets, and immigration enforcement.
​
Lawmakers are making progress on bipartisan, bicameral “minibus” appropriations packages, with the House and Senate each advancing multi-bill funding measures. A final minibus, expected to include Defense, Labor-HHS, and Transportation-HUD, remains under negotiation. However, disagreements surrounding the Homeland Security funding bill, intensified by recent events involving ICE, make it increasingly likely that at least one funding bill will require a short-term continuing resolution.

Beyond appropriations, congressional committees are preparing for action on several major policy priorities later this year, including surface transportation reauthorization, digital assets market structure legislation, and a new farm bill. At the same time, the Senate is navigating debates over health care subsidies, war powers related to Venezuela, and advancing crypto market structure proposals through key committee markups.

The House returns this week facing continued challenges with a narrow majority, while leadership works to advance trade legislation, workforce-related proposals, and the next appropriations package. Committees are also beginning early work on transportation policy and broader affordability initiatives.

​This post provides a high-level overview of Congress this week. IPA members receive the full OGR Big Picture analysis, including detailed legislative outlooks, political risk assessments, and implications for the payments industry.

Information provided to members by OGR.

As Congress returns for the second session of the 119th Congress, lawmakers are confronting an unexpectedly volatile start to the year. A major foreign policy development, the U.S. military and law enforcement capture of Venezuela’s former President Nicolás Maduro, has immediately reshaped Washington’s agenda and injected new complexity into already delicate legislative negotiations.

In the opening days of the session, Congress is expected to focus on oversight questions surrounding the operation, including its legal justification, succession planning in Venezuela, and broader geopolitical implications. While Republican control of Congress likely limits the risk of aggressive oversight, the issue has the potential to complicate near-term dealmaking, particularly around national security and defense funding.

A Politically Charged Year Ahead

Beyond the immediate foreign policy shock, Congress is entering a highly charged year with midterm elections looming. Lawmakers will soon return to familiar fault lines, including government funding, healthcare, affordability, and the scope of executive authority. While bipartisan legislative wins remain possible in areas such as housing, surface transportation, or infrastructure permitting, both parties are increasingly focused on energizing their bases ahead of November.

Government Funding Pressures Intensify

Government funding remains the most urgent must-pass item on Congress’s agenda. Roughly 90 percent of discretionary spending is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution set to expire at the end of January. While appropriators have reached agreement on top-line spending levels, timing constraints make it unlikely that all remaining appropriations bills will be finalized before the deadline.

Lawmakers are weighing a range of options, including another short-term Continuing Resolution or a year-long extension, an approach gaining traction among House Republicans. Early movement on a bipartisan minibus package may offer insight into whether Congress can avoid another funding cliff in the near term.

A Changing Political Landscape

Compounding these dynamics is a growing wave of retirements in the House. With nearly 10 percent of members announcing they will not seek reelection, and a significant increase compared to recent cycles, both parties are already deeply engaged in candidate recruitment and fundraising efforts. Despite the elevated number of departures, relatively few seats are expected to be truly competitive, underscoring how narrowly divided the House remains.

This post provides a high-level overview of Congress this week. IPA members receive the full OGR Big Picture analysis, including detailed legislative outlooks, political risk assessments, and implications for the payments industry.

Information provided to members by OGR.

As Congress enters its final legislative week of 2025, lawmakers are racing to close out a crowded agenda before adjourning for the holiday recess. While progress is being made on several fronts, major questions around government funding and health care policy are likely to spill into the new year.

Following the Thanksgiving break, Congress returned to Washington with four core priorities: government funding, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidy extensions, and a package of executive branch nominations. Of those, the NDAA is on track for final Senate approval, and a broad nominations package is expected to clear later this week. Efforts to advance FY 2026 appropriations, however, remain stalled, with negotiations over top-line funding levels continuing behind the scenes. As a result, meaningful action on government funding is now expected in January.

Health care has emerged as the most significant unresolved issue of the year. The Senate failed to advance an ACA subsidy extension, and a complex House deal aimed at broader reform collapsed over the weekend. The setback highlights ongoing challenges for Republican leadership as they attempt to balance moderate demands with resistance from conservative members, particularly in the absence of clear policy direction from the White House.

At the same time, the administration remains focused on pressing global and domestic matters. Foreign policy challenges, including the war in Ukraine and rising tensions involving Venezuela, continue to command attention. Federal agencies are also working through implementation rules for the recently passed reconciliation bill, while the Office of Management and Budget moves forward with preparations for the President’s FY 2027 budget, expected in February.

Keep Up With Payments
​​
Each week, members receive a full version of this report. To receive that and more, join the Innovative Payments Association to stay informed on the decisions shaping the future of payments.

By Brian Tate, President and CEO, Innovative Payments Association

As we enter 2026, the payments industry is confronting a convergence of regulatory, technological, and political forces that will reshape how financial services operate in the U.S. These shifts are not theoretical – they are underway, and demand clarity, planning, and leadership. Innovation continues at a rapid pace, but the external environment has become increasingly difficult to interpret. For companies across our sector, this creates both challenges that require attention and opportunities that call for strategic action.

Below are five developments that are likely to influence how our industry operates and serves consumers in the year ahead.

1. AI Will Move from Experimentation to Everyday Infrastructure

Artificial intelligence is no longer an emerging technology – it is becoming integral to how financial institutions manage risk, detect fraud, and support customers. In 2026, more providers will transition AI applications from pilot programs to operational systems.

Performance gains make this shift unavoidable. Early adopters are already seeing significant improvements in fraud detection and pattern recognition compared to traditional tools. For a sector built on security and trust, AI is quickly becoming indispensable.

The challenge is not adoption – it is navigating uncertainty. Companies want to deploy AI responsibly, yet many are waiting for clearer regulatory expectations. Policymakers and industry participants will need to work together to establish guardrails that enable innovation without introducing unnecessary risk. The goal is clarity, not constraint.

2. Open Banking Will Shift Competitive Expectations

Open banking is no longer a distant possibility. The CFPB is working on updating the Personal Financial Data Rights rule that will fundamentally reshape how consumers access, use, and share their financial information.

With greater data portability, consumers will have more choice and more transparency. Providers, in turn, will face new competitive pressures as customers gain the ability to compare products and move between services with unprecedented ease.

One of the IPA’s priorities going forward is ensuring that the final rule takes into account all the players in the ecosystem and gives them a level playing field.

This transition requires significant investment in data infrastructure, cybersecurity, and governance. But the institutions that treat open banking as a strategic opportunity – not merely a regulatory obligation – will gain an advantage in a more dynamic, consumer-driven marketplace.

3. Stablecoins Are Moving from Concept to Utility

Stablecoins continue to expand in relevance, even amid a volatile policy environment. Market analysts project substantial growth over the next several years, driven by real use cases in cross-border payments and institutional settlement.

International regulatory developments are accelerating adoption. Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework has provided a clearer path forward, and global firms are responding.

The Genius Act has put the United States on a path towards a regulatory structure for stablecoins. The passage of the law is only the first step. Next up are the regulators who will need to make the rules of the road. The IPA plans to weigh in on behalf of our members’  interests. The nexus of digital assets and payments will be the gateway to unleashing the full potential of stablecoins.
 
4. The 2026 Elections Will Influence Policy Decisions

Election cycles always introduce uncertainty, but 2026 carries particular weight. With control of the House in question, agencies and lawmakers may adjust timelines, priorities, and policy strategies throughout the year.

Some agencies may accelerate outstanding initiatives in anticipation of political change. Others may slow activity to avoid committing to policies that could face immediate revision.

For the payments industry, this means flexibility is essential. Forward-looking companies will stay engaged, monitor developments closely, and remain prepared for multiple policy scenarios. In an environment without clear signals, consistent dialogue with policymakers across the spectrum becomes even more critical.

5. The CFPB Is Poised to Increase Its Supervisory Activity

Although the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remains uncertain, the prudential regulators, collectively, will continue to engage in more active oversight.

Providers, from big tech to major platforms, expect heightened scrutiny across compliance programs, product design, and operational practices. In this environment, transparency, strong documentation, and proactive engagement with regulators are not optional – they are foundational to sustainable operations and strategic risk management.

An Environment Without Clear Signals

Finally, the payments industry is operating in one of the most complex environments in recent years. Technological change is accelerating. Regulatory expectations are evolving. Political dynamics are shifting. Traditional indicators no longer offer reliable guidance for what comes next.

Yet, even amid this uncertainty, we are confident in our industry's resilience. The payments sector has consistently demonstrated the ability to innovate responsibly while protecting consumers and supporting the broader financial ecosystem. We have weathered regulatory shifts, economic cycles, and technological disruptions before, and we will do so again.
​
At the Innovative Payments Association, our priority is to ensure that members have the insights, tools, and representation needed to operate effectively in this climate. The year ahead will challenge us, but it will also bring meaningful opportunities to strengthen the financial tools that millions of Americans rely on every day.
Our industry is prepared for this moment – and ready to lead.

At today’s meeting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Consumer Advisory Board, Innovative Payments Association President and CEO Brian Tate delivered a clear message: workers need safe, affordable access to wages they have already earned — and regulators must restore clarity to support that access.

The testimony arrives at a pivotal moment. Millions of Americans continue to face a simple but profound financial challenge: the timing of their expenses rarely aligns with the timing of their paychecks. As Tate noted, this gap makes liquidity essential, particularly for the growing number of workers living close to their financial margins.

Why Earned Wage Access Matters

One of the most effective tools available to help bridge these gaps is earned wage access (EWA). Tate underscored a point too often lost in policy debates: EWA is not credit. It does not involve underwriting, does not create debt, and does not obligate repayment if a worker leaves their job. Instead, it provides timely access to wages that workers have already earned — a straightforward concept with meaningful impact.

Research backs this up. Studies from Harvard and the Federal Reserve show that EWA programs deliver lower-cost alternatives to payday loans, reduce reliance on high-cost financial services, and support workers facing unexpected expenses. As Tate emphasized, these programs are particularly relevant as the nature of work changes. In an economy where pay speed increasingly drives worker loyalty, EWA has become a practical, modern financial tool.

Regulatory Clarity Is the Missing Piece

For nearly a decade, federal policymakers across administrations have recognized that properly structured EWA products are distinct from traditional credit. The CFPB’s 2017 Payday Lending Rule and its 2020 Advisory Opinion both affirmed this distinction and provided a roadmap for innovation.

The Bureau’s more recent interpretive proposal, however, introduced significant uncertainty by attempting to treat EWA like credit. Tate made clear that this reversal conflicts with established precedent and risks undermining a product that workers and employers increasingly rely upon.

To restore stability, Tate called on the CFPB to issue a new Advisory Opinion that reflects how the EWA market has evolved. Such an opinion should reaffirm the non-credit nature of EWA, provide an optional safe harbor for providers, and allow continued innovation in alignment with the Administration’s broader policy goals—including those outlined in Executive Order 14192.

A Path Forward That Supports Workers

Tate’s remarks highlighted a simple principle: when workers have already earned their money, accessing it should not be complicated or costly. Regulatory clarity is essential to maintaining that reality. A consistent, straightforward framework would protect consumers, give providers predictable guardrails, and enable employers to offer a benefit that supports financial stability.

The full testimony offers a deeper examination of the data, regulatory history, and policy recommendations that shaped today’s discussion.

Information provided to members by OGR.

As both chambers of Congress reconvene this week, lawmakers are attempting to close out the year with substantive legislative progress. Yet significant internal divisions, competing priorities, and a compressed calendar continue to shape what can realistically be achieved before the holiday recess.

Healthcare will be the central political flashpoint. Enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credit subsidies are scheduled to expire at year’s end, placing pressure on Senate Democrats to advance a three-year extension. They plan to force a vote this week, even as Republicans remain divided over whether to offer a conference-wide alternative. With no agreement in sight, this issue is expected to carry over into January, when negotiations may resume under heightened urgency.

Defense policy is also moving toward resolution. House leaders released the final compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Sunday evening, positioning the bill for a House vote this week and Senate action to follow. While the core defense provisions enjoyed bipartisan, bicameral support throughout the year, final negotiations extended into December as lawmakers sparred over unrelated issues, including housing initiatives and artificial intelligence regulation. Despite these tensions, the NDAA is expected to pass with commanding majorities in both chambers.

Political considerations, including the 2026 election cycle, are increasingly influencing the environment on Capitol Hill. Texas—home to one of the nation’s most consequential delegations—closes its candidate filing deadline today. A wave of retirements and recent court decisions will reshape numerous districts, adding additional complexity to next year’s legislative dynamics.

Taken together, these pressures underscore the stakes of the weeks ahead. These final days of the session will determine whether Congress can deliver year-end legislative wins—or whether key debates will be deferred to 2026.​

Keep Up With Payments
​​
Each week, members receive a full version of this report. To receive that and more, join the Innovative Payments Association to stay informed on the decisions shaping the future of payments.

Information provided to members by OGR.

Congress is back in Washington for a three-week sprint to close out the year, and while the agenda is packed, lawmakers return without the immediate pressure of a funding deadline. For the second year in a row, the threat of a holiday shutdown has been averted.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) remains the marquee item expected to reach the President’s desk before year-end. Yet major policy questions still hang over the bill, including a contentious debate over whether Congress should preempt state authority on artificial intelligence. At the same time, appropriators in both chambers are working to translate the recent continuing resolution into longer-term spending progress. Negotiations on additional minibus packages continue, but significant gaps remain on topline spending levels and key policy riders. A larger funding deal is possible — but only under extraordinary circumstances.

Health care will once again command attention. A required vote on Affordable Care Act premium subsidies is scheduled for December 12, but absent a bipartisan agreement, it is widely expected to fail along party lines. The White House’s proposal for a two-year extension with new caps and minimum premiums has not gained traction with congressional Republicans.

Outside the legislative arena, recent events are reshaping the Administration’s priorities. The shooting of National Guard troops in Washington last week has triggered renewed focus on tightening immigration and asylum policies. Meanwhile, an early-December relief plan for farmers affected by ongoing tariff disputes is expected, even as Washington awaits a potential Supreme Court ruling on the Administration’s tariff authority — a decision that could carry significant implications for trade policy.

Do not miss out.
​
Each week, members receive a full version of this report. To receive that and more, join the Innovative Payments Association to stay informed on the decisions shaping the future of payments.

Recent scandals involving pro athletes and gambling have led to discussions around the proliferation of gambling apps and the influence of betting on our society.

In his Fintech Takes Newsletter, my friend Alex Johnson wrote, “the resurgence of gambling in our culture has already had devastating consequences on the lives and balance sheets of American consumers and their families.”

I think his argument is sound, and I think that it is easy to see that gambling may be having a corrosive effect elsewhere in our society. Will anyone watch sports if they think the players are more interested in winning bets than in playing the game?

Alex suggests institutions make saving money more fun. He mentions successes like prize-linked savings and positive messaging writing, it “might seem like a small thing, but this stuff matters. It’s the same reason why Robinhood used to celebrate customers’ trades with virtual confetti.”

But there is a dark side to fun finances.

Robinhood’s confetti is cited as an example of a practice that can actually lead customers to make bad choices in a report entitled “Hooked and Hustled: The Predatory Allure of Gamblified Finance.” This important paper outlines the risks that come with introducing game-like features to accounts.

“Gamblification blurs the line between investing and gambling, transforming financial Decision-making into a high-stakes game that exploits cognitive biases and behavioral vulnerabilities. What was once seen as an exciting and democratizing force in finance increasingly reveals itself as a sophisticated form of predatory finance,” the authors write.

The paper delves into how people can be manipulated by influencers, trends, and behavioral tools into making bad financial decisions. For example, it notes that even things like lottery jackpots can influence people’s financial decisions.

“Recent U.S. data from [trading apps] and national lottery systems demonstrate a negative correlation between lottery jackpot size and retail trading activity. Specifically, larger lottery jackpots correlate with a measurable decline in retail trading, suggesting that heightened lottery participation diverts investors’ attention from financial market engagement.”

The paper also points out that there is an asymmetry in power between individual users and corporations that starts from the point of account opening.

“Yet, users normally do not read disclosures, and many scholars have argued that not reading such terms is actually rational, as whether one reads or not does not really change anything.”

Anyone looking to use a gamified structure for their accounts should read this study and think about whether their design could lead “users into decisions that they might not otherwise make if they were fully informed and exercising genuine free will,” as the authors write.

While I am not completely opposed to the use of these tools, I think they should be deployed with caution and full awareness of the risks.

Maybe instead of focusing on how to make saving more fun, we should focus on how to make it worthwhile. Why would anyone put money in an account only to watch its real value decline? Maybe instead of building a savings game, we need accounts with interest rates higher than inflation rates.

Years ago, I saw a Twitter post that essentially said the growth of things like gambling, meme stocks, and NFTs reflects a societal belief that hard work and saving don’t work anymore. The result is that people, particularly those in younger generations and those who are on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, feel like only luck and get-rich-quick schemes will improve their position.

The authors of Hooked and Hustled note this, writing the “prevalence of millennial investors on r/WallStreetBets, correlates with their generation’s experience of lagging wealth creation, potentially contributing to their gambling-like, risk-taking behavior and nihilistic approach to financial decisions.”
​
Traditional financial institutions can’t lament the loss of their customers if those same institutions stack the deck against them. 

Privacy is a value that everyone can seemingly agree on, but like many problems, the devil is in the details.

A Look Back: Financial Privacy in 1999

In my own research on the issue, I ran across an interesting article from the last century (1999), that raises some interesting points.

In “Financial Privacy and the Theory of High-Tech Government Surveillance,” author Peter Swire considers the risks that electronic payments pose to privacy vis-à-vis governments.

Sire says his goals are to develop a vocabulary of the problems that come with government access to financial records, while keeping in mind the concern that comes with private companies also having access to personal information.

The Privacy Paradox

Writing in 1999, Swire could not have foreseen the explosion of social media, smartphones, artificial intelligence, and big data mining; however, even without that context, he delivers one of the most important insights in the privacy debate very quickly.

“The paradox is that people seem to have a long-term concern for privacy while making short-term decisions not to respect it.”

Why It Still Matters Today

In my view, the privacy concern needs to extend to both the private and public sectors, particularly in an era when the personal, financial, and political spheres of our lives are increasingly susceptible to digital influence.

Reading Swire’s article with the present in mind helps raise important questions for today’s decision makers.

Government Access and Global Risks

In considering government access to financial records, Swire notes that U.S. companies may face subpoenas for their private financial records from the government.

“For companies operating elsewhere, there may be even fewer legal protections against government access. As financial databases develop in the private sector, there is a corresponding increase in the power of government to track each purchase made by individuals,” he writes.

This reminded me of a meeting the IPA hosted with the FBI, where the Bureau’s experts warned of how the Chinese government has access to all electronic records stored on servers within China’s borders. It is easy to talk about data just being somewhere in “the cloud,” but the location of those servers matters.

Networked Data and Everyday Privacy

Swire also notes how in “an increasingly networked world, the existence of such databases can easily mean that data will spread from one node to another.”
​
Beyond the leaking of data across borders, Swire notes that privacy is not just about illegal things. It can simply be that there are things that you don’t want others to know about – for instance, someone wouldn’t want their employer to know that they are looking at job sites, and businesses don’t want their competitors to know what their employees are researching.

Identity and the Limits of Old Security Measures

In addition, Swire notes that there are bigger problems when personal data can be exposed. “Over time, because mothers’ maiden names and Social Security Numbers are becoming less secure, society will have to develop new methods for establishing identity.” He wrote that in 1999, and here we are over two decades later, still relying on this information in many instances. (Though there is an interesting section where he talks about the Department of Transportation proposing a rule to mandate Social Security numbers on driver’s licenses to make them acceptable for things like boarding a plane. Can you imagine if this had gone into effect?)

From Prediction to Reality

While this paper is a product of its time, the contrast between 1999 and now highlights the need for the financial services industry to devote more thought to what privacy protection should entail in our modern era.

Swire is writing near the beginning of the age of e-commerce, cell phones, and data mining. Many of his concerns – tracking people’s movement through cell phones, identity theft, and data hacks – were either mostly or entirely in the world of imagination.

Looking Ahead: Guardrails for the Future

​Now, though, we can see how his privacy paradox has played out. With bigger, better digital tracking and influencing tools on the horizon, we should work to anticipate how to put up guardrails around our privacy before any more is lost.

Information provided to members by OGR.

​After 40 days, the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history may finally be nearing its end. A late-night procedural vote in the Senate broke the impasse that has kept much of the federal government closed since early October. Eight senators who caucus with Democrats joined all but one Republican to advance a bipartisan measure that would fund most agencies through Jan. 30, 2026, while passing three full-year appropriations bills and restoring pay for furloughed federal employees.

The agreement marks the first real progress toward reopening the government after weeks of gridlock. Both parties emerge with partial victories and new internal challenges. Republicans secured their goal of reopening the government without preconditions for Affordable Care Act negotiations, while Democrats succeeded in putting healthcare affordability front and center ahead of an election year. Yet both sides face divisions within their own ranks: Republicans over the President’s renewed push to end the filibuster, and Democrats over the balance between moderate and progressive priorities.

Procedurally, the next hurdle is time. Unless senators agree to accelerate the process, final passage could take several days. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the only Republican to oppose the measure, has signaled that he may object to efforts to fast-track the vote, potentially further delaying the timeline. Meanwhile, the House remains on 36-hour notice to reconvene. 

The stakes are high as the shutdown continues to ripple through the economy and disrupt daily life, particularly in air travel, just weeks before the Thanksgiving holiday. Should Congress move swiftly, federal workers could soon return to their posts under temporary funding that buys lawmakers time to negotiate the remaining 2026 spending bills.

For now, the Senate’s action represents the clearest path yet to reopening the government and to restoring a measure of stability after more than a month of political stalemate.

Don’t miss out.

Join the Innovative Payments Association to access the complete OGR Big Picture and stay informed on the decisions shaping the future of payments.