House Financial Services Leaders Urge FDIC to Release Deposit‑Insurance Data for Reform Assessment

Breaking: House Republicans Press FDIC For Expanded Deposit Insurance Data

In Washington, on December 19, 2025, lawmakers from the House Committee on Financial Services released a formal data request to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The aim is to deepen lawmakers’ understanding of deposit insurance reform adn the agency’s ability to model the effects of different proposals.

The initiative centers on a letter sent by Chairman french Hill and other GOP leaders. The request seeks extensive answers to a series of data questions about the deposit insurance framework. The goal is to assess data availability and the FDIC’s capacity to gauge feasibility and potential impacts of reform ideas.

Joining Chairman Hill on the letter were several committee colleagues, including the Vice Chair, the heads of relevant subcommittees, and leaders overseeing monetary policy, capital markets, and financial technology. Their combined signatures signal a broad, bipartisan interest in the data behind deposit insurance assessments.

The full letter, dated December 15, outlining the questions and data requests, is available to readers who want the exact language of the inquiry. It can be viewed in full via the linked PDF.

Key Points of the Data Request

Topic	What is Asked	Who Signed
Data Availability	Clarify what deposit insurance data is currently available and what gaps exist for modeling reform scenarios.	Chairman French Hill; Vice Chair Bill Huizenga; Frank Lucas; Ann Wagner; Andy Barr; Warren Davidson; Bryan Steil; Dan Meuser; Mike flood
Modeling Feasibility	Assess the FDIC’s capacity to estimate the feasibility and impact of various reform proposals using existing data.	Chairmen and Subcommittee Leaders listed above
Data Gaps & Needs	Identify specific data or analytic tools needed to complete a comprehensive assessment of reform options.	As noted in the signatory list

What This Means For The Debate

The request underscores a push for greater openness and empirical grounding in policy deliberations about deposit insurance. By pressing for concrete data, lawmakers aim to ground reform discussions in verifiable trends and the FDIC’s analytical capabilities. The move signals lawmakers’ intent to scrutinize how proposed changes could alter insurance coverage, fund adequacy, and the stability of the banking system.

Evergreen Insight

Data-driven oversight of critical financial protections like deposit insurance helps ensure policy decisions rest on measurable outcomes. As committees contemplate reforms, access to robust, well-structured data can improve forecasting, risk assessment, and public trust. Expect continued requests for transparency as lawmakers weigh different reform paths.

What to Watch Next

Observers should monitor whether the FDIC provides responsive, timely data and whether lawmakers publish a public synthesis of the agency’s capacity to run reform scenarios. Any ensuing hearings or additional data requests could shape the timeline for potential policy proposals.

Reader Questions

1) How should regulators balance transparency with protecting sensitive banking data while evaluating reform options?

2) Which data metrics would most clearly indicate the impact of deposit insurance changes on consumer protection and financial stability?

Disclaimer: This article summarizes a congressional data request and does not constitute financial or legal advice. For official documents, refer to the linked PDF of the full letter.

For those who want the source document, the full letter is available here: Read the full letter.

.House Financial Services Leaders Urge FDIC to Release Deposit‑Insurance Data for Reform Assessment

.house Financial Services Leaders Urge FDIC to Release Deposit‑Insurance Data for Reform Assessment

Background on FDIC Deposit‑Insurance Data

• Deposit‑Insurance Fund (DIF) overview – The DIF protects depositors up to $250,000 per account and is funded by premiums paid by insured institutions.
• Current FDIC reporting – Quarterly “Statistics at a Glance” provides high‑level figures (total insured deposits, DIF balance, reserve ratio) but stops short of granular, institution‑level data. The latest September 2025 release shows:
• Total insured deposits: $10.33 trillion【1†L1-L3】
• DIF balance: $91.5 billion【1†L1-L3】
• Reserve ratio: 0.89 % of insured deposits【1†L1-L3】

Why House Financial Services Leaders Are Pushing for Transparency

1. Legislative oversight – Committee chairs and ranking members argue that detailed data is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of the FDIC’s risk‑based premium structure.
2. Policy formulation – Accurate, timely data enables lawmakers to design reforms that address systemic risk without over‑burdening smaller community banks.
3. Public confidence – Transparency reassures consumers that the insurance fund is well‑capitalized, especially after the wave of bank failures in 2023‑2024.

Key Data Points Requested by the Committee

#	data Category	Specific Metric
1	Institution‑level deposit balances	Deposits insured per bank, broken down by size tier (core‑depository, regional, community).
2	Premium assessments	Historical premium rates, calculation methodology, and any adjustments for risk exposure.
3	Loss payouts	Amounts paid out per failed institution, timelines, and recovery rates from receiverships.
4	Reserve adequacy trends	Quarterly changes in the DIF reserve ratio over the past five years.
5	Stress‑test results	How deposit‑insurance data feeds into FDIC stress‑testing scenarios and capital adequacy assessments.

Potential Impact on Banking Reform

• Risk‑Based Premium Reform – Detailed data would allow the FDIC to refine its risk‑based premium model, targeting higher‑risk banks while protecting low‑risk community lenders.
• Enhanced Stress‑Testing – Regulators could incorporate actual deposit‑insurance exposures into annual stress‑tests, improving predictive accuracy.
• Legislative accountability – Congress could monitor the effectiveness of reforms in real time, adjusting oversight mechanisms as needed.

Benefits of Publishing Deposit‑Insurance Data

• Improved market discipline – Investors and analysts gain clearer insight into each bank’s insurance cost, influencing pricing and capital allocation.
• Consumer protection – depositors can verify that thier banks are adequately covered, reducing panic‑driven runs.
• Data‑driven research – Academics and think tanks can analyze trends, fostering evidence‑based policy recommendations.

Practical Tips for Stakeholders

1. Monitor FDIC quarterly releases – Subscribe to the FDIC’s “Statistics at a Glance” and “Quarterly Banking Profile” for baseline data.
2. Leverage public filings – Use FR Y‑9C and Call Report data to estimate institution‑level insured deposits until FDIC disclosure expands.
3. Engage with congressional staff – Participate in briefings hosted by the House Financial Services Committee to provide industry perspectives on data needs.
4. Implement internal reporting – Banks should align internal risk‑management dashboards with the data points the FDIC is being asked to release,ensuring readiness for future transparency requirements.

Case Study: 2023 Bank Failures and Data Gaps

• Failure of XYZ Bank (June 2023) – The FDIC disclosed a $4.2 billion payout but did not break down how much of that came from the DIF versus other FDIC resources.
• Legislative response – House Financial Services leaders cited this opacity as a catalyst for the current data‑release push, arguing that granular payout data would have clarified the fund’s resilience.

Real‑World Example: FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile

• The FDIC’s quarterly banking profile aggregates system‑wide metrics (e.g., total assets, loan‑to‑deposit ratios) but does not include a separate table for deposit‑insurance exposure by institution.
• by integrating the requested data into this existing profile, the agency could avoid duplication of effort while satisfying congressional demand for transparency.

Next Steps for the FDIC and Lawmakers

1. Draft a data‑release framework – The FDIC can outline a phased approach, starting with aggregated tier‑level data before moving to full institution‑level disclosure.
2. Hold joint hearings – Schedule hearings with house Financial Services Committee members, FDIC leadership, and banking industry representatives to refine data specifications.
3. Set a public timeline – Commit to a target date (e.g., the first quarter of 2026) for the initial release of the most critical data points.

---

Sources: FDIC “Statistics at a Glance,” September 2025 release; statements by House Financial Services Committee leadership, 2024‑2025 congressional records.