Treasury
3-MO 3.83% +1bp 6-MO 3.98% unch 1-YR 4.08% +4bp 2-YR 4.28% +5bp 3-YR 4.34% +4bp 5-YR 4.45% +7bp 7-YR 4.59% +7bp 10-YR 4.75% +7bp 20-YR 5.28% +6bp 30-YR 5.27% +6bp 3-MO 3.83% +1bp 6-MO 3.98% unch 1-YR 4.08% +4bp 2-YR 4.28% +5bp 3-YR 4.34% +4bp 5-YR 4.45% +7bp 7-YR 4.59% +7bp 10-YR 4.75% +7bp 20-YR 5.28% +6bp 30-YR 5.27% +6bp 3-MO 3.83% +1bp 6-MO 3.98% unch 1-YR 4.08% +4bp 2-YR 4.28% +5bp 3-YR 4.34% +4bp 5-YR 4.45% +7bp 7-YR 4.59% +7bp 10-YR 4.75% +7bp 20-YR 5.28% +6bp 30-YR 5.27% +6bp 3-MO 3.83% +1bp 6-MO 3.98% unch 1-YR 4.08% +4bp 2-YR 4.28% +5bp 3-YR 4.34% +4bp 5-YR 4.45% +7bp 7-YR 4.59% +7bp 10-YR 4.75% +7bp 20-YR 5.28% +6bp 30-YR 5.27% +6bp 3-MO 3.83% +1bp 6-MO 3.98% unch 1-YR 4.08% +4bp 2-YR 4.28% +5bp 3-YR 4.34% +4bp 5-YR 4.45% +7bp 7-YR 4.59% +7bp 10-YR 4.75% +7bp 20-YR 5.28% +6bp 30-YR 5.27% +6bp 3-MO 3.83% +1bp 6-MO 3.98% unch 1-YR 4.08% +4bp 2-YR 4.28% +5bp 3-YR 4.34% +4bp 5-YR 4.45% +7bp 7-YR 4.59% +7bp 10-YR 4.75% +7bp 20-YR 5.28% +6bp 30-YR 5.27% +6bp
US Treasury par yield curve · Jul 31 · Source: U.S. Treasury
Saturday, August 1, 2026
U.S. Edition
MONEY & WORLD
Subscribe
Title VI

Treasury has taken disparate impact out of its own civil rights regulations, and it issued the rule with no comment period and no delay before it takes effect

Money & World
The Editorial Team ·
A close photograph of a weathered sandstone face filling the frame, pale grey and buff bands curving across the grainy surface in concentric contour lines with a few darker mineral stains. No object, person, tool, marking or lettering is in view.
Photo: CHRISTIAN HEMBERT / Pexels

There was no comment period.

The Department of the Treasury filed a final rule for public inspection on Friday morning amending the regulations that carry out Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to remove what it calls disparate-impact liability. The rule takes effect on publication. That is set for 3 August. It was issued without a proposed rule, without public comment and without a delayed effective date, under the Administrative Procedure Act exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts, on the department's reasoning that Title VI governs conditions attached to federal financial assistance and that every category of assistance Treasury administers falls inside that exception.

The statute is untouched. What changes is the regulation underneath it, at 31 CFR part 22, and the department states the point in one line: its Title VI regulations prohibit only intentional discrimination, not conduct or activities that have a disparate impact, and it will not pursue disparate-impact liability against its funding recipients.

The four cuts

Four pieces of text come out, and they are itemised rather than described. The full text of 31 CFR 22.4(b)(2) is rescinded, the provision the department quotes as prohibiting criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. Two uses of the phrase "or effect" are struck from 22.4(b)(3), which governs how a recipient chooses where to site a facility, leaving a paragraph that reaches only selections made with a prohibited purpose. The full text of 22.4(b)(6) goes. So does 22.4(c)(2), on employment practices, and the rewritten paragraph (c) now bars discrimination in employment only where a primary objective of the federal assistance is to provide employment.

That last change is the one the department ties to the statute rather than to the executive order. It points to 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3, which says nothing in Title VI authorises action on an employment practice except where a primary objective of the assistance is to provide employment.

What it rests on

Executive Order 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, published at 90 FR 17537 on 23 April 2025, directed the Attorney General to begin repealing or amending Title VI regulations across agencies to the extent they contemplate disparate-impact liability. The department also cites Alexander v. Sandoval, in which the Supreme Court read Title VI to prohibit only intentional discrimination, and Loper Bright for the proposition that an agency cannot extend a statute past its meaning. It adds that it would have reached the same reading without the precedent, and that it is conforming to the Justice Department's own Title VI changes published on 10 December 2025. Under Executive Order 12250 the Attorney General reviewed and approved the rule.

Costs, as stated

The department writes that data limitations make the costs and benefits difficult to quantify. It expects its own enforcement costs to fall. It says it cannot quantify how recipients will respond, and that beyond the time needed to read the rule there are no new obligations, because narrowing the prohibited conduct lowers the cost of compliance and of potential liability.

One limit is stated plainly. Recipients drawing funds for the same programme from more than one federal source signed a separate assurance with each, and the department writes that they will continue to be held to the most stringent assurance and regulation that applies to them.

The rule is a significant regulatory action but not an economically significant one under Executive Order 12866, and the Office of Management and Budget reviewed it. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined it is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. A severability section states that each of the four amendments is meant to operate independently of the others. It is signed by Rachel Miller, executive secretary.

The document: Department of the Treasury, Rescinding Portions of Department of the Treasury Title VI Regulations to Conform More Closely with the Statutory Text and to Implement an Executive Order, final rule, 31 CFR Part 22, RIN 1505-AC91, FR document 2026-15720, filed for public inspection on 31 July 2026 at 8:45 a.m. Eastern with a stated publication date of 3 August 2026. The complete public inspection text was downloaded and read in full here; no fetch-tool summary was relied on, and every citation, paragraph number and characterisation below was matched against the document text. Identifiers matched: billing code 4810-AK-P; RIN 1505-AC91; contact Tina Lancaster, Acting Director, Office of Civil Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of the Treasury; signature Rachel Miller, Executive Secretary. As verified, the summary states that the Department amends its regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate disparate-impact liability, and that the revisions implement changes directed in the Executive order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. The DATES line reads that the rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register. The four rescissions as verified: the rule rescinds the full text of 31 CFR 22.4(b)(2), which the document quotes as prohibiting the utilisation of criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin; removes the two uses of the phrase 'or effect' from 31 CFR 22.4(b)(3); rescinds the full text of 31 CFR 22.4(b)(6); and rescinds the full text of 31 CFR 22.4(c)(2), which addresses employment practices subject to Federal financial assistance. The regulatory text at the end of the document instructs: in section 22.4, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2), revise paragraph (b)(3), remove paragraph (b)(6), and revise paragraph (c). The revised (b)(3) as printed prohibits a recipient or applicant, in determining the site or location of facilities, from making selections with the purpose of excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under any covered program on the ground of race, color, or national origin, or with the purpose of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of Title VI or the part. The revised (c) applies the employment prohibition only where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment. The authority citation for part 22 is revised to read 42 U.S.C. 2000d, 2000d-1, 2000d-7; E.O. 12250, 45 FR 72995, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 298; E.O. 14281, 90 FR 17537. The document states: 'This rule makes clear that the Department's Title VI regulations prohibit only intentional discrimination, not conduct or activities that have a disparate impact. The Department thus will not pursue Title VI disparate-impact liability against its Federal-funding recipients.' Authorities cited as verified: Executive Order 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, 90 FR 17537 (23 April 2025), which the document quotes as stating that it is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible, and which directed the Attorney General to initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend Title VI implementing regulations for all agencies to the extent they contemplate disparate-impact liability; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), at 280, 281-82, 284-85, 286 n.6; Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), at 400 and 412-13; Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022), at 217-18; Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), at 627-28 n.6; and 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3, the statutory limitation on Title VI action with respect to employment practices except where a primary objective of the assistance is to provide employment. The document states the Department is amending its regulation to conform with changes to the Department of Justice's Title VI regulations published on 10 December 2025 at 90 FR 57141, and that it agrees with the rationale contained therein. Procedural statements as verified: the Department issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act's exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) for rules relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts, citing 31 CFR 22.3 and 22.5 and four prior invocations of the same exception at 82 FR 46655, 85 FR 47899, 53 FR 18285 and 46 FR 40687, and noting the alignment of that exception with the definition of Federal financial assistance at 2 CFR 200.1. The rule is designated a significant regulatory action although not economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Department states that data limitations make the costs and benefits difficult to quantify, that the action should decrease the Department's enforcement costs, that it is unable to quantify how funding recipients will respond, and that the action is anticipated to result in greater flexibility and lower compliance costs for recipients. It states that other than the time needed to read and understand the rule the action creates no new obligations for funding recipients, and that recipients will continue to be held to the most stringent contractual assurance and regulation where they receive funds from more than one Federal entity. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is stated not to apply by reason of the exclusion at 2 U.S.C. 1503(2). A regulatory flexibility analysis is stated not to be required because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, citing Oregon Trollers Association v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) at 1123-24, and the Department certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the changes will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is stated to have determined the rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The document states that under Executive Order 12250 the Attorney General has reviewed and approved this rule. It states the rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping under the Paperwork Reduction Act, that the Department expects the rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192, and that Executive Order 14294 does not apply because the rule imposes no criminal regulatory penalty. A severability section states that each amendment is intended to operate independently and that the potential invalidity of one should not affect the others. The foot of the document reads [FR Doc. 2026-15720 Filed: 7/31/2026 8:45 am; Publication Date: 8/3/2026]..

More on Economics