There's been a schism at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. One agency. Two directors.

This odd situation has arisen as the result of the resignation of former Director Richard Cordray, who had been serving as the first ever head of the bureau created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Upon his exit, deputy director Leandra English stepped into the job of acting director, as dictated by Dodd-Frank.

Or did she? The Trump administration, claiming power under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, appointed Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to oversee the bureau until a permanent director is in place. The question of who is actually in charge is currently before the court, while the two sent dueling emails Monday morning about whose directives should be followed or disregarded.

The legal argument on this one will be hashed out by folks with far more expertise than I. Herein are some good takes from each side. Notably, the bureau's own legal counsel has sided with the administration.

But don't let the courtroom drama override the far more important point: The Trump White House is trying to defang the only agency in the federal government solely and explicitly tasked with preventing everyday Americans from being ripped off by the financial industry. Who winds up interim director is a sideshow compared to the design the administration has for the agency over the long term.

For the record, President Donald Trump could clear up the whole two directors mess by simply naming a permanent replacement for Cordray and having the Senate vote to confirm her or him. In picking Mulvaney, though, Trump tipped his hand. He's not interested in someone who will actively look out for consumers; he wants someone who will destroy the core purpose of the bureau itself.

Remember, the consumer protection bureau was created because, prior to the financial crisis of 2008 and ensuing Great Recession, there was no federal regulator explicitly tasked only with looking out for the little guy. Consumer protection was the purview of a mish-mash of bank regulators, and top priority for none, so banks and other financial firms were allowed to create and proliferate dangerous financial products, free from oversight.

Political Cartoons on the Economy View All 302 Images

It's not only the existence of the bureau but its structure that's meant to fill this gaping hole in America's regulatory framework. Thus, the bureau has a single director and an independent funding stream from the Federal Reserve, which are meant to isolate it from financial industry influence.

Of course, that opens up the possibility of someone like Trump putting someone like Mulvaney in charge. Mulvaney has called the agency "a sick, sad" joke and would presumably neuter it in any way he can, as would any other nominee who shares Mulvaney's views. Trump has made a habit of installing as heads of agencies those who fundamentally disagree with their agency's very existence, so Mulvaney fits a certain mold in a way that also happens to benefit the plutocrat class.

But let's not undersell just how successful the agency has been up to now. Not only has it won billions of dollars in refunds and canceled debts for wronged consumers, but it is crafting new rules aimed at reining in abusive lending and unfair consumer contracts. It's the bureau that dinged Wells Fargo for creating millions of fraudulent accounts for its unknowing customers and that forced Citibank to pay up for incorrectly charging scores of student borrowers, among its many, many enforcement actions.

A lot of Dodd-Frank is clunky, bureaucratic and subject to a lot of discretion from a variety of regulators, which makes it slow and unwieldy and perhaps less effective that it could have been. But the existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an unambiguous win for those interested in a fairer financial system.

And contrary to the story told by Republicans, the bureau is not hurting banks to any real degree: Profits are way up in that sector. Complaints about the bureau's effect on loans are similarly overblown. The bureau is merely ensuring that those profits and new lending can't come from constantly promulgating new and better scams.

Of course, Trump's modus operandi has been to do everything he can to install Wall Street-friendly appointees at every level of government, after campaigning against financial sector excess and accusing his opponent of being in thrall to big banks. So throwing another bank-friendly regulator in at the one agency explicitly tasked with policing the banks would be more than par for the course.

Don't let that take away from how ridiculous it is, though. Trump, who likes to portray himself as looking out for the "forgotten men and women," is trying to kneecap the one agency that looks out for them, to the benefit of no one except big banks who want to have an easier time of trying to rip people off. In a presidency with no shortage of hypocrisy, Trump's fealty to every Wall Street desire is quite a doozy.