A quiet but profound shift is underway in the halls of Congress, one that critics argue would reshape the landscape of American retirement, turning the bedrock of 401(k)s and pension plans into fertile ground for the most speculative and opaque ventures of Wall Street.
At the center of the storm is H.R. 3383, the so-called INVEST Act, a piece of legislation that advanced through the House with bipartisan support, including the affirmative votes of New Jersey Democratic Representatives Herbert C. Conaway, Josh Gottheimer, Donald Norcross, and Nellie Pou.
The move has ignited a fierce backlash from a broad coalition of labor unions, consumer advocates, and financial watchdogs, who see it not as progress, but as a perilous step backward.
The legislation, wrapped in the appealing language of “expanding investor choice,” would fundamentally alter the rules governing what can be offered in the retirement savings accounts of millions of working families.
It would weaken key disclosure requirements and oversight, opening a new pipeline for high-risk, high-fee private equity and hedge fund products to flow into the portfolios of teachers, nurses, machinists, and public servants.
For decades, stringent regulations have largely kept these complex instruments—notorious for their opacity, excessive fees, and illiquidity—confined to the domain of sophisticated institutional investors.
The INVEST Act, opponents say, effectively signs a permission slip to push many Main Street investors under a bus.
In a scathing letter to Congress, a united front including Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the Consumer Federation of America, National Nurses United, the UAW, and over a dozen other major organizations sounded a stark alarm.
“This package of deregulatory legislation advances key priorities from Project 2025 and threatens to undermine the health and stability of the securities markets,” the coalition wrote, “and expose people and their retirements to risky, opaque investment products without the necessary protections and safeguards.”
The letter’s author, Oscar Valdés Viera, a private equity and capital markets policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, put it bluntly: “This bill puts families’ life savings at risk while giving private equity firms a green light to profit at their expense. Workers deserve safe, transparent retirement options — not predatory, high-fee investments designed for insiders.”
This view finds a raw and impassioned echo in the voice of Shawn Scott, a Marine veteran from New Jersey who now advocates for veterans’ and economic justice.
“After serving in the military, you develop the belief that the institutions here are meant to protect the people,” Scott said, his tone one of simmering frustration. “Then you see a vote like this. It’s a betrayal. They are loading a financial weapon, aiming it at the retirement accounts of the very people who built this country, and pulling the trigger for the profit of a few billionaires in Manhattan. It is an act of economic violence disguised as policy.”
The vote has also drawn sharp criticism from within the Democratic Party’s own ranks, particularly from its progressive, anti-establishment wing.
Lisa McCormick, the New Jersey activist who mounted a notable primary challenge against Senator Bob Menendez in 2018, did not mince words.
“This is not a Democratic value. This is a Goldman Sachs value,” McCormick said. “Representatives Conaway, Gottheimer, Norcross, and Pou have chosen to side with private equity titans against the working families of New Jersey. They are facilitating a heist, allowing Wall Street to vacuum up the hard-earned savings of Americans through fees and risks that people cannot possibly understand, let alone afford. It is a profound failure of leadership and a direct contradiction to the party’s supposed commitment to economic justice.”
The legislation’s advancement highlights a deepening rift in how financial security is viewed in the nation’s capital.
Proponents argue it merely provides more “options” for savers seeking higher returns.
Yet, the chorus of opposition from groups representing millions of Americans insists that the existing rules exist for a reason—to prevent the catastrophic loss of life savings in instruments where risks are hidden, fees are exorbitant, and money can be locked away for years.
As the debate now moves to the Senate, where New Jersey’s senior senator, Cory Booker, has championed various investment-focused initiatives aimed at community revitalization and domestic manufacturing—such as the Scale-Up Manufacturing Investment Company Act and reforms to Opportunity Zones—the contrast in approaches is striking.
Booker’s legislative efforts have largely focused on directing capital toward vulture capitalists exploiting economic development in distressed areas.
The House bill, critics contend, directs capital toward the enrichment of financial intermediaries at the potential expense of individual security.
The question hanging over it all is a simple one, asked by the coalition of opponents in their final plea to Congress: Will our representatives protect the economic security of millions of mom and pop investors and workers saving for retirement?
For four members of New Jersey’s Democratic delegation, their vote on H.R. 3383 has already provided an answer, one that has left a significant portion of their constituents, and the nation’s most prominent consumer and labor advocates, believing that the guardians have instead opened the gate to the wolves.