A new federal investigation finds that nine major banks maintained policies allowing customers to be denied financial services based on political beliefs, religious affiliations or lawful business activities.
By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
WASHINGTON — Some of America’s largest banks maintained policies that allowed customers to be denied financial services because of their political beliefs, religious affiliations or lawful business activities, according to a federal regulatory report released Wednesday.
The findings from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC, have renewed concerns about debanking, a practice in which financial institutions close accounts, refuse services or terminate banking relationships.
The investigation examined nine major national banks and found that all nine had maintained policies involving subjective criteria that could restrict customers’ access to financial services.
The findings cover the period from 2020 through September 2025, including most of former President Joe Biden’s administration.
The New York Post highlighted the findings Wednesday, reporting that conservative organizations, pro-life advocates and supporters of President Donald Trump were among those affected by controversial banking practices.
However, the investigation also identified concerns involving organizations across the political spectrum. The report does not establish that every account closure was politically motivated or that the Biden administration ordered individual banks to terminate specific accounts.
Nine Major Banks Examined
The OCC reviewed the practices of nine financial institutions:
- JPMorgan Chase
- Bank of America
- Citibank
- Wells Fargo
- U.S. Bank
- Capital One
- PNC Bank
- TD Bank
- BMO Bank
The agency investigated whether bank policies encouraged or permitted financial institutions to deny services based on customers’ political views, religious beliefs or participation in lawful industries.
According to the OCC, the investigation found that all nine banks had policies that could influence decisions using factors beyond conventional financial risk.
The review included approximately 100,000 complaints and 420,000 pages of documentation.
The findings represent a significant development in the national debate over whether financial institutions have used subjective standards to restrict access to banking services.
The OCC did not announce financial penalties against the banks when it released the report.
Conservative and Religious Organizations Raise Concerns
Conservative and religious organizations have complained for years that banks and payment processors have terminated their accounts without providing adequate explanations.
Among the organizations that previously reported difficulties obtaining financial services were groups involved in religious advocacy, pro-life activism and conservative political causes.
The Arkansas-based Family Council reported that its credit card processor, a company associated with JPMorgan Chase, terminated its account in 2021 after classifying the organization as high-risk.
The organization has argued that financial institutions should not deny services to lawful groups because of their beliefs.
Other religious organizations have similarly questioned account closures they believe were connected to their public positions on social issues.
Such complaints helped bring national attention to the issue.
However, individual allegations require separate examination to establish why particular accounts were closed and whether discrimination occurred.
Trump Family Also Challenged Account Closures
President Trump and members of his family have publicly accused major financial institutions of closing their accounts because of their political affiliations.
In March 2026, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged in court documents that it closed accounts associated with Trump and several of his businesses in February 2021.
The closures followed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Trump has alleged that the bank’s actions were politically motivated.
JPMorgan has disputed allegations that it engaged in unlawful political discrimination.
The president has pursued legal action against JPMorgan, while Trump-affiliated businesses have also challenged account closures involving Capital One.
Those lawsuits are separate from the OCC’s broader regulatory review.
The acknowledgment that accounts were closed does not, by itself, establish that the closures violated federal law.
Federal Regulator Identifies Discriminatory Practices
Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould said the agency’s findings demonstrated that major banks had denied financial services to customers and lawful businesses through practices involving subjective criteria.
The OCC’s review focused on whether banks relied on political, religious or reputational considerations rather than legitimate financial risks.
The agency’s findings raise questions about how institutions evaluate customers and whether their policies adequately protect lawful access to banking services.
Banks are required to comply with federal anti-money laundering laws, sanctions requirements and other financial regulations.
Those obligations sometimes require institutions to close accounts or refuse transactions.
However, regulators have increasingly questioned whether broad reputational-risk classifications can result in customers being excluded for reasons unrelated to illegal activity.
The OCC’s findings suggest that the distinction between legitimate risk management and improper exclusion deserves additional scrutiny.
Justice Department Investigating Debanking Allegations
The OCC report follows a separate Justice Department investigation involving several major financial institutions.
Federal prosecutors in Washington sought records from banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, concerning account closures and the reasons behind those decisions.
The investigation, led by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office, examined allegations that customers were denied banking services because of their political affiliations.
Prosecutors requested information about affected customers and the explanations banks provided for terminating relationships.
The investigation also considered whether certain practices could violate federal financial laws.
The banks have denied engaging in unlawful discrimination and have maintained that account decisions are generally based on regulatory, financial and compliance considerations.
No criminal conviction should be inferred from the existence of an investigation.
Biden Administration Faces Questions
Because much of the period examined by the OCC overlaps with Biden’s presidency, the findings have renewed scrutiny of banking practices during his administration.
Conservative organizations have previously alleged that federal guidance concerning financial crime prevention encouraged banks to scrutinize certain lawful businesses and political activities.
Some complaints have involved firearms businesses, religious organizations and groups associated with conservative causes.
However, the OCC’s findings do not establish that Biden personally directed banks to close accounts or that his administration ordered every disputed termination.
The distinction is important.
The investigation documents concerns about banking policies and practices during a defined period. Establishing direct political interference by specific government officials would require additional evidence.
The report also covers portions of 2020 and 2025, outside Biden’s presidency.
Banking Access Is Essential to American Businesses
The controversy raises broader concerns about the power financial institutions exercise over individuals, nonprofit organizations and businesses.
Access to banking services is essential for receiving payments, paying employees, processing donations and conducting ordinary financial transactions.
When an organization unexpectedly loses its banking relationship, the consequences can extend beyond inconvenience.
Businesses may struggle to process payments, nonprofit organizations may experience disruptions in fundraising, and individuals may encounter difficulties managing their finances.
Advocates for stronger protections argue that customers conducting lawful activities should not be excluded because their political or religious views are unpopular.
Banks counter that they must retain the ability to evaluate financial risks, detect fraud and comply with federal regulations.
The challenge for policymakers is determining how to prevent discriminatory exclusions without undermining legitimate financial oversight.
Concerns Extend Beyond Conservative Customers
Although conservative organizations have been prominent in the debanking controversy, concerns about unexplained account closures are not limited to Republicans or religious conservatives.
Civil rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers have previously questioned banking practices affecting Muslim Americans and minority communities.
In February 2024, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., raised concerns about reports that financial institutions were closing accounts belonging to Muslim Americans.
Their concerns focused on whether banks were using overly broad risk assessments that unfairly excluded customers.
Those complaints demonstrate that the consequences of arbitrary banking restrictions can affect Americans with different political and religious backgrounds.
The underlying issue is whether lawful customers receive fair treatment and adequate explanations when financial institutions restrict access to services.
What Happens Next?
The OCC’s findings could increase pressure on banks to revise internal policies and provide clearer explanations for account closures.
The Trump administration has made politically motivated debanking a regulatory priority.
Federal officials are examining whether existing banking rules adequately protect customers from discrimination based on political beliefs, religion or lawful business activities.
The latest report did not announce fines or establish the total economic damage caused by the practices it examined.
Further investigations, regulatory changes or legal proceedings may determine whether specific institutions face additional consequences.
For Americans concerned about financial freedom, the central question is whether access to essential banking services should depend on anything other than lawful financial considerations.
The OCC’s report establishes that major banks maintained policies capable of restricting customers based on political, religious and reputational factors.
What remains to be determined is how many customers were improperly denied services, whether individual decisions violated the law and what consequences the financial institutions may face.
Original article
Comments