A federal investigation found that nine major U.S. banks maintained policies that restricted financial services based on political beliefs, religious affiliations and lawful business activities, prompting regulators to consider additional measures against discriminatory banking practices.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Some of America’s largest banks closed customer accounts or denied financial services to individuals and organizations because of their political affiliations, religious beliefs or lawful business activities, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday, October 14.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s 47-page report examined banking practices from 2020 through September 2025 and identified cases involving supporters of President Donald Trump, religious nonprofits, political organizations and businesses operating in legally permitted industries.
The investigation reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints and approximately 50,000 bank documents totaling 420,000 pages, along with hundreds of individual decisions involving customer accounts and access to financial services. <Cite ref=”turn426461search0″/>
The OCC examined nine major institutions: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank and BMO Bank.
According to the agency, all nine maintained policies during the review period that could influence decisions to deny or restrict banking services based on customers’ beliefs, affiliations or lawful business activities.
“Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses,” Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould said in the agency’s official announcement.
“Americans should have access to financial services regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Fair access to financial services is not a mantra—it is a mandate,” Gould added.
One example involved a payment processor owned by a major bank that closed a merchant’s account in February 2021 because the business sold merchandise supporting Trump and the Make America Great Again movement.
The report also described a February 2023 incident in which a bank declined to serve a public education organization because of its political affiliations.
In that case, the organization’s political arm had endorsed only Democratic candidates, demonstrating that restrictions affected groups across the political spectrum.
Another example involved a religious conservative nonprofit whose account was closed after bank employees classified it as presenting reputational concerns because of its political and religious views.
Internal records described the organization as a “[r]ight wing religious conservative non profit with strong anti LGBTQ rhetoric.” A bank employee subsequently removed references to the organization’s religious and political identity from its internal tracking system.
Regulators also identified restrictions affecting companies involved in firearms manufacturing and sales, fossil fuel production, tobacco products, immigration detention facilities and cryptocurrency activities.
In one case, a bank refused to assist a lawful firearms business with an initial public offering because its policies did not satisfy the institution’s internal standards governing firearm sales.
Those standards included restrictions on high-capacity magazines and sales to individuals younger than 21, even where the business believed its practices complied with applicable law.
The OCC concluded that banks frequently relied on loosely defined “reputation risk” policies rather than clear financial or compliance standards when deciding whether to serve certain customers.
Such policies allowed employees to consider negative publicity, advocacy group opinions and potential criticism from activists or shareholders.
The regulator found that these judgments sometimes created inconsistent treatment, particularly when banks declined to serve smaller businesses while maintaining relationships with wealthier clients facing substantial negative publicity.
The report also criticized banks for providing customers with inadequate explanations when accounts were terminated.
In some cases, affected individuals received notices citing contractual provisions allowing banks to close accounts without a detailed explanation, leaving customers unable to understand or challenge the decisions.
However, the OCC acknowledged that its investigation could not determine the full number of customers affected or comprehensively calculate the financial damage caused by the practices.
The report also did not establish that every institution engaged in the same conduct or that every account closure examined was unlawful.
The investigation followed a Trump administration executive order directing federal regulators to examine whether financial institutions were denying services based on political or religious beliefs.
According to Reuters, the OCC did not announce financial penalties against the banks in connection with Wednesday’s findings, although regulators are considering additional supervisory and regulatory measures.
Banks have generally maintained that account closures are based on legitimate financial risks, fraud prevention, regulatory obligations or other business considerations rather than political discrimination.
The OCC acknowledged that financial institutions must continue complying with anti-money laundering laws and other requirements designed to prevent financial crimes.
Nevertheless, regulators argued that those obligations should be applied through objective, individualized assessments rather than categorical restrictions against lawful industries or organizations.
The agency has already eliminated reputational risk as a consideration in certain bank examinations and is reviewing additional measures intended to prevent discriminatory account closures.
“Notwithstanding certain efforts by the largest banks to rein in these practices, I am not confident that they will be enough,” Gould said.
He added that the OCC would consider further changes to ensure financial institutions do not repeat the practices identified during the investigation.
The findings are likely to intensify congressional and regulatory scrutiny of major banks as federal officials consider whether existing protections adequately prevent customers from losing access to essential financial services because of their beliefs or lawful business activities.
Original article
Comments