A Treasury Department investigation has uncovered evidence that major U.S. banks relied on Southern Poverty Law Center classifications when denying financial services to conservative and religious organizations, adding to scrutiny of the nonprofit as it fights federal fraud allegations involving its informant program.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Federal banking regulators have uncovered internal records showing that some of America’s largest financial institutions used political affiliations, religious positions and classifications published by the Southern Poverty Law Center to justify denying financial services to lawful organizations and businesses.
The findings, released Oct. 14 by the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, identify instances in which banks and payment processors closed accounts, rejected prospective customers or subjected organizations to additional scrutiny because of their political or social views rather than clearly established financial risks.
The investigation adds to mounting scrutiny of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a Montgomery, Alabama-based nonprofit that identifies organizations it considers extremist or hateful. The SPLC is separately defending itself against federal fraud charges alleging that its handling of payments to informants misled donors and improperly supported the activities of extremist groups.
The OCC’s 47-page report, Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans, examined the policies and practices of nine major financial institutions between 2020 and September 2025. Regulators found that all nine maintained policies permitting reputational concerns to influence decisions about whether customers could obtain financial services.
Among the most significant findings were internal bank references to SPLC classifications identifying conservative religious and political organizations as hate groups. Those classifications appeared in reviews that led to account closures, restrictions on payment processing and heightened scrutiny of prospective banking relationships.
The report establishes that SPLC assessments influenced some financial decisions, although it does not conclude that the organization controlled bank policies or directed every account closure.
Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould condemned the practices, arguing that financial institutions had improperly allowed political considerations to interfere with access to essential banking services.
“Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses,” 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. The Trump Administration is committed to ending the weaponization of finance against hardworking Americans, once and for all.”
The investigation reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints involving OCC-regulated financial institutions and approximately 50,000 documents totaling 420,000 pages. Regulators also examined individual customer decisions, internal compliance procedures and policies governing reputational risk.
The nine institutions reviewed were JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank and BMO Bank.
One of the report’s clearest examples involved JPMorgan Chase’s payment-processing subsidiary WePay, which closed the account of a conservative legal advocacy organization in December 2020.
Internal records indicated that the organization had been classified as a hate group by the SPLC, a determination cited by employees when evaluating its eligibility for financial services.
The bank’s documentation described the termination as related to the organization being associated with a known hate group and fundraising for its activities.
The report noted that the account had already been deactivated because of inactivity at the time of the closure. Nevertheless, the internal explanation identified the organization’s SPLC classification as a factor.
The same organization subsequently established another account in 2021, triggering further reviews by reputation-risk personnel.
In 2022, a senior risk officer questioned whether terminating the relationship was justified and decided to maintain the account under closer monitoring. The employee warned that cancellation could itself create the public controversy the bank was attempting to avoid.
Another case involved a conservative religious nonprofit whose payment-processing account was terminated in June 2021.
According to the OCC, WePay employees described the organization internally as a “[r]ight wing religious conservative non profit with strong anti LGBTQ rhetoric.”
The review also referenced negative news coverage concerning the organization’s position on hate crime legislation and its designation by the SPLC as an extremist hate group.
JPMorgan employees recommended terminating the account, despite records indicating that the organization had maintained a payment-processing relationship since 2019 without a documented change in its stated positions.
“From a Reputation Risk perspective, we would recommend an exit from this account,” bank employees advised.
The nonprofit later established a second account, but the relationship was eventually terminated after employees connected it to the previously reviewed organization. That determination was subsequently reversed.
In 2023, a bank employee revised the organization’s internal description, removing references to its conservative and religious identity and instead characterizing its mission as supporting traditional family values, including opposition to abortion and support for marriage and family policies.
The OCC cited the changes as evidence of the subjective standards used by banks when evaluating controversial customers.
A separate case involving Wells Fargo showed how outside classifications could influence payment-processing decisions even when a third-party service provider initially determined that an organization complied with its contractual obligations.
The bank questioned the relationship with a religious nonprofit because of its views on same-sex marriage and other social issues.
After conducting an initial review, the payment-processing organization concluded that the nonprofit was not engaged in prohibited conduct and intended to retain the account.
Wells Fargo subsequently provided additional information about the organization’s positions and asked whether that changed the processor’s assessment.
The payment-processing company then terminated the relationship.
When asked how it identified organizations potentially associated with hateful or abusive activities, Wells Fargo identified the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and BloodMoney.org as resources that could assist its evaluations.
The nonprofit reportedly received no advance notice of the cancellation and had to contact donors to explain problems with processing contributions.
Although the processor later offered to reinstate the account, the organization declined.
The OCC also documented a February 2021 case involving TD Bank and a nonprofit advocating restrictions on immigration.
Internal bank personnel assigned the organization a high reputational-risk rating after reviewing allegations from the SPLC, public controversy involving its founder and media coverage of its immigration policies.
TD employees expressed concern about approving another Paycheck Protection Program loan for the organization.
The nonprofit ultimately withdrew its application because it did not satisfy program requirements, but the bank had prepared an explanation stating that the organization’s public statements about immigrants were inconsistent with TD’s values.
The circumstances illustrate how reputational assessments could affect customers seeking credit through government-backed programs, even when the ultimate lending decision involved additional eligibility considerations.
Other examples involved organizations and businesses with no apparent connection to SPLC classifications.
In February 2021, WePay closed a payment-processing account belonging to a merchant that sold merchandise supporting President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement.
The processor’s internal monitoring system included politically associated terms such as MAGA, Make America Great and America First.
Employees used those terms, along with other indicators, to identify merchants for potential review under the company’s policies.
The OCC found that the review process lacked consistently applied objective standards for distinguishing prohibited conduct from lawful political expression.
In another case, a bank declined services to an organization because its political activities supported Democratic candidates.
The report documented restrictions affecting customers across the political spectrum, demonstrating that the problems were not confined exclusively to conservative organizations.
Banks also maintained policies limiting relationships with certain lawful industries, including oil and gas exploration, coal production, firearms manufacturing and distribution, tobacco products, detention facilities and digital assets.
The OCC concluded that some of those restrictions reflected broader environmental, social and governance policies rather than individualized assessments of financial risk.
Regulators found that banks often lacked clearly measurable standards for determining whether maintaining a relationship would create unacceptable reputational exposure.
As a result, individual employees and internal review committees possessed substantial discretion to classify customers as controversial or undesirable.
The report found that reliance on outside advocacy organizations and subjective media assessments could introduce additional political or ideological bias into financial decisions.
The findings have intensified criticism of the SPLC, whose classifications have long been disputed by conservative groups that argue the organization applies the term hate group too broadly.
Founded in 1971, the SPLC built its reputation through litigation against white supremacist organizations and other groups engaged in racial intimidation and violence. Its later expansion into monitoring political and religious organizations has generated controversy over whether its classifications distinguish adequately between extremist conduct and protected political beliefs.
The nonprofit has also faced criticism unrelated to its political classifications.
Its co-founder Morris Dees was dismissed from the organization in 2019 amid internal allegations concerning workplace culture and misconduct.
Journalist Ken Silverstein, who investigated the organization over several years, raised questions about its fundraising practices, financial reserves and institutional priorities.
Following Dees’ departure, The New Yorker’s examination of the SPLC’s internal controversy described longstanding concerns about the organization’s leadership and workplace practices.
The SPLC now faces a separate federal criminal prosecution involving allegations that donors were misled about the use of contributions intended to combat extremist organizations.
Justice Department prosecutors allege that the nonprofit paid excessive sums to individuals associated with extremist groups under an informant program and that some funds supported recruitment or expanded the activities of organizations the SPLC publicly opposed.
Those allegations remain contested, and the nonprofit has pleaded not guilty.
In a May 7 statement responding to the charges, SPLC interim President and CEO Bryan Fair rejected the government’s allegations.
“The charges against the SPLC are provably wrong; they are based on inaccurate facts and a misapplication of law. Our informant program was successful in accomplishing its purposes: Threats and attacks were prevented, criminal activity was stopped, and information was gathered to dismantle the efforts of hate and extremist groups.”
Fair maintained that information gathered through the program assisted law enforcement and helped prevent violence.
“The SPLC is no stranger to legal threats by those on the wrong side of history. In our 55 years, we have faced and prevailed in numerous fights.”
He said the organization intended to continue challenging white supremacy and other forms of injustice while defending itself in court.
The criminal allegations are separate from the banking regulator’s findings. The OCC report examines financial institutions’ reliance on reputational assessments and does not determine whether the SPLC committed fraud.
In August, federal prosecutors also charged former SPLC executive Heidi Beirich in a separate fraud-related case involving allegations of misuse of funds and financial transactions. Beirich has denied wrongdoing, and her defense has characterized the prosecution as politically motivated.
The broader banking investigation was initiated under President Trump’s executive order directing federal regulators to examine whether financial institutions had improperly denied services because of political beliefs, religious affiliations or lawful commercial activities.
The OCC began reviewing the largest banks under its supervision in September 2025 and released preliminary findings later that year.
The October report expands on those findings and identifies specific internal decisions involving customers whose political or religious positions became factors in determining their access to financial services.
The investigation has drawn support from organizations advocating stronger protections against financial discrimination.
Alliance Defending Freedom representative Matt Sharp welcomed the administration’s approach during an appearance on the Just the News, No Noise television program, describing efforts to prevent politically motivated account closures as “a huge win for every single American.”
Sharp argued that identifying improper practices was only the beginning and that banks and organizations contributing to those decisions should face additional scrutiny.
“So, I think the first step we can do is [hold] them accountable is one of the best things we can do to make sure that this never happens again, and that those that were harmed by it can rest assured that they will never face debanking again,” Sharp said.
“They will never worry about their credit card or loan being canceled because of their religious or political beliefs. I think that’s going to be the huge next step we need to take in terms of accountability.”
Sharp also praised state governments that have adopted legislation intended to restrict financial institutions from denying services because of customers’ political or religious positions.
“I know some of these states that have already passed these laws, have looked at what they can do, not only against the banks but against the SPLC and others that were behind a lot of this, that were behind a lot of this ideological warfare against people by shutting down their accounts, putting other pressure on them,” he said.
The OCC has already taken steps to remove reputational risk considerations from its bank examination procedures and strengthen its review of potentially discriminatory account closures.
Regulators are also examining whether additional requirements are necessary to ensure that financial institutions apply objective standards when evaluating customers.
Gould said the changes banks have already undertaken may not be sufficient to prevent similar practices from recurring.
“Notwithstanding certain efforts by the largest banks to rein in these practices, I am not confident that they will be enough,” he said.
“Accordingly, the OCC will be assessing further changes to the regulatory and supervisory framework applicable to the largest banks to reduce the likelihood of these harmful practices recurring in the future.”
The regulator has not announced penalties arising from the report. It has indicated that additional supervisory measures remain under consideration.
For customers, the findings raise questions about whether access to essential financial services should depend on the political judgments of banks, third-party advocacy organizations or individual compliance officers.
Financial institutions maintain legitimate obligations to prevent fraud, money laundering and other unlawful activities. They also assess financial and legal risks when deciding whether to establish or continue customer relationships.
The OCC’s findings, however, distinguish those responsibilities from denying services based on political beliefs, religious affiliations or lawful activities that employees or outside organizations consider controversial.
The report’s documentation of SPLC classifications influencing several account reviews provides evidence of one pathway through which outside advocacy assessments entered financial decision-making.
At the same time, the review identified other sources of reputational concerns and instances affecting customers with differing political positions, indicating that the broader banking practices extended beyond any single organization.
As federal regulators consider additional restrictions on discriminatory banking decisions, the SPLC continues defending itself in federal court against separate allegations involving its informant program.
Together, the developments place renewed attention on the relationship between political advocacy organizations, financial institutions and the government’s responsibility to ensure that lawful customers can obtain banking services without discrimination based on their beliefs.
Original article
Comments