I’d like someone to do a deep dive into the government regulations regarding banks reporting transactions and activity to the federal government with how this is connected to debanking. It could be banks find their reporting for certain accounts to be too costly, and no longer worth providing the account, especially when private accounts are usually free. And it’s a significant burden to banks to report all transactions and activity set forth in the regulations, as we have no financial privacy. Also, how much are banks overreporting to avoid running afoul of the regulations? For an overview of bank privacy, see the second video in this post. Consequently, we use one of these major banks for their better online banking services, ATM network, and to insulate our main accounts from hacking; but I wonder if we’ll end up debanked by them one day? But with the move to a digital ID and digital currency, banks will become irrelevant and the government will be the one to cut you off because you’re not measuring up as a citizen, e.g. eating too much red meat, not taking their untested gene therapies…
Banks targeted industries based on media reports and other reputational standards, the report revealed.
By Naveen Athrappully
Nine of the largest banks have been found to engage in debanking activities, according to preliminary findings in a Dec. 10 review report published by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
The report follows the banking regulator’s implementation of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14331, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking For All Americans,” which said that financial institutions have been engaging in practices that restrict law-abiding individuals and businesses from services on the basis of political or religious beliefs. The order was issued on Aug. 7.
“The OCC is taking steps to end the weaponization of the financial system,” Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould said at the time. “We are working to root out bank activities that unlawfully debank or discriminate against customers on the basis of political or religious beliefs, or lawful business activities. If and when the OCC identifies such activity, it will take action to end it.”
The latest report has been prepared as part of the organization’s review into nine of its largest regulated institutions: Bank of America, BMO Bank, Citibank, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase Bank, PNC Bank, TD Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and U.S. Bank.
The OCC evaluated thousands of documents from 2020 to 2025 to identify instances of customer complaints about potential debanking activities—and whether the institutions shared private data of individuals who hold certain political views or affiliations—with federal law enforcement for the purposes of surveillance and enforcement.
“To date, the OCC has observed that between 2020 and 2023, the banks maintained public and nonpublic policies restricting certain industry sectors’ access to banking services,” the report reads.
“Many industry sectors were restricted based primarily on how it might appear to the public if the bank provided access to financial services to these sectors.”
For instance, a bank was found to target certain industries with restrictions when those sectors were subjected to political and media scrutiny.
Some banks assigned “environmental” and “social” ratings to clients and to transactions exposed to “sensitive” industries.
The nine banks restricted banking access to the following sectors: oil and gas exploration, development, or production in the Arctic; coal mining or coal-powered plants; firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition manufacturing and distribution; private prison construction or operation; payday and payroll lending, consumer debt collection, and repossession agencies; tobacco or e-cigarette manufacturing, online retail, or distribution; adult entertainment; digital asset activities; and political action committees and political parties.
Sector-Wise Restrictions
According to the OCC report, banks restricted access to finance for the oil and gas sector as part of “larger ‘ambitious’ climate campaigns intended to advance the banks’ ‘environmental commitments.’”
In the coal sector, banks stated that they would not provide financial services to companies deriving a percentage of their revenue from coal extraction, mining, or coal products, the OCC said.
Regarding the firearms sector, several banks cited polarizing public opinions on gun ownership and control as driving their financing restrictions on the industry.
“At least two banks highlighted ‘polarizing’ or ‘polarized’ public opinion surrounding individual gun ownership rights and gun control as part of the basis for their firearms restrictions,” the report reads.
When it came to private prisons, banks cited “reputation risk” concerns due to these facilities “profiting from incarceration and immigrant detention,” the OCC said.
As for political action committees and parties, “several banks, or lines of business within certain banks, restricted lending and other financial services to individuals or entities for the benefit of a political candidate or parties in support of a campaign effort,” it stated.
Banks targeted some sectors for receiving negative media coverage and activist attention, which the institutions claimed posed “reputation risk,” it said.
In a Dec. 10 statement published with the report, OCC said it was continuing to better understand the full extent and effects of debanking actions taken by banks and their impact on industries and the overall American economy. The agency is continuing to review thousands of complaints to identify instances of religious or political debanking.
“It is unfortunate that the nation’s largest banks thought these harmful debanking policies were an appropriate use of their government-granted charter and market power,” Gould said.
“While many of these policies were undertaken in plain sight and even announced publicly, certain banks have continued to insist that they did not engage in debanking. Going forward, the OCC will hold banks accountable for these actions and ensure unlawful debanking does not continue.”
Fair Banking Access
In a Dec. 10 response to the OCC report, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) said the industry supports “fair access to banking and is already working together with Congress and the administration to ensure banks are able to serve law-abiding customers,” without giving more specific information.
BPI represents the nation’s leading banks, including all nine listed in the OCC report.
BPI supports “recent regulatory efforts and clear and consistent standards that protect access to America’s banking system while maintaining sound risk management,” which could suggest a more sympathetic approach to certain industries that were earlier vilified based on reputational risks.
The Epoch Times reached out to BPI for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
In August, following Trump’s executive order on debanking, BPI and other groups issued a set of principles for lawmakers to take into consideration when it comes to fair access to banking services.
“There should be no private rights of action, which could result in costly plaintiffs’ actions and increase the cost of services to customers. To align the interests of the public, financial institutions and regulators, these new requirements should reaffirm that federal financial regulatory agencies may not require a bank to close an account or otherwise take any supervisory or enforcement action against an institution solely based on reputation risk,” it said.
Regarding the debanking of conservatives, a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase told The Epoch Times in August that the bank does not close accounts for political reasons and agrees with Trump that regulatory changes are needed to address such activities.
Earlier in January, a Bank of America spokesperson said the bank welcomes conservatives and serves more than 70 million clients.
“We are required to follow extensive government rules and regulations that sometimes result in decisions to exit client relationships. We never close accounts for political reasons and don’t have a political litmus test,” the spokesperson said.
In Trump’s executive order, he directed regulators to remove terms such as “reputational risk” from their guidance, language allegedly used to justify debanking.
The White House listed several instances of politicized debanking actions. In one case, a bank allegedly refused to process payments for a Republican event, it said. The bank reversed the decision after the incident attracted public attention.
Moreover, federal regulators allegedly encouraged banks to flag individuals who used terms such as “MAGA” or “Trump” in peer-to-peer payments, the White House said.
Kevin Stocklin contributed to this report.