Ensuring Big Banks Respect Customers’ Rights

A top banking regulator is taking decisive action to put an end to the era of “debanking,” a practice where big banks deny services to individuals and businesses based on their political beliefs, industry, or ideology. This move comes after numerous instances of banks, including Google, Paypal, and Amazon, cancelling accounts and restricting access to financial services for those who held dissenting views on topics like the origins of Covid-19 and the BLM movement.

Under the Biden administration, several banks were accused of blacklisting entire sectors, such as firearms, and denying services to individuals based on their political affiliations, with a noticeable bias against non-Democrats. However, Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), has announced that supervisors are now closely monitoring banks to ensure they have ceased these discriminatory practices. This oversight is a direct result of a June executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which explicitly directs banks to refrain from denying services based on industry type or political considerations. Reuters reports that supervisors are working to ensure the largest banks are in compliance with this updated approach, marking a significant shift in the banking sector’s treatment of customers.

The practice of debanking has been shrouded in secrecy, with only specialists openly discussing its implications. However, its effects can be devastating, denying individuals and businesses access to essential financial services without any recourse or appeal. The issue has sparked concern among advocates, including Christian organizations and conservatives, who claim to have been targeted by these practices. Notably, former First Lady Melania Trump has spoken out about her own experience with debanking, revealing that she and her son Barron were victims of this practice in 2021, after her husband left office. The Trump family has been vocal about the concerted efforts to erase their legacy, with Eric Trump sharing his family’s ordeal.

Banks Denying Services Based on Political Views

What is the main purpose of banks?

· Keep money safe for customers

· Offer customers interest on deposits, helping to protect against money losing value against inflation

· Lend money to firms, customers and homebuyers

· Offer financial advice and related financial services, such as insuranceBanks are intermediaries between depositors (who lend money to the bank) and borrowers (to whom the bank lends money)

This should be the scope of all commercial banks. However, debanking is a form of main stream cancel culture and this is what prophecy has told us about cancel culture.  

Debanking: The Nigel Farage Case study

The banking systems were being utilized to exert social and political control, as evidenced by the compliance of Canadian banks with Trudeau’s request to freeze the bank accounts of truckers involved in the Canadian Freedom protests. Banks actively played politics, mirroring the actions of PayPal and other payment gateways, which froze the accounts of journalists. Graham Phillips, an independent journalist reporting from the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, had his assets completely frozen last year by UK authorities for merely reporting the truth about the conflict. Alina Lipp, a German journalist living in Donbas, was labeled a Russian terrorist and criminally charged by German authorities for her pro-Russian reporting, resulting in the shutdown of her bank accounts and those of her father. In the US, JP Morgan Chase allegedly severed ties with the faith-based non-profit National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) last year, although the bank has since denied doing so due to the organization’s religious and political views. In 2023, Nigel Farage’s bank announced that it was closing his accounts, a decision that came without initial explanation, despite the controversial UK politician having been a customer for 40 years. Since then, Farage had attempted to open accounts at nine other banks but was unsuccessful. Banking discrimination was not limited to political figures like Farage or high-profile journalists, as banks were actively targeting individuals, with the National Australia Bank (NAB) announcing a plan to ‘cut off’ customers accused of being financial abusers, a practice known as ‘debanking’, which involves suspending, cancelling, or denying access to accounts.

Journalists reported that Nigel Farage had his bank account closed by Coutts, a prestigious bank catering to affluent clients, which is owned by the National Westminster Bank, a institution largely controlled by the British government since the 2008 banking crisis. As a prominent figure, Farage was instrumental in the 2016 referendum vote for Britain to leave the European Union, earning him both admiration and detestation from the public. Investigators found that Farage, who had been acquainted with Donald Trump, had voiced opposition to extreme transgender ideology and the pursuit of zero emissions, but had not been implicated in any illegal activities. Despite this, Coutts terminated his account, although the bank acknowledged that Farage had always conducted himself in a polite and courteous manner in his dealings with them.

Bank documents revealed that the institution perceived significant reputational risks in associating with N F, given his high profile and the substantial amount of adverse press surrounding him. Although he had no criminal convictions, his commentary and behaviours were deemed to be at odds with the bank’s purpose and values. The bank took issue with his comments and articles on ESG and diversity and inclusion, which did not align with their views or purpose. One document highlighted N F’s history of contentious actions, including his role in campaigning for Britain’s exit from Europe on stringent terms, his opposition to Covid restrictions, and his revived hostility towards addressing the climate emergency. The document also criticized his stance on “disinformation”, citing specific tweets in which he opposed clamping down on the spread of false information. These findings were compiled into a 40-page dossier, which was the result of extensive research and labour, funded by the bank’s depositors and shareholders, including the government, and were intentionally included in the bank’s files.

As much as Mr. Farage may not always be right, but the real issue was whether banks had the authority to scrutinize their clients’ views and deny them service if those views conflicted with those of the chief executive. Banks were actively examining the political beliefs of their clients, sparking concerns about their role in society. The chief executive of Coutts’ parent bank, Alison Rose, had explicitly stated that tackling climate change and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion were central to the bank’s purpose, but it appeared that this diversity did not extend to individuals with conservative views or those with less than $1 million to deposit. Investigations revealed that when Mr. Farage initially announced that Coutts had closed his account, the bank claimed it was due to insufficient funds, but documents obtained by Mr. Farage later proved that the account was closed for purely political reasons. Furthermore, Mr. Farage alleged that nine other banks, acting as a cartel, had refused to open accounts for him, demonstrating a disturbing trend of financial institutions suppressing freedom of opinion.

Bank refuses to open account for parental rights group opposing ‘trans’ surgeries for kids

We also uncovered that another UK-based bank, Metro Bank, had refused to open a business account for a parental rights group, Our Duty, which opposed transgender surgeries for children. The bank’s spokesman attributed the decision to commercial reasons, but the group believed it was due to their political stance. Metro Bank had recently allied itself with pro-LGBT ideology, joining most major UK banks in promoting this cause.

The actions taken against Mr. Farage and the parental rights group served as a warning to the wealthy to conform to the prevailing ideology or risk losing access to their funds. The Canadian government’s introduction of bank bail-in legislation and the potential implementation of a centralized digital currency raised concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms, particularly the ability to control one’s own body and make choices about healthcare, such as vaccine status. With the ability to withhold funds, individuals might be forced to comply with certain requirements, such as taking quarterly vaccinations, in order to access basic necessities like food and housing. As the regulator continues to crack down on debanking, it remains to be seen how this will impact the banking sector and its treatment of customers. One thing is certain, however: the era of debanking is officially over, and big banks are being held accountable for their actions.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” on August 7, 2025, which actively prohibits financial institutions from denying or restricting access to banking services based on individuals’ or businesses’ political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities, a practice commonly known as “debanking.” This move directly addresses concerns surrounding past government-influenced programs, such as “Operation Chokepoint,” where regulators allegedly pressured banks to limit services to specific industries or groups without conducting objective risk assessments, targeting those associated with conservative views, firearms sales, or digital assets. The order explicitly highlights instances where banks, under the influence of federal regulators, have restricted services to law-abiding customers, including flagging transactions involving terms like “Trump” or “MAGA,” or purchases from retailers like Bass Pro Shop or Cabela’s, without any evidence of wrongdoing. It asserts that such practices actively violate principles of free expression, erode trust in the banking system, and potentially contravene laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The order mandates that banking decisions must be based solely on individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses, rather than political or ideological biases, to ensure fair and unbiased access to banking services for all Americans.

The Executive Order titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,”

The administration is taking decisive action to combat financial discrimination, building on previous initiatives such as dismantling “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” and launching task forces like the DOJ-Virginia Equal Access to Banking Task Force. Citing concrete examples of banks unfairly denying services to Republican events, conservative groups, and cryptocurrency firms – including those owned by former President Trump – the order sends a clear message. Regulators, including the OCC and FDIC, are actively affirming their commitment to ensuring fair access to financial services, leaving financial institutions on notice that they will face intense scrutiny. Institutions that have engaged in debanking practices may now face investigations, penalties, or referrals to the DOJ, and will be required to prioritize reinstating services to previously denied clients. This move is poised to benefit industries such as cryptocurrencies, firearms, and conservative causes by reducing discriminatory practices, although some critics argue that it may limit the ability of financial institutions to manage risk. Conservatives and crypto enthusiasts are widely hailing the order as a major victory against censorship and “woke” banking practices, with many noting its potential to curb the ability of payment processors like Visa and Mastercard to pressure platforms over content. Alliance Defending Freedom’s Ryan Bangert discussed the new executive order on debanking.

Main Directives of Executive Order Banning Political Debanking

Federal agencies are now required to eradicate debanking practices

Federal agencies are now required to take immediate action to eradicate debanking practices, and they must do so in a swift and efficient manner. All federal banking regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are ordered to take the following steps within 180 days: remove any language related to “reputation risk” from their guidance, manuals, and materials, excluding regulations that require notice and comment, as this could be used to justify debanking practices. They must also issue formal guidance to examiners and consider rescinding or amending existing regulations to ensure that assessments are based on risk and are apolitical in nature.

Marc Andreesen spoke on Elizabeth Warrens agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has spent the last 4 years terrorizing people via debanking. Consumer Complaints to CFPB from 2023–2024 were over 8,000. Complaints documented improper account closures without explanation.

The Small Business Administration has been given a deadline of 60 days to provide notice and 120 days to take action, and during this time, they must notify all institutions under their jurisdiction to identify and reinstate any clients who were debanked unlawfully, notify potential clients who were previously denied services and offer them renewed access, and specifically address any instances of payment processing denials.

All federal banking regulators have been given 120 days to review financial institutions for any past or current policies that may have promoted debanking, and if any violations of laws such as the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Consumer Financial Protection Act are found, they must impose remedies, including fines, consent decrees, or disciplinary actions. Within 180 days, all federal banking regulators must examine supervisory and complaint data to identify any instances of debanking based on religion, and if any violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act are found, they must refer these cases to the Attorney General for potential civil action. The Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the Economic Policy Advisor, has been given 180 days to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat debanking, including exploring legislative or regulatory options to prevent this practice from occurring in the future.

Debanking: a form of lawfare and censorship

Some notable recent examples from 2023–2025 highlight patterns involving major banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, as well as crypto-related cases. In 2024, Marc Andreessen, a Billionaire Investor, prominent venture capitalist and Trump supporter involved in crypto, was debanked by an unspecified bank. He described it as a form of “lawfare and censorship” targeting those exposing corruption or opposing narratives, making it a rallying cry among crypto advocates. 30 Tech Founders were secretly debanked in late 2024 with no warning, explanation, or appeals, described as “pure, silent government power” destroying companies. Cryptocurrency Companies were also targeted. In early 2023, federal regulators (Fed, FDIC, OCC) issued a joint statement on heightened risks from crypto, leading to debanking of related firms. This built on a 2022 FDIC memo pausing services, with ongoing impacts into 2025. Additionally, in May 2025, Montana’s DOJ demanded answers from Wells Fargo for debanking practices tied to Biden-era net-zero goals.

The despicable workings of Operation Chokepoint

Marc Andreessen introduced the topic of Operation Chokepoint. Let’s delve into it. Back in 2013, under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched this thing called Operation Chokepoint. Officially, it was sold as a crackdown on fraud and money laundering by going after “high-risk” businesses that banks were servicing. The idea? Pressure banks and payment processors to cut off accounts for industries the feds didn’t like, effectively “choking” them out of the financial system without ever proving any wrongdoing in court. The DOJ teamed up with regulators like the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to label these businesses as “reputational risks” for banks. If a bank kept serving them, they’d face extra scrutiny, audits, or even threats to their own operations. No due process, no trials—just backroom arm-twisting. It was classic big government overreach, using the financial system as a weapon to enforce policy without Congress’s say-so. Small businesses got crushed, jobs lost, all while the feds played judge and jury. By 2014, Congress caught wind and investigated. House reports slammed it as an abuse of power, saying it “choked out” companies the administration just didn’t favor. Lawsuits piled up, and in 2017, under President Trump, the DOJ officially shut it down, calling it unfair and ineffective. Good riddance, right? But like a zombie, it never really died—it just morphed. Enter Chokepoint 2.0 in the Biden years, and this time aimed at the crypto industry.

Regulators like the FDIC and OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) started whispering to banks about “risks” in digital assets, leading to mass debanking of crypto firms. Accounts closed overnight, no explanations, just because they dealt in Bitcoin or blockchain tech. It was the same playbook: Use vague “reputational risk” to scare banks away from innovative sectors that threaten the status quo.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe