Fintech Groups Urge Trump to Counter Bank Fees Stifling DeFi, Crypto Innovation

Generated by AI AgentCoin World
Thursday, Jul 24, 2025 5:17 pm ET2min read
Aime RobotAime Summary

- Fintech/crypto groups urge Trump to block bank fees stifling DeFi, crypto innovation under 2024 open banking rules.

- Banks like JPMorgan propose data access charges, framed as "punitive taxes" threatening startups and consumer financial tools.

- Industry warns delayed rule implementation risks U.S. lagging in global fintech, citing past disruptions from bank-led legal challenges.

- CFPB's enforcement of data-sharing mandates could reshape finance by accelerating DeFi adoption or entrenching bank control over consumer data.

Fintech and cryptocurrency industry groups are intensifying efforts to safeguard open banking reforms, urging President Donald Trump to counter what they describe as coordinated attempts by major banks to restrict consumer data access. A coalition of ten trade associations has issued statements warning that proposed fees by institutions like

could stifle innovation in decentralized finance (DeFi), digital wallets, and stablecoins, while limiting the growth of financial tools relied on by millions of Americans [1][2]. The groups argue that banks’ legal challenges and data access fees threaten the foundational principles of open banking, which aim to foster competition by enabling third-party providers to offer personalized services with consumer consent [4].

The 2024 open banking rules, finalized under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), require banks to share customer data with third parties upon request. However, large banks have responded by filing lawsuits and proposing charges for data access, which critics label as "punitive taxes" designed to create barriers for startups and smaller firms. For instance,

has suggested imposing fees on fintech companies seeking user data, a move the industry claims could cripple innovation in areas like cross-border payments and automated savings tools [5]. Phil Goldfeder, CEO of the American Fintech Council, emphasized that these efforts risk limiting access to financial tools critical for consumers and small businesses, urging the administration to defend the rule in court [6].

The coalition’s campaign underscores broader tensions between traditional

and emerging sectors advocating for open access to banking data. By framing the issue as a policy challenge to U.S. global competitiveness, the groups argue that without intervention, the country risks lagging behind in financial innovation. They highlight historical precedents where bank-led legal challenges to similar regulations disrupted fintech expansions due to compliance costs and uncertainty [7]. Analysts note that the outcome could reshape the financial sector: if banks succeed in imposing data fees, fintech startups may face higher operational costs, deterring investment in open banking technologies. Conversely, enforcing the 2024 rules could accelerate the adoption of DeFi and crypto solutions, challenging traditional banking models [10].

The coalition has positioned Trump as a potential ally, leveraging his historical skepticism toward big banks and pro-deregulation stance. Their letters to the administration stress that protecting open banking aligns with his agenda to support small innovators and foster competition. The groups warn that delayed implementation of the rules could mirror past disruptions, including reduced crypto project funding and financial stability risks for startups [8]. The CFPB’s role in adjudicating the legal disputes remains pivotal, but the coalition’s push for executive action suggests a strategic effort to bypass prolonged regulatory processes.

The debate extends beyond financial innovation to data privacy concerns. Critics argue that allowing banks to charge for data access shifts power back to institutions rather than consumers, undermining the democratization of financial tools envisioned by open banking. The industry’s warnings highlight the fragility of regulatory frameworks in the face of institutional resistance, emphasizing the need for clear policy enforcement to preserve consumer control over data [11].

Sources:

[1] [title1] [url1]

[2] [title2] [url2]

[3] [title3] [url3]

[4] [title4] [url4]

[5] [title5] [url5]

[6] [title6] [url6]

[7] [title7] [url7]

[8] [title8] [url8]

[9] [title9] [url9]

[10] [title10] [url10]

[11] [title11] [url11]

[12] [title12] [url12]

Comments



Add a public comment...
No comments

No comments yet