White House to Target Ideological Bank Account Closures in Crypto Debanking Order

According to recent reports, the White House is preparing to issue a crypto debanking executive order as part of a broader initiative called the “Digital Fairness Drive.” The order is intended to penalize banks for denying services to conservative or cryptocurrency clients based on ideology rather than risk assessment [1]. The executive order will empower federal regulators to investigate potential violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws, or consumer financial protection laws, with possible outcomes including fines, consent decrees, or other enforcement actions [2].

Sources indicate that the executive order could be signed as early as the coming week, though the timeline remains subject to change [3]. The initiative aims to address what critics call “debanking,” a term used to describe the alleged suppression of clients by banks due to political or industry affiliations, rather than compliance concerns [4]. Regulators will be tasked with identifying and removing internal policies that may lead to biased account closures [5].

The Small Business Administration will also review how banks handle SBA-backed loans to ensure fair treatment of both conservative and blockchain-related businesses. Examples cited include the alleged closure of a Christian charity's account by Bank of America and similar issues reported by crypto companies [6].

The timing of this executive order coincides with increased scrutiny of Operation Chokepoint 2.0, a perceived regulatory pressure that allegedly led banks to cut ties with digital asset firms, especially following the collapse of crypto-friendly banks such as Silvergate, Signature, and Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 [7]. Nongovernmental sources have claimed that over thirty crypto founders have been cut off from banking services in recent years. This has led to congressional hearings and investigations by House committees [8].

According to reports, the Trump administration has rescinded Fed-mandated reputational risk metrics that previously discouraged banks from serving crypto clients. In response, banks such as JPMorgan and Bank of America have reportedly revised internal policies and engaged with Republican officials to clarify their commitment to neutrality [9].

The provisions of the executive order include investigations into politically motivated account closures, the removal of internal bank policies that lead to biased decisions, and SBA reviews to ensure loan-backing procedures are not penalizing conservative or crypto-aligned companies. Serious cases will be referred to the Justice Department for further review [10].

Industry experts suggest that removing ideological bias from banking decisions could promote greater financial inclusion. However, critics argue that this could lead to banks serving clients they are not equipped to handle, raising concerns about anti-money laundering and compliance risks [11]. Banks have maintained that their decisions are based on risk assessments rather than bias, and they warn that a lack of transparency in closure practices leaves customers in an uncertain position [12].

The order aligns with the Trump administration’s broader crypto policy, which includes prior executive actions banning central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), excluding the Fed and FDIC from crypto working groups, and forming a cross-agency task force to address digital asset regulation [13]. This Digital Fairness Drive builds on those initiatives by focusing on banking access and ideological neutrality.

Analysts believe the order could signal a major shift in how the federal government approaches banking access for conservative and crypto clients. If enacted, the executive order could end policy-driven account closures, enforce existing laws, and reshape bank compliance culture [14].

As the financial sector awaits the formal release of the executive order—possibly within the coming week—stakeholders are expecting both clarity and new requirements for financial institutions [15].

Sources:

[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/community/articles/6891fa6c7c289c157e57999b/