US Regulator Accuses Big Banks of Political Debanking
Left 14%
Center 0%
Right 86%
1 left · 0 center · 6 right
What happened
On Wednesday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released a report on the nine largest national banks it supervises—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC, TD Bank and BMO—after reviewing nearly 100,000 complaints and about 420,000 pages of documents under an August 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump directing a review of whether bank policies had required, encouraged, or otherwise influenced denials of financial services because of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. The OCC found that between 2020 and September 2025 all nine banks had used “reputation risk” policies that lacked “clear,” “objective” standards and could disadvantage customers on those grounds, including in sectors such as firearms, coal, oil and gas, tobacco and digital assets. Among decisions cited were a February 2021 closure by a JPMorgan-owned payment processor of a merchant selling MAGA merchandise; PNC’s 2021 denial of a line of credit to a media company after an employee wrote it was “really difficult to justify aligning ourselves with a company whose owners have built very public personas around opinions very contrary to PNC’s beliefs/values”; TD Bank’s flagging of a Christian health-care sharing ministry whose “moral and religious requirements” appeared “to conflict with TD’s values of diversity and inclusion”; a 2024 Wells Fargo note that “[u]nder the Biden administration, banks could face greater supervisory pressure to move away from lending to the firearms industry”; and Capital One declines involving a gun-rights organization as well as reproductive-rights groups and a public-education organization whose political arm endorsed only Democratic candidates. Comptroller Jonathan Gould said the report provided “irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses.” All nine banks told the OCC they have since changed their policies; the agency wrote it was “unable to say with confidence that current policies preclude banks returning to the harmful practices discussed in this report” and said it is considering further action.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 7 articles
7 of 7 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 7 of 7
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Jonathan Gould, Timothy Two Project International, Jeremy Tedesco and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 7 of 7
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: official report, government watchdog report, federal investigation report, official statement
- Credits another outlet 0 of 7
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 7
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 14, 14:38 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (government watchdog report).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage is more complete on what the OCC found. Left-leaning coverage never names a closed account and never reports the comptroller's finding that major banks discriminated against customers over political views. Fox Business quotes him calling the file "irrefutable evidence" of denials. Daily Wire describes a closed MAGA merchant account from the same files. Without those details, the review reads as a drafting problem inside bank manuals rather than a record of shutoffs.
Daily Wire leads by saying the Biden administration "pushed" banks to target conservative and religious groups. Left-leaning coverage never mentions that administration as a cause and instead points to political considerations, public pressure, and social concerns inside the banks.
Did the OCC find that any federal official ordered a bank to close a specific account?
Bottom line
CNBC's write-up of the OCC review never names a customer who lost an account; Daily Wire's version of the same report opens as a Biden-era drive against conservatives.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Comptroller Jonathan Gould said the OCC uncovered irrefutable evidence that the nation's largest banks denied, debanked, and discriminated against customers.
- One bank declined financial services to a public education organization because its political arm endorsed solely Democratic candidates.
- The OCC said it could not comprehensively quantify how many customers were affected or what they lost.
- The OCC said it conducted the review to comply with a Trump executive order signed in August 2025.
The Left View
CNBC framed the OCC report as a Treasury finding that the largest U.S. banks “let politics influence who received banking services,” allowing “political considerations, public pressure and social concerns” to shape who obtained accounts. It presented the review as potentially lending “new regulatory weight” to a grievance Trump has pressed since returning to office, including his claim that he was personally “debanked” after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, which the article said banks have denied. The coverage also noted that the report landed a day after more than $1.2 billion in separate Bank of America anti-money-laundering penalties and that the OCC is examining whether banks’ efforts to comply with anti-money-laundering rules have themselves contributed to debanking.
The Right View
The Daily Wire, Fox Business, and the Daily Caller cast the report as confirmation that the Biden administration “pushed several major banks to hamstring conservative nonprofits and retailers of MAGA-branded merchandise,” calling reputation risk a “vague term propagated by Biden regulators” and tracing it to the Obama Justice Department’s 2013 Operation Choke Point and what they term Operation Choke Point 2.0 against crypto, firearms, and religiously affiliated businesses. They treated the internal PNC, TD Bank, and Wells Fargo comments, the MAGA-merchant closure, and the industry restrictions as proof that banks cut off conservatives, people of faith, and lawful businesses under government pressure, with Gould’s “irrefutable evidence” line and Republican lawmakers arguing that Democrats “debanked,” “spied on,” and “censored” conservatives and that “no law-abiding American should be debanked for their beliefs.” They also cited JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s view that onerous rules “cause people to be debanked who, in my opinion, should not be debanked,” while relaying bank statements that policies prohibit discrimination based on political or religious views and that years of regulatory second-guessing produced a “culture of caution.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the OCC documented a real failure of standards—vague reputation-risk policies that let politics, public pressure, and social concerns into banking decisions—while leaving open whether anti-money-laundering compliance, not partisan targeting, drove some closures; CNBC also records that banks have denied Trump’s personal post–Jan. 6 debanking claim. The right’s strongest argument is contemporaneous internal language that tied refusals to MAGA branding, conservative owners’ views, a Christian ministry’s religious requirements, and expected Biden-era “supervisory pressure” on firearms, which they present as direct evidence of viewpoint-based exclusion rather than ordinary credit analysis. The central unresolved tension is whether those decisions were primarily a one-directional, government-encouraged freeze-out of conservatives and disfavored industries, or a broader two-sided pattern of banks managing headline and regulatory risk under standards never built to sort customers by ideology.
7 sources
- Treasury says largest U.S. banks let politics influence who received banking services
- Biden Administration Pushed Banks To Target Conservative And Religious Groups, Report Finds
- US regulator accuses nation's largest banks of debanking customers over political views
- Political Debanking Ran Rampant At America’s Biggest Banks, Federal Probe Alleges
- Bombshell Report: Big Banks Debanked ‘MAGA’ And The Left’s Other Political Enemies
- Trump admin. report finds 9 major banks discriminated against conservatives
- Big Banks Cut Off Conservatives and Christian Groups, OCC Investigation Finds
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.