White House Targets Banking Bias: Crypto Firms and Conservatives Fight Back in 2025

The Biden administration is taking aim at financial gatekeepers—alleging systemic discrimination against both crypto innovators and conservative groups. This isn't just culture war fodder; it's a trillion-dollar reckoning for legacy banks.

When ideology meets balance sheets

Sources confirm regulators are drafting rules to prevent 'de-risking'—the practice where banks abruptly cut services to entire industries. Crypto firms got hit first, but red-state businesses now report similar blacklisting. Coincidence? The FDIC isn't laughing.

JPMorgan vs. the disruptors

Wall Street's old guard insists they're just following risk protocols (between martini lunches). Meanwhile, decentralized finance protocols process $12B daily without asking permission. The White House seems to prefer the latter's paperwork-light approach.

Finance's favorite hypocrisy: Banks will launder billions for cartels but freeze a mom-and-pop Bitcoin miner over 'suspicious activity.' Maybe compliance departments just hate competition.

Executive Order to Counter ‘Operation Chokepoint 2.0’

Former U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to sign a sweeping executive order aimed at protecting cryptocurrency companies and conservative-aligned organizations from what his allies describe as politically motivated banking restrictions. The move is widely viewed as a response to what critics have called “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a term used to describe the alleged systematic exclusion of certain customers, particularly in the digital asset space, under the Biden administration.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, the draft order WOULD compel federal banking regulators to investigate instances where financial institutions terminated customer accounts in potential violation of equal credit access, antitrust, or consumer protection laws.

Regulatory Oversight and Penalties

If enacted, the executive order would direct agencies to dismantle internal banking policies perceived to have enabled debanking based on ideological or reputational risk assessments. Institutions found in breach could face regulatory enforcement actions and financial penalties. The Justice Department may also be tasked with reviewing suspected violations, while the Federal Reserve's role in determining access to banking infrastructure would come under additional scrutiny.

Notably, the Small Business Administration would be required to review its partnerships with financial institutions to ensure they do not engage in politically discriminatory practices.

Political and Legal Context

The draft order highlights prior cases that have drawn political attention, including a 2023 incident where Bank of America closed the account of a Christian charity operating in Uganda. While the bank cited internal policies against servicing overseas small businesses, the closure was perceived by critics as ideologically motivated.

The order also references the role of certain banks in federal probes following the January 6 Capitol riots, pushing for a regulatory review of whether institutions excluded customers for political reasons rather than legal or financial risks.

Trump, in a June interview with Decrypt, claimed that major banks acted “very nasty” toward his business interests during Biden’s term, attributing the decisions to pressure from federal regulators rather than bank executives themselves.

Industry Response and Legal Challenges

In anticipation of federal scrutiny, some banks have reportedly revised internal guidelines to explicitly prohibit political discrimination and have begun cooperating with Republican-led states to demonstrate compliance. 

However, legal experts have raised concerns about the scope and enforceability of the executive order. Alex Chandra, a partner at Indonesia-based IGNOS Law Alliance, emphasized that executive orders can only enforce existing laws. He warned the order could face judicial challenges if it attempts to create new legal protections without congressional authorization.

Chandra also pointed out the lack of legal clarity around “political discrimination,” suggesting the absence of political affiliation as a protected class under U.S. anti-discrimination law could complicate enforcement and invite lawsuits. 

He added,

“Even if the orders are enacted, the banks will find a way to drop customers.v ”

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.