Federal Investigation Reveals Banks’ Discrimination Against Conservatives and Religious Groups

A recent federal investigation has uncovered that many of the largest banks in the U.S. have taken steps to deny financial services to conservative businesses and Christian organizations based on their political and religious beliefs. This was noted in a report released by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) earlier this week.

The report detailed instances where financial institutions turned away conservative businesses, sellers of Trump merchandise, and Christian groups. Bank employees cited the customers’ political views and religious beliefs, suggesting conflicts with the banks’ own values. The OCC outlined examples of account closures, rejected financing, and internal screening processes that flagged terms like “MAGA” and “America First.” It’s alarming that some bank staff appeared to consider potential pressure from the Biden administration when making service decisions for lawful businesses.

In light of these findings, the OCC is contemplating new regulations that would incorporate records of debanking into merger assessments and community-lending reviews. Additionally, they may enable customers to access confidential supervisory information for use in private lawsuits.

All nine national banks examined maintained policies that imposed restrictions or heightened scrutiny based on perceived reputation risk. Institutions like JPMorgan Chase, PNC, Wells Fargo, and Capital One were specifically mentioned for their closures or denials connected to customers’ political or religious stances. In contrast, cases involving Citibank and Bank of America were more about industry restrictions rather than direct discrimination based on beliefs.

The industry restrictions mentioned in the report affected various sectors, including coal mining, oil development, firearms, tobacco, and digital assets. Many of these limitations seemed to reflect expected reactions from activists and stakeholders rather than actual financial risks.

Comptroller Jonathan Gould remarked, “Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked, and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses.” The review analyzed around 100,000 complaints, multiple individual cases, and a vast number of bank documents, covering the period from 2020 to September 2025. This inquiry was initiated by President Donald Trump as part of a wider effort to identify politically motivated debanking.

The OCC emphasized that banking decisions should be made based on clear, impartial, risk-based standards rather than subjective perceptions of public sentiment, which can overshadow objective financial evaluations.

Some banks that were reached for comment opted to refer to statements from the Bank Policy Institute, which said, “The banking industry supports fair access to banking services and is working to ensure that regulations allow banks to serve law-abiding customers.” The BPI highlighted a commitment to establishing transparent standards that maintain access while managing risks effectively.

Conflicts Between Business Owners and Bank Policies

PNC Bank denied a credit line to a media company in late 2021 due in part to its conservative ownership. The relationship manager had previously noted the company’s robust performance without citing specific credit risks. Bank employees highlighted one owner’s conservative commentary and donations to Christian organizations that have been classified as hate groups.

An employee expressed, “It becomes really difficult to justify aligning ourselves with a company whose owners have built very public personas around opinions contrary to PNC’s beliefs.” In a similar vein, Wells Fargo pressured a payment intermediary to reconsider supporting a religious nonprofit that, after various reviews, was found not to violate any hate-related rules.

The bank provided information about the nonprofit’s stance on same-sex marriage, which led to the intermediary terminating its services, disrupting the nonprofit’s funding and necessitating outreach to donors. While the intermediary later offered to reinstate the service, the nonprofit opted to decline.

Wells Fargo referenced organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League when discussing how to identify problematic merchants. However, this reliance on advocacy groups raised concerns about objectivity in reputation assessments.

Among other notable findings, Capital One’s restrictions impacted various organizations across the political spectrum, while TD Bank moved to deny an anti-immigration nonprofit’s application for government assistance, citing policy conflicts with the bank’s values.

Impact of Government Policy on Banking Decisions

The report also illustrated how expectations of government policy shaped banks’ decisions. For example, Wells Fargo’s employees noted concern over increased supervisory pressure to limit lending to the firearms sector under the Biden administration.

Bank of America ended its relationships with private prison companies due to potential political scrutiny, while Citibank turned down financing requests from a coal-reliant company and a firearm-related business due to concerns that did not align with their internal guidelines.

Interestingly, after initially cutting ties with the private prison industry, Bank of America sought to revive that relationship when conditions appeared to shift politically.

JPMorgan Chase’s WePay and Cancel Culture

WePay, a financial technology firm acquired by JPMorgan Chase, is at the center of some noteworthy cases. In early 2021, WePay closed down an account for a seller of Trump merchandise, deeming that it promoted hate or violence based on identified products like “MAGA” items.

Moreover, another account was terminated when posts from an event organizer characterized Biden and Anthony Fauci as adversaries and described movements like Black Lives Matter in negative terms. Although this closure was later reversed, it highlighted the internal screening processes in place.

The OCC report noted a lack of formal guidelines from either WePay or JPMorgan regarding hate or violence violations, raising questions about their screening practices.

In response to the report, JPMorgan acknowledged that WePay’s handling of these situations “did not meet our expectations” and assured that their policies prohibit discrimination based on political or religious affiliations.

Moving Forward: Regulatory Repercussions

Already, federal regulators have taken steps to eliminate the influence of reputation risk in bank supervision. Both the OCC and the FDIC announced rules prohibiting supervisory measures based on reputation risk, emphasizing the importance of treating lawful activities without bias.

They are also considering the implementation of policies to address politically motivated debanking directly. The OCC is encouraging legal actions where appropriate, hoping to allow affected customers to challenge banks’ decisions more easily.

While none of the banks specifically faced penalties, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau indicated it would examine compliance with consumer financial laws related to these practices.

In light of the findings, JPMorgan and other banks stated that their cautious approach to risk management was a response to a regulatory environment prone to second-guessing. They collectively expressed a commitment to ensuring that political or religious beliefs do not unduly influence access to banking services.

The report’s revelations come as technology companies faced scrutiny for their restrictions on conservative speech during a similar timeframe. While all banks affirmed they have revised their access policies, the OCC expressed concern that these might not prevent a return to previous discriminatory practices.

Some banks seem to have merely rebranded what was once considered reputation risk as “brand” risk, which has created additional apprehension within the OCC regarding the potential for renewed debanking. The OCC’s findings also highlighted that no bank had thoroughly addressed past discriminatory actions or established effective remediation measures.

The agency noted its ongoing consideration of rules to combat political and religious discrimination, emphasizing the importance of direct assessments free from external influence.