A draft executive order from Donald Trump’s campaign is reportedly in the works to crack down on banks accused of discriminating against conservatives and crypto-linked businesses—setting up yet another flashpoint in an election season already buzzing with economic and cultural friction.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the proposed order aims to trigger investigations into potential violations of antitrust laws, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and consumer protection statutes—particularly in cases where financial institutions are believed to have denied services for political or ideological reasons.
De-Banking, Political Bias, and a Brewing Legal Storm
The move isn’t coming out of nowhere. Over the last year, the Trump camp has grown increasingly vocal about what it calls “de-banking”—the practice of shutting down accounts or denying services to individuals or groups based on ideological leanings.
Eric Trump, in particular, has been the face of this grievance. Earlier in 2025, he and the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust sued Capital One, alleging the bank closed hundreds of Trump-linked accounts without clear justification.
“I didn’t trust crypto. I really didn’t,” Eric Trump said at a political event this spring. “But then the banks started coming for us—for our family, for our name. That changed everything.”
The lawsuit drew attention to a broader conservative talking point: that big banks, under pressure from regulators or corporate ESG policies, have quietly distanced themselves from certain politically controversial individuals and sectors—including firearms manufacturers, fossil fuel clients, and increasingly, cryptocurrency ventures.
What’s in the Draft Order?
The executive order, still in draft form, reportedly directs key agencies—including the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—to:
-
Investigate whether banks are violating antitrust statutes by collectively denying services to certain industries or political figures.
-
Examine possible breaches of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, especially if ideological discrimination is proven.
-
Scrutinize cases where financial institutions may be using vague risk frameworks to justify account closures, particularly in crypto and conservative-linked cases.
It’s worth noting: none of this is policy yet. But even in its preliminary form, the draft order signals a hard pivot from existing financial regulatory priorities.
Banks and Crypto: A Relationship Strained by Regulation
At the heart of this standoff is crypto. Banks have long distanced themselves from the sector—not necessarily out of politics, but risk. Or at least that’s what they say.
Major players like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank have repeatedly cited regulatory uncertainty, money laundering risks, and FDIC guidance when choosing to limit exposure to cryptocurrency clients. This includes freezing accounts, blocking transfers to exchanges, or declining to serve crypto-native firms altogether.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures earlier this year revealed internal FDIC communications that suggested “cautionary” approaches toward digital assets—even in the absence of formal bans. That’s been enough for some banks to say “no thanks” altogether.
But critics argue that risk-based justifications have, at times, doubled as convenient covers for politically motivated decisions.
What Are Banks Saying?
So far, banks have stayed largely quiet on the executive order report. No major institution has publicly responded to the Wall Street Journal piece. But off-the-record, banking lobbyists are already bracing for more scrutiny.
There’s nervousness, especially among institutions that maintain internal “reputational risk” frameworks—an increasingly standard tool used to assess which clients may bring controversy, regulatory heat, or shareholder backlash.
One compliance officer at a nationalised bank put it this way: “Reputation risk used to mean don’t bank cartels or money launderers. Now it means think twice about anyone who might blow up on Twitter.”
The Political Angle—And the 2024 Hangover
This executive order, if it’s signed next term, would represent one of the most aggressive efforts yet to politicise financial regulation. And for Trump, it’s a logical play.
He’s long claimed that the “establishment”—in tech, media, and banking—colludes to silence or marginalise conservative voices. This order fits neatly into that narrative.
And it could pay off politically. Here’s why:
-
It taps into anti-Wall Street sentiment on both the right and the populist left.
-
It energises crypto holders and libertarian-leaning voters, many of whom feel shut out of traditional finance.
-
It positions Trump as a defender of “financial freedom”, a phrase gaining traction among anti-central bank activists.
The Ripple Effect on the Crypto Industry
Crypto firms are watching closely. Over the last two years, many startups have found themselves stranded without banking access. Some have even moved operations abroad or turned to stablecoin ecosystems to manage basic cash flow.
The proposed order, while not directly reversing those issues, signals a potential policy shift that might make banks more willing—or at least less afraid—to serve crypto clients.
A few bullet points worth keeping an eye on:
-
Crypto banking startups like Custodia Bank and Protego Trust are still locked in licensing battles with the Fed.
-
Stablecoin issuers face pressure over reserve transparency, yet remain systemically unbanked.
-
Exchanges like Coinbase have complained publicly about lack of fiat partners, especially for business clients.
Even a symbolic win—like an executive order—could jolt investor sentiment.
What Happens Next?
As of now, this executive order exists only in draft form. There’s no official release date. And of course, there’s a big “if” hanging over the entire discussion: Trump isn’t back in office. Yet.
But that hasn’t stopped his campaign from laying policy groundwork.
Banking regulation may not grab headlines like immigration or taxes, but it touches everything—from capital markets to digital wallets to campaign donations. And with culture wars spilling into balance sheets, it’s likely to become an even bigger flashpoint.
