Trump ‘De-Banking’ Executive Order Could Shield Conservatives and Crypto Industry

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing an executive order that would impose penalties on banks and financial institutions that deny services based on political or religious affiliation, or due to involvement in certain lawful yet “high-risk” industries — including cryptocurrency.

According to The Washington Post, the July draft of the order instructs federal regulators to investigate potential violations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a law that prohibits discrimination in lending and other financial services. The move is framed as a response to alleged account closures targeting Trump’s political opponents and controversial industries during the Biden administration.

The debate taps into a growing controversy over so-called “de-banking” — the practice of cutting off individuals or organizations from the financial system. Critics argue it has been used as a political weapon, disproportionately affecting conservatives, faith-based organizations, and crypto businesses. Supporters of the current banking discretion policies maintain that risk-based account closures are essential for anti-money-laundering compliance, fraud prevention, and reputation management.

For the digital asset sector, the proposed order could represent a pivotal shift. Crypto exchanges, wallet providers, and blockchain startups have long complained of being “de-risked” out of the traditional banking system, forcing them into costly or unstable payment arrangements. If enacted, Trump’s order could curtail banks’ ability to refuse service solely based on industry classification, provided the activity is lawful.

The political undertone is unmistakable. In conservative circles, de-banking has been described as “a method of mass intimidation” against dissenting voices, creating a class of financial dissidents. Trump’s stated aim: dismantle this mechanism and ensure politically neutral access to banking.

What industry implications I envision?

1. Crypto Access to Banking — Potential easing of the “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” environment alleged by some in the sector.
2. Compliance Tensions — Regulatory conflict may arise if banks feel constrained from off-boarding high-risk clients to satisfy anti-money-laundering or sanctions rules.
3. Litigation Risks — A wave of discrimination claims could follow if the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is more aggressively enforced in this context.
4. Global Perception — The U.S. could position itself as a more open banking jurisdiction for controversial but legal industries.

While the final text and political viability of the order remain uncertain, the proposal has already intensified a polarized conversation: should access to financial services be treated as a neutral public utility, or remain at the discretion of private risk managers?

For fintech innovators, particularly in blockchain and alternative finance, the answer could reshape their operating environment in the world’s largest economy.