Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/15/2026 7:24:56 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Only two years ago, the idea that some Americans were being “debanked,” or cut off from financial institutions after being deemed politically incorrect, extreme, or dangerous, was often dismissed as a conspiracy or an accident.
But federal regulators announced on Wednesday that they had reached a very different conclusion: Debanking really did happen.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said that nine of the nation’s largest banks, as measured by assets, had policies in place between 2020 and 2025 that may have influenced their decisions to “deny or limit access to financial services” to customers or potential customers “based on their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.”
The findings are based on a yearlong review that included about 50,000 internal bank documents and hundreds of individual bank decisions. Among the banks scrutinized by the OCC are JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo.
The investigation was triggered by an executive order issued in August 2025 by President Donald Trump, who said that the targets of debanking “have suffered frozen payrolls, debt, and crushing interest, and other significant harms to their livelihoods, reputations, and financial well-being.”
In particular, Trump criticized “Operation Choke Point,” a Justice Department initiative launched during the Obama administration targeting banks whose clients included legal weapons distributors and payday lenders. The Trump administration ended Operation Choke Point in 2017.
The OCC’s 47-page report did not specify the total number of debanking examples uncovered by regulators. But the individual examples detailed in the report echoed the findings in my investigation of debanking for The Free Press in 2024, including the testimony of a whistleblower who told me that Bank of America had voluntarily given information to the government after the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, including information about customers who made purchases in the Washington, D.C., area around that date and had previously purchased firearms or ammunition.
In one example detailed by the OCC, in 2021 an unidentified media company applied to PNC Bank for a line of credit. The application was denied, despite the company’s relationship manager at PNC saying that the company was continuing to “grow and perform.” The OCC said it found no specific credit problem that led to the rejection. Instead, the denial was based on “reputation risk concerns.”
As the report explains, bank employees described one of the company’s owners as “a conservative political commentator,” and pointed out that another owner had a foundation that supported Christian conservative organizations, some of which the Southern Poverty Law Center had labeled “hate groups.”
“I think it becomes 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,” one bank employee wrote. Under the banner of “reputation risk,” PNC employees were allowed by the bank to consider what the media, activists, politicians, shareholders, and the public might think about customers. PNC declined to comment on Wednesday.
Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, said that the “landmark report” removes much of the ambiguity that surrounded debanking when I investigated it two years ago. “We finally have the receipts,” Tedesco said on Wednesday. “The banks were policing speech and the marketplace of ideas.”
Some of the banks themselves acknowledged how debanking happened. One unidentified bank told the OCC that because reputational risk depended on perception, it was difficult to define every situation that should be scrutinized by employees. Another bank conceded that there could be “no definitive checklist.” The OCC concluded that the nine banks “largely lacked clear and measurable standards and objective risk-based criteria” for evaluating reputational risks.
The banks also had an explanation for why they made some decisions that hurt customers or potential customers: The banks were under pressure from the outside. One unidentified bank told the OCC that restrictions on businesses linked to firearms, immigration detention centers, and fossil fuels were a reflection of “significant external pressure,” including congressional oversight, activist campaigns, and scrutiny from state and local government officials.
In 2024, for example, Wells Fargo employees considering whether to do business with a firearms company described the prospect of lending to the industry as “a controversial and highly partisan issue,” according to Wednesday’s report. “Under the Biden administration,” the employees continued, “banks could face greater supervisory pressure to move away from lending to the firearms industry.” Bank employees also worried about criticism from activists and members of Congress.
In the end, Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, declined to do business with the firearms company, citing the limited revenue it would generate as one reason for the decision. Wells Fargo referred my request for comment to the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), an industry group. The BPI said that it supports “continued engagement with the administration and Congress as they consider additional proposals that ensure that political or religious beliefs do not unfairly affect customers’ access to banking services.”
The OCC also found that JPMorgan repeatedly declined to offer commercial services to a conservative-leaning retailer between 2021 and 2023. Each time a new opportunity arose, the bank’s reputation-risk employees flagged concerns about “negative attention from people with differing/opposing values.” Employees recorded their assessments and the bank’s decisions in an internal tracking system. Those records referred to “right-wing” and “far-right” companies, and accused a company of promoting “tasteless, gun-centric videos.”
WePay, a payment processor owned by JPMorgan, monitored companies for compliance with its terms of service using a list of screening terms, including MAGA, Make America Great, and America First. Some of these terms were added after January 6, 2021. In February 2021, WePay closed the account of a merchant selling Trump and MAGA merchandise after deciding that the products promoted “hate, violence, or racial intolerance,” according to the report. Another Republican merchant was flagged over a “Trump Won” flag, a T-shirt calling President Joe Biden “illegitimate,” and a “Big Lie” sticker. That business’s account was closed, too. WePay also closed the account of a nonprofit group that was described as a “right-wing religious conservative nonprofit with strong anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.”
A JPMorgan spokesperson told The Free Press that a process used by WePay “did not meet our expectations,” and that WePay is no longer in operation. The spokesperson also said that bank policies prohibit discrimination against customers based on political or religious views, and that JPMorgan agrees with the Trump administration that “years of operating in a regulatory environment that often second-guessed decisions contributed to a culture of caution across the banking industry. That system needs fixing.”
During my reporting in 2024, I spoke to people from across the political spectrum who were debanked, including a Muslim entrepreneur whose crowdfunding platform lost its payment processor. Another example was Sam Brownback, the former Republican governor of Kansas, whose nonprofit, the National Committee for Religious Freedom, had its account closed by JPMorgan in 2022. The bank didn’t explain its decision at the time but said it would reconsider if the nonprofit provided information about its donors and intended recipients. Brownback refused.
On Wednesday, Brownback told me that the OCC’s findings are “vindication.” “The banking system was being used to achieve a political objective,” he added. While debanking appeared to be “mostly focused at the right during the Biden administration,” he warned that it also has a “huge potential negative impact on the left, if the shoe happens to be on the other foot.”
Brownback said that he hopes the investigation will “drive a stake in the heart of this pernicious practice” so that it can’t return during a future presidential administration. “Nobody should want this sort of picking of political sides by our banking system.”
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Review
I did not see anything about potential consequences faced by these blacklisting banks. Did I miss it?
JPMorgan spokesperson -- "a process used by WePay did not meet our expectations and that WePay is no longer in operation...bank policies prohibit discrimination against customers based on political or religious views, and that JPMorgan agrees with the Trump administration that 'years of operating in a regulatory environment that often second-guessed decisions contributed to a culture of caution across the banking industry. That system needs fixing.'"NOW it needs fixing. To quote President Trump at SOTU, “…all we really needed was a new president."
These bastards will lean whichever way the political winds blow.
Conspiracy theory?
Why the “/s”? You spoke the unvarnished truth.
So, Does Free Republic have a standing for this issue?
Basically, the nation's largest investors are pension funds. Those are run by state administrators who almost always are Dims even in red states. Even here in red state Alabama, the guy who's been in charge of the state pension fund for decades leans left about as often as a NASCAR driver.
So If I'm a CEO of a bank or other company and I want those big pension funds to invest in my company, it's my job to wear a "My company loves Democrats and hates Republicans" t-shirt as much as possible. For as long as Dims are in charge of large state pension funds, this will be a problem among large companies, including banks.
I don't know if there is a law that prohibits this.
I agree with you. And underlying it all is that our colleges turn out indoctrinated people by the millions. Even people in inherently conservative businesses like banking are infused with a leftist mindset. They see nothing wrong in the societal guerilla tactics the left uses against ideological enemies
If anyone deserves to be debanked it’s George Soros.
Pres. OttoPen, no doubt, had his fingerprints all over his, or the puppet master pulling the strings (0Bummer).
Obama started it. It was under him that the DOJ opened “Operation Choke Point”.
Conservative organizations and sectors disfavored by the Obama/Biden administration.....firearms,
oil and gas, and private prisons.....were disfavored by banks, federal banking regulators found.
These major banks closed accounts and refused credit
to MAGA merchants, pro-life causes, religious groups:
<><>JPMorgan Chase,
<><>Bank of America,
<><>Citibank,
<><>Wells Fargo,
<><>U.S. Bank,
<><>Capital One,
<><>PNC, TD Bank,
<><>BMO Bank.
All were found to have discriminated against American consumers, citing “reputation risk” as a reason to deny service between 2020 and 2025.
The Debanking Review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) investigated 100,000 complaints and scrutinized 50,000 internal bank records to reveal how customers were “debanked” based purely on their political, social, or religious beliefs.
Patriots, Call Congress
US Capitol switchboard
(202) 224-3121.
Call the White House
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
TTY/TTD Comments: 202-456-6213
Send a letter to the White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
The problem with bank concentrations is that we are living with decisions made 30 or more years ago to allow nationwide branching at the Federal level and to permit branch banking in states where there had been unit banking laws. The megabanks have grown bigger, not to the point where they have squeezed out smaller banks that cater to small and medium sized businesses. Instead, they have developed a massive consumer outreach through credit cards and low cost checking accounts. The loosening of the "Chinese wall" regulations from the New Deal era eliminated the separation of commercial banking and investment banking. This elimination allowed greater power for megabanks to seek loan business and to offer investment services to the largest clients. However, this opened up the potential for the same financial abuses seen during the Great Depression.
Unwinding Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and others would be difficult. As with the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s, you could them up into regional banks. However, some of the megabanks are already geographically concentrated. For example, Citibank has well over half of its branches in the states of New York and California. Breaking up the megabanks into regional banks would not prevent them from seeking loan and deposit customers outside their home region. In view of the current environment, an Illinois based bank seeking customers in Georgia can offer a loan at 25 basis points below other competitors.
I suggest you read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which codifies the religious freedom part of the First Amendment for starters.
Also check:
1. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)
2. Section 1031 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5531),
2. Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) (ECOA)).
With respect to a nonprofit group like Gun Owners of America, a gun manufacturer like Ruger, an alt-right media outlet like Infowars, or an energy company like Conoco Phillips, debanking them under the excuse of reputational risk does not fall under the prohibited bases under Federal law, such as race, religion, national status, age, etc. However, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Section 1031 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act may be applicable. Note that the report on debanking came from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which is under the Treasury Department rather than the FDIC of the Federal Reserve, which are independent organizations.
Debanked institutions, at least if the debanking was done by national banks, should consider appeals to the OCC if possible and if not possible or if the debanking was done by FDIC or Federal Reserve regulated state banks, to go to Federal district courts. For state banks, they should consider appealing these decisions under comparable state laws.
🚨DEBANKED REPORT🚨 9 BIG BANKS had policies that restricted or limited access to financial services regarding American's political and religious beliefs, social views, or lawful business activities. Banks like JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank,TD Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, and BMO Bank, targeted MAGA companies, pro-life groups, gun companies and more, according to a new report issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Banks often decided whether to work with customers based on public opinion, news stories, activist groups, or views that were considered outside the mainstream. The industries most affected included: -Firearms and ammunition makers and sellers -Oil and gas exploration -Coal mining and coal power plants -Detention facilities (private prisons) -Tobacco and e-cigarette companies -Crypto businesses These banks attempted to regulate firearms-related companies by requiring them to adjust what they produce as a company--in order to obtain services. JP Morgan, BMO, and Citibank all participated in it. One bank implemented an environmental and social risk management policy that restricted it from entering into a business relationship with customers that did not have policies that aligned with the bank’s responsible firearm standards. This included, for example, limitations on the sale of high-capacity magazines and restrictions on firearm sales to individuals under the age of 21. The views of the Southern Poverty Law Center were used to discriminate against Americans. A processor owned by one bank closed the account of a merchant that sold merchandise promoting President Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) brand.— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) October 14, 2026
Wells Fargo started questioning the legitimacy of my Business Checking account in 2023 and 2024. I had to meet with a banker and prove I had a business. This was an account that I had originally established in 1997.
After initially meeting with the banker in my local branch, even they did not understand why their corporate office was demanding the documentation requested. They said they did not have it on file. Very odd. They kind of let it drop after telling me my city Business License was not a legit license. I insisted it was and provided current license to them.
I’m thinking they may have been messing with me because of my political leanings and contributions.
Ok. Thanks. Will do.
I’d remind you of the empirical fact that cramming into a statute , I.e., the 14th Amendment, matters that are barely, tangentially, or arguably under the statute, is a privilege accorded the left only. Hell, even I can’t think of any argument as to how any of the reasons why the purported reasons Trump was debanked would fit under religious discrimination. I repeat: Viewpoint discrimination should be, but isn’t, protected under federal discrimination laws
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.