The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released a report on Wednesday detailing how certain banks restricted financial services for industries including digital assets, oil and gas, tobacco, and firearms. The findings align with an August 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at preventing what he termed "unlawful debanking." According to the OCC, many institutions placed restrictions on banking activities related to digital asset issuers, exchanges, or administrators, often citing financial crime considerations as the rationale.
The report reviewed nine major banks but did not include specific examples of debanking tied to digital assets. The OCC stated it was unable to quantify the full extent of debanking or alleged debanking actions on a comprehensive basis. In November 2024, more than 30 tech and crypto executives claimed they were denied access to banking services, leading industry figures to unofficially label the trend "Operation Chokepoint 2.0," referencing a previous Obama-era initiative.
OCC head Jonathan Gould focused largely on claims regarding debanking due to ties to coal and firearms in his commentary. He noted that decisions to restrict services for coal-related entities were not based on financial risk, but rather on concerns about negative headlines, public protests, and perceived reputational consequences.
The OCC's inability to quantify the full scope of debanking against digital asset firms highlights a significant gap between regulatory intent and observable market data. While the agency acknowledges that banks cited financial crime risks as justification for restricting services to crypto issuers and exchanges, the lack of specific examples suggests these policies may be driven by broader compliance conservatism rather than targeted enforcement actions. This ambiguity complicates efforts to distinguish between legitimate risk management and discriminatory practices prohibited under the recent executive order.
For the crypto sector, the report underscores persistent operational friction despite high-level political support. The reference to "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" indicates that industry leaders perceive a coordinated effort to limit their access to traditional finance, even if regulators cannot yet prove systematic unlawful conduct. Banks appear to be prioritizing reputational safety over explicit financial risk assessments, creating a chilling effect where digital asset businesses face heightened scrutiny without clear regulatory boundaries. This dynamic may drive further migration toward offshore jurisdictions or alternative financial infrastructures that offer less visibility into such policy-driven exclusions.
