President Donald Trump’s August 2025 executive order to end “political debanking” has sparked new debate over whether it can truly restore fair access to banking for crypto companies such as Custodia Bank.
The order, titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” prohibits regulators from pressuring banks to deny services to lawful businesses. This move followed years of accusations that federal agencies orchestrated “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” a coordinated effort to exclude crypto firms, web3 startups, and blockchain-focused banks from the U.S. financial system under vague “high-risk” designations.
The executive order places the Small Business Administration (SBA), led by former senator and crypto advocate Kelly Loeffler, as an independent overseer of debanking practices—superseding the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC on related matters. This structural shift signals the administration’s mistrust of traditional regulators and its determination to ensure accountability. For crypto leaders like Custodia’s CEO Caitlin Long, the order represents both vindication and a practical test. Long argues that the policy’s success will hinge on whether banks that previously cut ties with compliant crypto institutions, including Custodia, will now reinstate them.
Despite optimism, implementation remains uneven. Many banks have been slow to reopen accounts, citing residual caution after previous scandals and a deeply embedded risk-averse culture. While lobby groups like the Bank Policy Institute have expressed support for the order, most major institutions are waiting for clearer compliance frameworks before fully engaging crypto clients again. Smaller banks and specialized fintechs, however, are beginning to reenter the market, offering crypto-friendly banking and compliance tools that signal gradual progress.
Beyond crypto, Trump’s order raises broader questions about financial rights and government influence. By challenging politically motivated deplatforming, the policy touches industries far beyond digital assets—including cannabis, firearms, and advocacy organizations—long subject to financial exclusion. The move may mark the beginning of a rebalancing between regulatory caution and the principles of open commerce and innovation. Yet, until all affected firms regain access, the U.S. banking system remains only partially “rebanked,” with the tension between financial freedom and regulatory restraint still unresolved.
0 Comments